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 propose that the Jack Tretton article be unprotected. It was protected in June 2013 due to multiple vandalism in a single day (related to a presentation he gave) but I feel there should not be any harm in unprotecting the article now due to the fact the subject has left Sony since 2014.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 02:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Richard, talk to the protecting admin Jauerback first. They're not that active so if they don't respond within a couple days, file a request at RFPP or post to my talk page. --NeilNtalk to me 03:04, 2 July 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.
In the past few hours, Ali qahremani has done nothing but create articles which plagiarize different sources, under titles that are only related to the article topic, in may cases topics that should be covered by existing articles. User does not respond to any messages, even when a non-template one was sent. Conservation may not be the best option. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I blocked and asked for feedback.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
In some cases, this is slightly more complicated than it appears at first blush. In some of these articles there is an indicator of the copyright problem but the duplication detector report shows no overlap. While not having confirmed this my guess is that the copied material comes from the text of the article as opposed to the abstract. In one case Oncogene virus I'm puzzled, as the attempted an article is clearly a copy of the abstract, yet the duplication detector report shows no overlap. I haven't fully investigated why but this puzzles me. However because the editor manages to include the copyright notice in the article, and in at least one case there is substantial overlap, it makes sense to stop this editor and make sure they engage in discussion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Eyeballing it confirms the copyvio (or at least enough of a copyvio), I'd have to guess that something's gone wrong with the copyvio detection software(s). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Earwig's copy vio detector shows a 99.4 % overlap. It's actually the better tool, and I use it almost exclusively. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The new batch of articles he has created seems almost exclusively machine translations from the equivalent Persian Wikipedia articles. Per WP:MACHINETRANSLATION, these really ought to be deleted. They also have no valid sources.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Like the articles I referred to above, User:Alidezhpasand/صفحه تمرین is also a machine translation of a Persian Wikipedia article (compare: [2]). McGeddon has raised the possibility that Alidezhpasand (contribs | filter log) is an alternate account of Alidezh1559 (contribs | filter log).[3] Pages created by the latter are also based on machine translations of Persian Wikipedia (compare e.g. [4] vs. [5]). It could be a coincidence that all these accounts decided to fill Wikipedia with machine translations within the span of the same two days, but I suspect it is not.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
If someone hasn't already, I'll go open a SPI now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I've opened the SPI here. I'm not as familiar with the other accounts' edits, so I'd appreciate it if you guys could come and give some feedback. I'll ping you here so you can see this: Anders Feder, Ian.thomson , Sphilbrick, McGeddon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:55, 2 July 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.
Gabbar Is Back. In this page, one after one IP users are coming and inflating the box office gross. Someone do something to stop them.--SilverSamurai 04:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected for one week. If the problem recurs, you can also post at WP:RFPP. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected for one week. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:20, 2 July 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.
This version of Daniel iwuji was tagged for speedy deletion as a hoax. However, there is an indication from the web that this is basically an attack page on a real person (a non-notable secondary school student), no doubt created by a "friend". A new editor, trying to be helpful, removed the speedy deletion and actually redirected it to Michael Essien[6] (the entirely spurious redirect added by the article's creator). Given the content in the history and BLP implications, this page should be completely deleted. Does it really have to go to RFD or can an administrator simply delete it now? Voceditenore (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It was the "friend" who added the redirect. Deleted as a WP:R3. --NeilNtalk to me 15:25, 2 July 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.
Need1521 is on all cases of life (in some meaning)[edit]
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 ask you stop Valenciano who acts against users, which have no any blame (91.190.115.250). Valenciano says that this user is Need1521. He violates reputation of people. Thank you! - KNIGHT5252 (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC).
I find it rather ironic that the filer's only contributions are here to report Valenciano and Valenciano's talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 23:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Quack quack.
For the record, this refers to this open sockpuppetry case, though the sockpuppetry seems to go back to at least October 2011 with the very strong likelihood that this user is banned per this previous ANI thread. This will hopefully soon be dealt with at SPI. Valenciano (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm guessing the OP's first language isn't English, but...wow, a duck, a sock and a boomerang all in one? Erpertblah, blah, blah... 04:09, 3 July 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.
Bethayres warned for personal attacks. No action required beyond that. Philg88 ♦talk 05:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Survivor (Railroad Car) on June 20. I'd previously proposed the article for deletion, though the tag was later removed. Although fairly inclusionist on railroad topics I didn't seen an obvious case for one of many private cars. The AfD was relisted on June 28. Bethayres (talk·contribs) began participating on July 1 and things went downhill immediately. The first edit implied (in the edit summary) that I was off my medication and unserious. After I affirmed that I was in fact serious and followed up on the question of notability, I received even more abuse. I had dropped what I thought was a friendly note on Bethayres' talk page, wondering what was up and suggesting moderation. The response called me "deranged" or "mentally ill".
I want to be clear that I have never, to my knowledge, interacted with this user before July 1 and to my knowledge I've done nothing to provoke or justify these responses (if such are ever justifiable). I've tried discussing with the user on the user's talk page and have left another note but I would appreciate someone uninvolved looking at the situation. Thanks, Mackensen(talk) 02:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
It might be worth noting this recent discussion at Streetcars in North America that took place with Bethayres. I dunno if this user has lost faith in the project and has taken to venting, or is trolling, but a break, either self-imposed or otherwise directed, might be what the doctor ordered. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:38, 3 July 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.
Unblocked and reblocked. Sam Walton (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi,
I'm about to run a 2.5 hour training session at the University of Swansea. The IP address, 137.44.1.153 is blacklisted, at least for account creation. Please can someone whitelist it for the duration of the session? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Done, unblocked. Please drop me a note when I can reinstate it or if you're having any issues. Sam Walton (talk) 12:55, 3 July 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.
Could an admin please look at the behaviour of a disruptive editor at the Pinniped article. they have broken 3RR there. The user also has a name which might be considered offensive.DrChrissy(talk) 13:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Blocked, username hidden in edit history. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 3 July 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.
Content dispute. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along. KrakatoaKatie 23:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have corrected some links were Kraków has been spelled Krakow, but I have been reverted by User:Jetstreamer, because of WP:NOTBROKEN, where it reads "There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page." However, there also reads "Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect.", which I have mentioned to Jetstreamer. Another user has expressed similar thoughts as I on my user talk, where this discussion can be found. I would like to ask some admin about this, since I really don't see the reason for writing Kraków as Krakow, when the page of Kraków uses diacritics. K9re11 (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
K9re11, the issue here is that in "standard English", "Kraków" is generally just spelled "Krakow" – so any instances of "Krakow" are not technically "wrong". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, this is not a matter for ANI.--JetstreamerTalk 17:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. Per WP:EN, "Krakow" should be more correct. The talk page for the article discussed it several times. It appears the only reason it was not changed is the people who wanted to actually follow our rules on using English were split between Krakow and Cracow, so by default it stayed where it was already. Since the whole thing is under dispute it would be premature for you to go around changing it on the rest of the encyclopedia when arguably it's the article that probably has it wrong. DreamGuy (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Content dispute, please close. Nom is either ignorant or disingenuous in portraying this as a "spelling error". In English, it is commonly spelled without the diacritical--in fact, an argument could be made that the article in _English_ WP ought to be renamed to better reflect the common spelling, in English. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:56, 3 July 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.
Semi-protected. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 3 July 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.
Disruption at Jackson, Michigan high schools[edit]
CLOSED (USER BLOCKED)
User in question was blocked for 48 hours (the block has already expired in the meantime...) for Disruptive editing by JamesBWatson. As of early July 5 (UTC), the editor in question has not edited since being blocked. It is worth noting that JamesBWatson's block should be considered a "last chance" situation, and if the user who is the subject of this report does not begin to follow policies and guidelines in their editing from now on, a much longer block (e.g. an indef block) is not only "on the table", but is the likely outcome. With that all said, closing this one. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The above user has been brought here before by me (see links below). He has a very big WP:OWN problem with Jackson High School (Michigan) and to a lesser extent, Lumen Christi Catholic High School, the two high schools in Jackson, Michigan. Evidence to his constant and unchecked WP:GAME and WP:IDHT have, IMO, risen to the level of WP:NOTHERE. I am asking for an indeff per NOTHERE, or lacking that, broadly construed editing restrictions on topics connected to high schools in Jackson, Michigan. Evidence follows. I leave the rest to the community.
I believe the above, along with a browse of his talk page and contributions, shows amply evidence of a WP:SPA who has no interest in conforming to the community standards for either content or civility. Thanks. Notifying him next edit John from Idegon (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
The edit summary "Deleted a lot of content that was not cited similar to what John from Idegon does" seems more than a bit pointy. While much of the content was appropriately removed, there are some non-controversial bits which were blanked as well. The resulting page is left with several "place-holder" section headers needing cleanup. I'll look at that page a bit closer when I get home tonight to try to sort it out. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
And now you see the WP:DICKish behavior this user engages in regularly. Thanks to MarnetteD for reverting it. John from Idegon (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
This is extremely aggravating how literally every mistake I make on here you bash me. A lot of those things you're complaining about were noob mistakes. I do not how to contact other users and you refuse to help me but instead you refer to me with vulgar language such as "bub". Second, every single edit I make is reverted by John too. I say he gets off my back. JacksonViking (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if you're not able to read a diff or if it's a deliberate misrepresentation of it, but all John from Idegon did in that edit, and what he referred to, was removing a duplicated section header... Thomas.W talk 08:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd lean to misrepresentation. In the prior paragraph, HE referred to me as "bub" (not at all vulgar BTW) in the diff above labeled "further user page vandalism..." and I replied "So it's not bub now?" It's just another example of GAME. John from Idegon (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Might not have been the best edit summary though. —Soap— 01:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you guys not even going to acknowledge the first paragraph I left here? JacksonViking (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
JacksonViking, has it occurred to you that the reason no one is responding to the first paragraph you left is there is nothing to respond to? There is a welcome template on the top of your talk page that has links that could answer many of your questions. There is an invitation to the Teahouse, another place you can get your questions answered. You are posting here. You have (finally) posted at the article talk page, nearly 2 years after this whole debacle started. You are posting at the AfD another editor started on an article you created. Your claims of not knowing how to communicate are disingenuous. When you do communicate, you attempt to obfuscate the problem. You for example readd a huge block of BLP violating crap that you've refused to discuss numerous times, along with a minor and unneeded change to the notable people list. I revert, and You them charge to my User page, blank the entire thing and insert a whiny complaint about me removing your change to the notable list, totally ignoring the real problem. In the process, you refer to me as "bub" a term you find offensive enough to complain here that I used it. Is it any wonder you are not getting help from other editors? John from Idegon (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
John from Idegon All I come on here to do is make edits and help educate the community of the world. You have been bullying me since I've joined by deleting all my edits regardless of their value. JacksonViking (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
JacksonViking continues to make unfounded and unsupported accusations against me here, is engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND discussion at Talk:Jackson High School (Michigan), and has refactored my comments here (sorry, can't seem to get the diff to paste from my phone, but it is the strikeout showing in my last entry above. If you look at the history you will see he did it and I cannot imagine a scenario where that could happen accidentally), all the while not even beginning to explain the behavior he was brought here for. John from Idegon (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The diff showing JacksonViking refactoring your comment is here. I have reverted that change and posted a caution on their talk page. Thomas.W talk 11:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
JacksonViking, are we really going to have to block you to prevent you from continuing to disrupt the encyclopedia and to help you grasp whatever is you don't understand? That's what happens here at ANI, you know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
In light of the latest, creating an article now at AfD that was primarily a copyvio (here), I would suggest that might be what needs to happen. An indef, with the requirement of accepting mentorship before an unblock can happen. John from Idegon (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay firstly, someone changed a comment I made on page and ran a mark through it like I did to the typo John made so I didn't know it was so offensive. Secondly I wish someone would give me a clear cut message about what wrongs I am performing. I have Been a huge contributor to the Jackson high school wiki and added a bio box and a picture and curriculum and alumni. JacksonViking (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
In case you aren't hearing us, vague excuses are not getting it. Who did that? where? when?
An explanation for why you named a reference "Penis" is needed.
An admission that you knew you were doing something wrong by using deceptive edit summaries, along with a promise not to do it again, is needed.
An indication of a desire to learn how to do things right, such as requesting WP:Adoption would be a big positive step.
An indication that you have up to now refused to listen and in most cases even acknowledge that there is no-one showing you malice and people have been trying to help you would be nice.
A promise to quit taking things personally and throwing tantrums (such as naming references Penis).
Showing some understanding that a large amount of what you have been doing has not been encyclopedic. You need to perhaps spend time editing articles that have nothing whatsoever to do with Jackson, Michigan so possibly you can develop a sense of perspective on why your additions have not been that helpful.
No one is out to get you. ALl anyone here cares about is the quality of the encyclopedia. If you are interested in contributing to a quality encyclopedia, by all means, stick around. If your only interest is adding what you want without restriction to articles relating to Jackson, then perhaps you should spend a few bucks and start a website. John from Idegon (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Naming the reference Penis was because I figured there was no harm since no one can see it and the reference needed a unique name that helped differentiate it from the dozens of other things on the page JacksonViking (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC) JacksonViking (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC) JacksonViking (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
If the above is not enough for some kind administrator to use his buttons, perhaps the conversation on my talk page will help. Or maybe this. Or this, where he reinstated s copyvio, removed a BLP citations needed tag an just to put some whip cream on top of it, added a good article template (to a sub stub at AfD) . The conversation on my talk page is making me think we have a CIR scenario here, but either th st or nothere, it needs someone to swing the mop. John from Idegon (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I did not reintroduce copyvio. I paraphrased the entire substance of the article. Willis is also a freshmen not a junior and he says he wants to study to be an attorney in college. JacksonViking (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Here you added the Good Article template. Here I removed it. My apologies, Barek removed the reference needed tag, I am guessing on the theory that as a completely unreferenced BLP, it was probably a bit redundant. Here you inserted the uttterly false and impossible piece of info that as a freshman, he was majoring in law. According to the conversation on my talk page, you deduced this from his statements that he enjoyed law and wanted to be a lawyer. Again, I have to apologize, you had properly paraphrased the source on the bit on the recruitment violation. I am not going to restore this to the article however, because it is much more about MSU than Mr. Willis. I am sorry for these errors, Jackson. However, hopefully you can learn something here. I honestly admitted I made them and stated what I was doing to correct them, which in this case is nothing, because they are either already handled or don't need handling. When you make an acceptable edit followed by two bad ones, sometimes the good gets tossed with the bad.
For the adminstrators: My action in reverting the non-copyvio are regrettable and I should not have done them. However, his conversation here and above on the subject of naming a reference "Penis" support the undeniable conclusion that either he is extreamly disruptive (making WP:DICKish edits and lying about them) and hence WP:NOTHERE or he is grossly incompetent and WP:CIR. The two articles he has created recently that are both at AfD also support this conclusion (Khari Willis and Michael Funkhouser. The discussions at the respective AfD's and talk pages for those articles are also informative to this conclusion). In either case, I am asking for some action. A quick scan of his talk shows this is not a personal issue with me about him. I am far from the only editor that has tried to get him to see the errors of his ways. This has gone on long enough. John from Idegon (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I accept your apology and forgive your mistakes. JacksonViking (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Before I discovered this discussion, I had already decided to block JacksonViking for a short time, because of persistently replacing article content which is supported by sources with content which is unsupported by any sources I can find, often directly contradicted by reliable sources, and in some cases adding false "references" which do not support his edits. Reading the above discussion, and realising that the problems are far more extensive than those I knew about, I wondered whether to block for much longer instead. However, for the present I have decided to give him every chance to improve, so I have blocked for just 48 hours, and posted a fairly long block message to his talk page, trying to encourage him to change. However, I regard that as a minimum block, in view of the extensive history of problems, at least some of which look as though they may not be good-faith mistakes. If he does not benefit from the second chance I have given him, I do not think a jump directly from a 48 hour block up to an indefinite one would be unreasonable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:17, 2 July 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.
CHAND ALIi appears to self-identify as a child and has posted personal information at the bottom of SAARC a regional Hope. Per WP:CHILD, an admin may want to remove it. The article also seems to contain much copy-pasta.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:31, 1 July 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.
This is a content/style dispute that does not require admin intervention at this stage. As Abecedare suggests, these matters can be discussed on the appropriate article talk page. Philg88 ♦talk
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.
Joshua Jonathan is indulging in disruptive editing at the following talk page: [Page]. The modus operandi is to move comments he had already made in one section of the talk page (Shankara's Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism--Joshua has now deleted this section header) to another section of the talk page (Shankara and Buddhism). His own comments and also my own comments are also freely placed in a new section('Headers') in the talk page that he has created. A previous section header (Shankara's Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism) with his comments and also my comments has been removed by Joshua as i mentioned. All this is resulting in confusion. I have tried to impress upon him the need to retain content that has already been written in one section of the talk page and not create confusion by moving content in the talk page from one section to another section, removing section headers, placing old content (of his posts and also my posts) in newly created section headers, etc. but he is not prepared to listen to me. Soham321 (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The only way i could impress upon Joshua not to play around on the talk page moving edits from one section to another, removing section headers, placing edits from a section to a newly created section was to revert his edits where he was doing this. This seems to have made him very angry going by his comments in the edit summary of the talk page where he reverts me, and also his comments in the talk page. Soham321 (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
After a short while, Jonathan (using common-sense IMO) merged the two talkpage sections on the exact same topic, w/o deleting any content.
Soham responded by not only undoing Joshua's merger but also deleting Joshua's subsequent replies, not once but twice!
Frankly this is all very silly, and I hope that this ANI is closed with editors told to simply get back to discussing the article content, and not get lost in discussing how the discussion sections are organized on the article talkpage. No admin action should be needed, unless Soham's disruption and needless escalation continues. Abecedare (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I am unable to participate in the talk page if edits are moved around freely from one section to another, section headers are removed, and edits in an older section (in this case, my edits and also Jonathan's edits) are placed in a newly created section header. I appreciate the fact that Abecedare--who has also been commenting on the talk page--has participated in this discussion. My understanding though is that majority does not constitute consensus in some cases. And this is one such case. Soham321 (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
This is the height of WP:IRONY. Soham321 doesn't even know how to indent. I don't know how many times @Ogress: and I had to correct his indentation. He would combine his post with other editors, despite explanations not to do so.VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)What Victoria is accusing me of doing is making a post in the way i am making right now. It is true that i have done this occasionally (not always). But there is a big difference between this, and moving edits from one section to another, removing section headers and placing edits (in this case, my edits and also Joshua's edits) written in a particular section into a newly created section. As i mentioned earlier, majority does not constitute consensus in some cases, and it is my belief that this is one such case. Soham321 (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow Soham321, just did it on this ANI page! He just jammed his comment into mine. Soham321 engages in the most disruptive editing of any editor I have encountered on Wikipedia.VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:47, 2 July 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.
I've protected the article for a week. The alternative was to block User:RoverTheBendInSussex for edit-warring (at least four reverts in the last 24 hours). Now, all of you get to the talk page and discuss the issues. Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user repeatedly manipulates the UKIP page to conform to his own pro-UKIP biased views, each time I have added reliably sourced information to this page he has removed it mostly without reading though on my first edit he appeared to skim-read the source thus missing or ignoring the relevant information even when I had pointed out in the reference which part of the Guardian article it came from. The reason given for the edit reversals is that it does not conform to his own view. I also noticed on the talk page that I am not the only user to have noticed his unhelpful editing; user:Midnightblueowl, who also mentions on the talk page that the user I am reporting is an open 'kipper, found the user in question to have removed the term "radical right populist" in description of the party despite sources demarcating a clear consensus among political scientists that the term was an appropriate descriptor. The same happen to me when I attempted to add such things as "social conservatism" and "anti-immigrationism" to the ideology section with reliable sources categorically stating that this was UKIP ideology even despite party denial of the term "social conservatism", I also attempted to amend the party's political position to "right-wing to far-right" with I reliable source stating clearly that UKIP's policies were far-right.
I urge you to consider action against this user for his repeated disruptive and biased, non-objective editing and edit-warring. I have attempted unsuccessfully to resolve the matter through opening a dialogue on the user's talk page, however he chose to ignore my message despite have come online since (reverting unjustly even more edits to the UKIP page).
In case you note that I was previously blocked after I mistakenly reported a user, I recognise that that was the result of a callous and unthinking vendetta on my part and have since apologised to the user whom I had reported that time. I hope it does not affect my reporting of this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk • contribs) 00:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Without direct evidence (in other words, diffs to support your accusations), you are quite possibly looking at another block. To accuse an editor of misdeeds without evidence is a form of personal attack. This is stated without any research into the merits of the complaint, just as a procedural note. John from Idegon (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
@John from Idegon:What are diffs? I do not understand the jargon of wikipedians. Sorry. There might have an explanation of sorts on the complaint edit page but it is incomprehensible to us mere mortals, for we speak not the sacred tongue of the wikipedians. To non-wikipedians the lengthy paragraph above in which I describe the problems from the user faced by me and another user would be seen as an explanation. Do not discredit it simply because I have used real words and not obfuscated abbreviation and symbols which require ridiculous lengths if time to be spent reading soporific articles to penetrate in even a facile manner. Wikipedians, eh? Sorry, bit of a rant there. No offence intended, just got a bit annoyed due to my non-comprehension of what to wiki users is an explanation. In good faith, I thank you for taking the time to reply. Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
1- One of the users attempting to edit UKIP's twitter page to list them falsely as "Far-Right" using a random 2 line comment in a tabloid newspaper (the Guardian) is a self admitted "Communist", "Pro-EU", Pro-UK joining the Euro" and pro-Welsh Independence. It is obvious from the vandalism on the page that this user has posted that they are anti-UKIP and allowing their bias to effect what they edit the page to. These actions have been takinjg place over multiple page with biased sources and can be viewed on the History page of the UKIP page. This user has also declined to properly discuss such edits, and no mutual conclusion to edit the page to include said information has been drawn. The user has however continued to repeatidly edit and remove "undo's" to his/her vandalism and continues to vandalise the page with inaccurate and poorly sourced information.
The attempts to categorise UKIP as Far-Right should be deemed vandalism and removed when edited. This by User: Snowded who has jointly persued with damage of the page.
2- User:Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh has also attempted to add references from the Guardian as valid proof of UKIP's standing politically, and has expressed clear bias in communication with me on my User page which can be viewed to the admins satisfaction. This user has threatened me with reporting should I attempt to edit inaccurate claims that he/she has posted, as party ideologies and also backing up the claim UKIP are Far-Right, which is factually inaccurate and a politically motivated and biased claim.
Comments such as "It's anti-immigrationist policies" - Of which UKIP have none in reality. "strong sense of nationalism" - UKIP don't believe or have ever expressed an opinion of superiority over other countries. But most startlingly obvious is "opposition to co-operation other countries (E.U. (which myself would like Britain to leave) and intervention in struggling foreign countries are both opposed staunchly by the party)." - UKIP oppose the transfer of legislation and further expansionism by the EU. That is in no way Nationalistic, but does express a pretty obvious exposed bias against UKIP seeing as they don't oppose European cooperation or assisting countries.
This user has also let other bias slip with further comments desperately trying to link UKIP to the Far Right French National Front, and Britain First also (viewable on my talk page). Both parties have been barred from partnering or having former members join UKIP as a Party. In reality they are proscribed. It is pretty obvious their is an agenda at play here. Especially when you take note of the random dropping in of the "Nazi party" in mention and referring to UKIP supporters as "Kippers". An attempt at false labeling randomly dropped into discussion that I find personally offensive.
I also further to this believe this user should be reported for making false allegations and threatening Wikipedia users on their talk pages (again can be viewed on my talk page).
When this user posts comments on talk pages such as "Edit the UKIP page in a biased way again and I shall have to report you, leading probably to a block or ban." after editing unreliable info that hasn't been discussed on the talk page, action should really be taken.
As I said to this user on his/her talk page. If I was a biased UKIP supporter, I would have edited the Wikipedia page to read that UKIP are a center-right party. Something I really believe. But the most reliable source that has been added to the page made reference that UKIP were a "Right Wing Party". This source being removed without reason. That source being a Norwegian Political book discussing politics in the Nordic Countries of Europe.
I respect this reference and left it as it is. Main consensus is that UKIP are a Right Wing party, and so editing UKIP as Far Right is wrong. As is labeling "Nationalistic" and or "anti-Immigration", which they are not.
I understand evidence needs to be given. As someone who isn't hugely technologically savvy on Wikipedia all I can do is direct admin to my talk page where I have been threatened for trying to remove false information and also suggest admin look at the edit history of the UKIP pages for the mislabeling and false information posted on said article. User talk:RoverTheBendInSussex 02:42, 5 July 2015 (GMT)
I can see you are stubborn RoverTheBendInSussex! Good on you for sticking to your views so firmly! However, UKIP support massive and in my view completely unjustified reduction of immigration, this is anti-immigrationist, for the term is not limited to those who oppose all immigration, though I think Farage would happily ban it outright. UKIP opposed gay marriage - socially conservative, prioritising British workers over foreign ones - British Nationalism. Just because you dislike those terms does not mean they shouldn't be used, possibly you are a disillusioned labour voter? In this case, terms such as socially conservative would probably not be descriptive of your personal political views but they are descriptive of Farage's (a former Tory) and thus the party he dominates. More over, many, many non-UKIP supporters (you were offended by 'kipper so I shall not use it, sorry) would agree they are far-right and some UKIP supporters have gone on to join far-right groups (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33149621), Farage and UKIP itself supported an E.U. bill to fund some of the far-right political parties (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jan/27/ukip-far-right) and open far-rightists have advocated them (Nick Griffin (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/former-bnp-leader-nick-griffin-says-hell-vote-ukip-9893376.html) and Britain First (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-ukip-say-farright-group-britain-first-10126389.html) have both advocated voting UKIP, though Griffin could be ignored as I reckon this was just to spite the BNP after his recent sacking). Use of nazi was to show that I was not unjustly comparing UKIP to them, not all on the far-right are nazis (though I am certainly not an apologist for any far-right political views), though you seem to have construed it as meaning the opposite, in which case I am deeply sorry for the confusion. It is not a non-objective vandalism. Though I would never do it again, I have vandalised a wiki page before and let me assure you I go ridiculously over the top. Had this been a vandalism you would have at the very least found the terms Neo-nazi and fascist in the ideology section, which were not there and I would not have both to source them or revert the edits after they had been deleted, rightly in the case of actual vandalism. I used far-right not randomly and I assure you it was not political bias and that the edit was merely representative of my findings after an internet search. I assure you no vandalism was intended or offence on your part. I apologise, I didn't mean to threaten you I merely felt I ought to warn you of what I or another of the four users, mention in previous comments, you have disrupted might do if you continued in this vein.
If the guardian is not a valid source, I don't know what is, for the guardian is the source give in the example on the help page! Is there any point in editing Wikipedia if, even with appropriate sources from the site suggested by wiki itself, edit will invariably be deleted.
This is not a personal vendetta against the user I have accused and I apologise if it came across as such. I merely think that his removing of sourced info suggests bias. For diffs see my previous comments
You criticise user:snowded, however it should be noted that they have a barn star for maintaining a "neutral and balanced" viewpoint in their edits. Ignore me if you want to, be list to user:snowded for he seems a laudable wiki-user and is in the same predicament as me. Please do not besmirch their name as he has done nothing wrong.
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.
Looks like they've already been blocked. --Golbez (talk) 19:05, 4 July 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.
Can someone please remove talk page access from this latest sock - see abuse at talk page. Mr Potto (talk) 20:44, 4 July 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.
No has the right of Free Speech as an editor at Wikipedia, however, we generally do not sanction editors for exercising that right when they are writing their own blogs or articles that aren't associated with Wikipedia. What someone does on their own blog is not within our domain, literally and figuratively speaking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In addition I filed sockpuppet investigation since I believed at the time both רדיומן and Richards1052 were used by the same person but later updated that I found out רדיומן is very active on Hebrew WP so I'm less suspicious.
The talk page of the article had some discussion but it was deleted with the articles.
In all those discussions Silverstein showed little understanding of WP policies such an WP:RS and WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL with comments such as Wikipedia would want an article based on such knowledge and then anyone who had a hand in removing it will be seen as having done a disservice to Wikipedia.
On July 1st, Silverstein [published an article named "The Poison Pill of Israeli, and Wikipedia Censorship". In which he provide my username (which I guess is in the public space) but also tell lies about the process the brought to the deletion of the article some of which misrepresent in negative false light the whole WP community.
He talks about 'groups' of editors where no such thing happened.
He claims there is 'internal pro-Israel Wikipedia discussion groups'.
He claims 'pro-Israel elements working within Wikipedia achieved... censorship'.
He ends with 'Fools like these cheapen Wikipedia and betray its mission'.
More false accusation repeats from WP discussions which can be found in the discussions I linked above.
I have left 2 messages to Silverstein on his blog. The first pointing out 'inaccuracies' in his report and a second, asking him to remove this incorrect/misleading information or I'll complain. (Messages can't be seen since he moderates comments). He responded in a tweet "Israeli who succeeded in getting Wikipedia to delete article on disappeared Ethiopian, Avera Mengistu threatens 2 haul me B4 Wiki committee."
I would like to ask admins to contact him and demand the removal of these false accusations against myself and the community. Further refresh of WP policies is probably in place as well. Kigelim (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
If you are asking Wikipedia admins to contact a Wikipedia user about something he wrote and published off-Wiki, it's extremely unlikely that would happen. If Richards1052 does something untoward on-Wiki that's behavioral and not a content dispute, that's their baliwick, but (in general) what people do off-Wiki, and what opinions they express there, is not something they would normally get involved in -- nor, I suspect, would the intervention of Wikipedia admins change Silverstein's opinion about what happened. BMK (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with what BMK wrote. We're not going to take action because you're butthurt over what a Wikipedia editor wrote about you in his blog.
Malik, I'm not very active and yes' after this shenanigan I put some focus on the article and Silverstein. This has nothing to do with the subject. In all the discussions I treated him with the utmost respect and I expect the same back.
If admins feel it is not of their interest, fine. I'm not making the rules. But he clearly uses WP for his own purposes which you have warn him in the past yourself. If you feel using WP to spread his 'speculations', not accept uninvolved editors decision and then present WP as an Israeli puppet is acceptable, that is fine with me.
BTW, the same articles was deleted from Arabic WP as well. Kigelim (talk) 23:05, 4 July 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 with the username of a living celebrity[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user Dangelorussell's username is the same as that of D'Angelo Russell, a recent NBA draft pick. Per the username policy, I believe that this user should be username-blocked unless they really are D'Angelo Russell and they have proof for it. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that noticeboard. Thank you, I will remember that for future reference. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 04:13, 4 July 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.
Closing. CrazyAces489 has purportedly retired. Compare the thread "Revenge nomination" below. This report, too, looks rather like retaliation. Bishonen | talk 10:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requesting an WP:IBAN on this individual. He had promised another Admin he would stop interacting with me, but still shows up in multiple places that I go to. CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
And you promised to adhere to policy, which you continue to fail at doing, even though you know it was a part of the agreement. I was merely noting that you were, again, failing to uphold policy which is why there is an AN/I about you above. Our "agreement" was I would not edit your articles and you wouldn't edit mine, which I have upheld. I only edited an AN/I about you because I had valuable info to the discussion and I mentioned it to Tokyogirl79 because she was the admin who set up the "agreement". This should be closed immediately and someone needs to finally take care of CA's purposeful failure to comply with others users and policies.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
P.S. One place is not "multiple".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The reason I am back here on this account is that TheGracefulslick harrassed me on my new user account. [7] I even left a letter on wikipedia notifying people on it. I simply don't want any interaction with him as I stated here. [8] If I wasn't outted by Phrese and TheGracefulSlick I wouldn't have all these issues. I simply want to try and create articles to expand wikipedia. I don't think its going to happen . There is a strong lack of black editors on wikipedia and I believe for very good reason. Certain behavior is tolerated and the buddy system is in strong effect and some articles are tolerated while others are heavily scrutinized. I took a break and went somewhere else and was outed and stalked. I came back and it was worse. If I do come back, I would like this IBAN to be in place. CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Your articles are the issue! They are poorly written, poorly sourced, and unnotable. People keep telling you this! Since, CA announced another "retirement" to avoid impending punishment I suggest this AN/I be closed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:26, 4 July 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.
Nothing actionable here just as there was nothing actionable in the thread that was archived. You can ask Arb but it will be declined. — Berean Hunter(talk) 05:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RGloucester (talk·contribs) told me to go to hell ("twice") and accused me of stalking him [9]. I already reported RGloucester for their ongoing incivility and disruptive behavior last week and nothing was done about it - the case was moved to archive. (I added the attack at the archive as it was not closed, but was informed everything moved to archive are abandoned, so I started a new report here). RGloucester's bullying and WP:BATTLEGROUND over everything is harmful to Wikipedia. Should this be brought to arbitration or can this be properly handled at ANI? Thank you. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, how fun. It was a joke, and a reference. If you'd prefer if I were to go to Hades, I shall be happy to. Damn me to Hades, twice. Now that I've been damned to Hades twice, would you please stop spreading falsities at every turn? It must be fun, I imagine, but I haven't the patience or time to continue dealing with fellow Hadesians. RGloucester — ☎ 04:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Firefly reference?Niteshift36 (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Personal attacks claimed to be jokes are still personal attacks. I also take offense at your statement accusing me of "spreading falsities at every turn" since I certainly do not. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Spare me, please. I wonder what money is in muckraking, pray tell? Oh! How foolish of me! Money, muckraking?! The money of ego, stuff of argent wrought! A common stuff, the stuff of kings! In this age, one of leering, there isn't much, but constant peering...a mucking...a raking...a sacking of the muck, a packing of the muck! Muck, muck! To market with muck, for sale and for let, sold for tuppence, not much left of 'commin'sense', that's the world you've brought. RGloucester — ☎ 04:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey nonny, nonny and such. This is not the first time RGloucester has been excessively abrasive in an AfD. Jokes are all well and good but these types of outbursts tend to happen more when you are disagreed with which makes them less "jokey" in my eyes. Chillum 04:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I beg of you, great Chillum, delete both me and that essay, for the sake of the encylopaedia. The administrative scythe must reap the weeds of my produce. Will you join me in Hades? RGloucester — ☎ 04:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh geez, just close this and move along. Before Monty shows up bitching about shaving his beard. Or before we have to deal with da xiang bao za shi de la du zi. GregJackPBoomer! 05:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, one consolation is that if you do go to hell, and he's stalking you, then he'll be there too. >:) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:28, 4 July 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.
Yes, a block sounds like a good idea. Number57 14:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
partially my fault, haven't edited sence the 12th of May, asking on IRC if there is anything i should do other than revert the stuff that wasnt me. kthxbai Keastesknowthyself 14:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I put in a request at RPP to protect the affected templates with the most transclusions and a request at AIV to block you as a compromised account, though you seem to be back in control now. Conifer (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
fine by me, seeing as AFAIK WP does not have a "logout all sessions" button. kthxbai Keastesknowthyself 15:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I blocked the account for a week. We can take more drastic action if the problem resumes at that point (user has changed their password). -- Diannaa (talk) 17:01, 4 July 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.
Can a few admins have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Todd? There seem to be an awful lot of strong opinions on the debate, which in itself is not necessarily an issue, but the proliferation of redlinked users and IPs leads me to wonder if there's a sock farm at work here. (I haven't pinged anyone aside from the two obvious main protagonists, Stuart lyster (talk·contribs) and 142.59.217.7 (talk·contribs) because I'm not complaining about any specific editor, rather just the general progression of the debate, but please advise if I should). Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 12:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I've tagged it with {{notavote}} although that is of questionable value. Socking is a real possibility, but hard to tell without CU with so few edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, I have seen AFDs get semi-protected, but not under this situation. Has to be pretty extreme. Like serious vandalism, or when 4chan comes to town, trolling. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it could be meatpuppetry. The IPs look to be from Vancouver Telus and Verizon in Fredericksburg, Virginia. Unless he's crossing over the US/Canada border with the international data plan to beat all data plans, it's probably not the same guy. But the closing admin can take all that into account. KrakatoaKatie 14:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, these are static broadband IPs. You'd need CU to see which one could be the Stuart Iyster account. That last SPA !vote looks suspicious too. KrakatoaKatie 14:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I certainly get the impression that people were off-wiki canvassed there, I just don't know where from. The personalattacks don't help. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 15:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Having spent a little time sussing things out, it looks like this is a messy canvass involving mostly Canadian single-purpose editors, most for keep, a couple against. There is probably a discussion about this debate somewhere on the internets. Aside from the non-standard "Do Not Delete" language, it seems at a glance that most of these are different accounts opining about a widely-read religious columnist in a large Canadian newspaper. I'd advise Ritchie333 to step back and let nature take its course, as I don't see sources that will get this article over the GNG bar. I do question the need to delete such an article, but then again I do have a soft spot for journalist biographies, which are notoriously hard to source out. Carrite (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
After continually being reverted by this user, I've decided that it would be best to take this to the Administrator noticeboard. Over the past several months, the user Stemoc has continually reverted my edits, for the sole reason of being disruptive. I think their latest statement made in an edit summary clearly states that they do not wish to act in a civil manner, and simply wish to violate Wikipedia policy outlined at WP:HOUNDING. The edit summary stated "UNDO long-term cross wiki vandal POV pusher whop uses the wiki for "self promotion"." This has continually been his reason, no matter the situation, in this case it was the addition of a different photo on the Donald Trump article which is non-controversial. (Note: There was a previous discussion at 3RR where it was agreed that I would not add photos that have already been uploaded for the sole reason of having my name in the title of the image, which I have ceased from doing. I have not broken this warning so that should not be part of this discussion.) But regardless, the user still seems to want to continue to revert my edits across several different projects, and was told to stop previously.
In a calm, measured response to a comment I left on his talk page, part of his response was to "stop acting like a pompous cry baby.." His edit summary here also indicates his unwillingness to act in a civil manner, and simply to be disruptive and revert edits without discussion. Quoting directly from WP:Wikihounding, "Wikihounding is the 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." As recent as a few moments ago, the user began participating in a discussion I created in order to gain a consensus on which image would be best at Jeb Bush. The user then personally attacked me stating "its Not a Communist regime either so we won't keep using your poor images all the time" to a comment I left in a related section where people began voting, despite policy that states Wikipedia is not a democracy. In that discussion, it was found that a different image was best to use, and I did not revert or try to disrupt that decision.
The user has had similar complaints left on his talk page, after he told another user to "get glasses" when trying to add a photo he uploaded in this instance. Here is part of the exchange...
“
No you LISTEN, you are the ONLY PERSON in the WHOLE of WIKIPEDIA that has a problem with the GOOD IMAGE being used. I tried solving it amicably but you decide to change the IMAGE again for the UMPTEENTH TIME, you REFUSE to a have ANY DISCUSSION but continuously KEEP changing the image, the post to have a discussion BARELY lasted 48 hours BEFORE you changed the IMAGE yet AGAIN... You are a VANDAL and I will NOW REPORT you....I wrote those in CAPS LOCK cause you seem to be blind or something ...
”
If that isn't a case against WP:Civility then I don't know what is. He has been warned for his uncivil behavior several times already, and yet they just ignore it and begin writing in uppercase and attempting shame others from editing. It also seems that he is doing the same thing that he accuses me of, as he is adding his own uploaded images to articles, without any sort of discussion, whether controversial or not, and most of the time without a reason given in his edit summary. I highly suggest reviewing his edit history, and his talk page.
Other violations that I believe he has made are outlined at WP:Disruptive editing, in response to this comment after I reverted him for reverting me because I made the edit, "Either follow our policies or LEAVE". That statement alone violates #6, which states "Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles." I would also argue he is acting in a tendentious manner based on his recent edits alone.
Again, if this isn't a case of someone overstepping the line of civility, engaging in disruptive editing, campaigning to drive away productive contributors, and intentionally hounding someone's specific edits, then I don't know what is.
Expect an accusational response from the user being reported saying that I'm adding my own photos as self promotion. This is not the case, and is not a violation of any policy anyway. As of recent, I have made sure to include clear edit summaries stating why I am changing a specific image, and created discussions in order to come to a consensus on which image would be preferred. Stemoc is simply acting in a disruptive manner no matter what discussion takes place, and no matter what my edit summary reasoning was for changing a specific image. Calibrador (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Before I begin, please remember that User:Calibrador was previously known as Gage Skidmore and he changed his name yesterday just so that he can knowingly continue to enforce his images into articles without setting off any alarm bells..Infact, just before changing his name, his last few edits involved enforcinghisownimagesintoarticles and rightafterusurpation, he continues to do the same. The use has over the years continually used wikipedia for WP:SELFPROMOTION to an extent of removing better images for his own poor ones just so that he can use wikipedia to promote himself financially. The Quote he linked above was to another editor that is available on my talk page and it has already been solved "amicably" but he has linked it here trying to make people think that my comment was targeted at him..... I'm not in the habit of REMOVING other people's comments about him removing other images and replacing them with his.. He even threatened me on Wikimedia Commons to not upload his images from flickr which are under a free licence and as per Commons policy can be uploaded for use on wikipedia...The user has a long history of violation WP:COI and just by going through the users contribution history here, it will all be made clear. I'm NOT Hounding the user as he claims, I just found his "vandalism" unbearable and decided to take action by reverting them as he refuses to follow policies in regards to discussing his changes. Its either HIS images be USED on those articles or NO IMAGES and he will blatantly revert anyone else who decides to use a less controversial or better image...WP:CIVIL goes both ways and if admins refuse to warn and discipline this user who has previously been reported here in May, then this will be ongoing. The user is abusing our Terms of Use as was discussed in May on my talk page. He may not be a paid editor but he is using Wikipedia for Financial gain and that is against one of our policies as photographers get paid for the use of their images as tou can see here and quote
“
Gage Skidmore is a professional photographer currently based in the Phoenix metropolitan area. He began his career covering politics in 2009, covering the U.S. Senate campaign of ophthalmologist Rand Paul. Since then, he has been involved with a variety of organizations and campaigns, including the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry, ASU Center for Political Thought & Leadership, Campaign for Liberty Foundation, Reason Magazine, Western Center for Journalism, and has been published in the Washington Post, Associated Press, Politico, and Forbes.
If wikimedia blatantly allows someone to use the site to serve their personal monetary gain then this is not a place I want to be...I have been fighting Spammers and vandals across wikimedia since 2007 and users like him are the worst as they can usually get away with it..........oh and ofcourse you are Gage, do NOT deny it cause whats worse than violators are those that blatantly lie about it--Stemoc 13:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Please do not attempt to destroy my character, you are getting very close to libel with your false accusations. I have never made a penny from my involvement with Wikipedia. Your response also screams a great level of paranoia. Calibrador (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
False accusation?, you accuse me of WP:HOUNDing you and when i point out that you are using WIKIPEDIA for your own personal MONETARY gain, I'm destroying your character?. You Intentionally enforce your images so that you can tell your "clients" about you work using Wikipedia as a reference for your OWN personal and monetary gain and when users remove your pics and replace or update it with one that is BETTER, you revert them cause you want ONLY your images with you name at the END of every image name because you are a humanitarian and you love wikipedia and you are helping the wiki out of the goodness of your heart?, is thats what you are telling me?....Never made a a penny, who do you think uses all the images that get added to wikipedia?, newsites and other websites and I won't be surprised if they pay you for the use of the images, oh and lets not forget, free publicity..Just admit it and stop lying please....--Stemoc 14:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
None of what you just wrote is true, I suggest you just stop please. Calibrador (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Also I'd suggest acting more Civil instead of using Caps lock to imply shouting on the administrator noticeboard. Calibrador (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Stemoc, it's not clear to me how Calibrador is financially benefiting from Wikipedia. You link to his Flickr bio it doesn't refer to Wikipedia at all. And then you reference an article where not only is Wikipedia not mentioned but it states he posts all of his photos to Flickr under a Creative Commons license, making them available free of charge as long as he’s credited. and only charges for-profit publications for his work.
I can see how you could make an argument that Calibrador prefers using photos he has taken over other photos but you haven't presented evidence that he is financially benefiting from donating his photos to Wikipedia. LizRead!Talk! 14:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
That is how publicity works Liz, let put it this way, his images get noticed, he gets called up by someone famous and they ask him to do a 'photoshoot" for which he gets paid and at the same time he has to insure he gets noticed, Flickr is now ranked 130 odd but Wikipedia is STILL one of the top 10 websites in the world, so where are you more likely to get noticed?..Previously, when adding image a to articles, he used to add his name into the captions in infoboxes as well..just search through his edits in 2014 and you will find it which is how i actually noticed him in the first place..--Stemoc 15:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I never did that, and I have never booked a photo shoot with anyone. How many times do you have to be told to stop making false accusations? Calibrador (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I have mentioned it on my talk page many times that i use Caps and Bold for "emphasis" only on certain words, I'm not "Shouting"..and also why would you even accept what i said is fact because if it is , and I know it is, it means you have been violating our policies for years and have been getting away with it and you got your named changed just so that its not directly seen as a WP:COI which it is.Note: I havea shitty internet conenct adn moving to https has MADE IT WORSE so i cannot reply here anymore, i have already had 16 edit conflicts on this thread, please take anything else regarding me to to my talk page..I'm unable to post on pages larger than 150kbs (my net speed on enwiki is about 8kbps)--Stemoc 14:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
You also used caps on your talk page once because someone "needs to get glasses." Calibrador (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
A month ago I reported Gage Calibrador at ANEW [20] so I'm not the only one to have an issue although since that report I've simply given up with the image-removal as I knew one way or another I'd end up being blocked, I still believe Gage Calibrador is using the image-titles as a way to promote himself. –Davey2010Talk 14:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Since that discussion, I have agreed to use edit summaries, discuss, and come to a consensus when changing an image is seen as controversial. Calibrador (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
That's great but the image thing is still an issue - No one would have an issue with your uploads if you just uploaded them as say "X at X.jpg" but surely you can see adding your name on the end of every image you upload does come across as self promotion and people are bound to have an issue with that. –Davey2010Talk 14:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I would note that I do not even link to my Flickr when I upload my own photos, like when others upload my images. If anything Stemoc is the one promoting my photos. Calibrador (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm NOT promoting your images, I'm giving you "attribution" which is according to Commons policy regarding image uploads, so this is "attribution" as I have not only uploaded one of your images but given you credit as well as added the image to your private category, there is no need for me to do that but i do it nevertheless cause i go by the rules and follow the policies, you don't...your image uploads are always promotional--Stemoc 15:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Calibrador, you are adding photos with file names such as "William Lee Golden by Gage Skidmore.jpg". If you are a professional photographer, I think such file names are advertising your work. Many professional do contribute some of their images to WP, and in a sense it may be a form of advertising , because they are attributed in the meta data--but we have always regarded this as not just permissible, but a good incentive to get some high quality images. However, putting your professional identity in the file name does not seem like a good idea. I do not work all that much with images,and I do not know if it is against our rules for images, but I personally think that it certainly should be. If you want to avoid accusations of promotionalism, you might want to go back and rename them. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Let me first say that e might have gone a bit off-track. However, having your name in the file name is not against any policies or guidelines (ot terms for that metter). If I wanted I could name a file "File:X at Y (thank you C0mpany Z for this great event).jpg" and intentionally advertise, but that alone isn't proof of any wrongdoing. (In the Creative Commons terms however there is a clause about "titles of works" and that they should be used. If the creator wishes they be names one way...)
Back to the issue at hand regarding if Cometstyles Stemoc is violating multiple policies on civility, I would say that this is a clear case. Even if the edits are somehow justified, they are HOUNDing in nature. This should not be acceptable. (There should be a clause like this in 3RR regarding reverting over multiple articles...) (t) Josve05a (c) 04:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Its Ok to do that to a few image but that uploader has added more than 8000 images with that byline, just do a simple "by Gage Skidmore" on commons if you don't believe me. This is PROMOTIONAL. When someone adds an article about themselves or add links to their private websites, they are straightaway reverted, warned and in severr cases BLOCKED for spamming..this is one form of spamming..we may have different rules for articles and images but they both have the same outcome...The problem isn't the use of "by Gage Skidmore" tag in all his images, the problem is intentionally replacing other better and current images with his own on MAJOR article to boost his own stand and even without discussion as one user pointed above about the lack of using 'edit summaries'. Josve05, you are aware of my involvement in cross-wiki related spamming and vandalism and there isn't a day where i do NOT delete spamming on the 2 wikis i have adminship on....I see this as "blatant promotional/spamming" and though my involvement on enwikipedia has been limited since i returned (my own choosing), I will NOT turn a blind eye to it cause you may not see it as such but its blatant abuse of our policies....and again, reverting someone who keeps violating our policies does not make me a "Wiki HOUNDER"..I'm reverting what i see as blatant vandalism..the user has even gone to an extent of getting his name changed to make it easier to add his images without anyone pointing fingers..it would be nice if admins did their job as this user has been brought to this board now 3 times over the last 2 months and still has not faced any consequences to this actions...--Stemoc 14:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a case of "everyone but myself" is at fault, and I'm a "social warrior" for trying to save Wikipedia from something that is not against the rules, and I'll keep link WP:Selfpromotion, even though none of what is mentioned on that page applies. Could an admin please weigh in on this situation so that falsehoods aren't spread again? Calibrador (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The self promotion policy may see to be only related for articles but it applies to everything on wikimedia, self PROMOTION is self promotion, either your promote yourself, your company, your interests or your stuff, its Promotion and by deliberately removing other people images with yours IS self promotion...Do I need to make this any more clear?..--Stemoc 15:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I would note that Stemoc is also currently reported at 3RR for reverting one of the articles five times within a 24 hour span. They were also warned by an admin for harassment. Calibrador (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
and more lies, I was neither "warned " by an admin (toonlucas22 is not an admin) but it was a mistake on his part as he was not aware of this thread nor the previous identity of Calibrador and on the 3RR one which Gage Skidmore linked above...and also, I have not violated 3RRand nor do I intend too..--Stemoc 15:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I never said I'm an admin. I just came as an uninvolved editor. --TL22 (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
That part was my mistake, I thought he was an admin. I do have to correct the false statement that was made about 3RR, though, as Stemoc reverted an article to their version five times in a row, within (approximately) a 24 hour span. It was just slightly outside the window, but still applies. Calibrador (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Yikes! Bbb23 just brought the hammer down on both Stemoc and Calibrador for 24 hours at WP:ANEW... I'm guessing this one can (and probably should) be closed now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to keep this open until Stemoc and Calibrador return from their 24 hour blocks. I'd like to hear some proposals, as there's potentially an issue with Calibrador's behaviour, and in turn there's definitely an issue with Stemoc's behaviour. It would be good to get it sorted out with the minimum of fuss, rather than just closing this thread and having a repeat with either Stemoc or another user raising similar complaints in the next few days and weeks.
I'd think the sensible suggestion here would be that Calibrador is either restricted from removing an existing image from a page and replacing it with an image he has taken/uploaded himself unless discussion has taken place prior to the switching of images, and consensus is in favour of the change, or there's a 1RR restriction, so he can make the switch without discussion, but if it's reverted, it needs to be discussed before the edit can be reinstated. If a page lacks an image, then Calibrador can add any image he so wishes. It's important to say at this time that we do appreciate the time and effort he puts into taking and uploading photographs BUT other photographers, both professional and amateur do exactly the same, and in the interests of fairness, we want to see good images from a wide range of different photographers being used on the project, this in turn encourages image contributions from other photographers. Every photographer who takes good images should have an expectation of their images being used by another project and that their images will be chosen fairly, without bias, and on the merit of the photograph and its content, composition and appropriateness for the article. Calibrador's behaviour isn't really allowing that to happen right now. Nick (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I notice that Calilibrador wrongly attempted to delete the block notice on his talk page while it was still in force, and that when policy was explained to him again reverted the notice anyway, only to be reverted again by Nick. Finally, as soon as the block expired, he scrubbed off the notice a third time. I would argue that this wholesale lack of transparency demonstrates an ongoing and obsessive interest with his image and PR, with past examples documented in the section below. This is a long-term, and current problem with this editor and there is very little contrition in evidence. I suggest the overall pattern indicates a desire to use Wikipedia as a platform for his profession as a photographer. Jusdafax 23:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
It is, he is trying to keep his talk page clean so that paying clients don't ask about his block, anyways thanks for pointing out the previous discussion involving him JustDaFax, maybe I should have pointed this out at the very top of the thread and saved myself a lot of time, the admin in that discussion EdJohnston warned him not to re-offend, and he did....many times actually..I'm tired of this cause I did not come back after retiring just so that I get involved in MORE wikidrama, I have no issue with this, I just do not like POV pushers regardless of who they might be ...I hope an admin comes with a solution soon which will stop this from happening again..--Stemoc 00:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Umm Stemoc I mentioned the report right above so I'm not sure how you missed it , That said even if it was mentioned right up the top it wouldn't made a blind bit of difference unfortunately . –Davey2010Talk 01:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Say, Davey2010 could you ping those editors mentioned in your report, that had issues with Cali/Gage? They are likely not aware of this ANI complaint that is now in a state of WP:BOOMERANG and may well shed some light on why they had concerns. Thanks. Jusdafax 07:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree, completely, with Nick's suggestion. It seems to be the most sensible and fair solution. I would be more in favour of the 1RR suggestion; it's not prohibitively restrictive (and doesn't discourage further contributions), but it reigns in any excessive promotional behaviour and forces him to seek consensus with other editors if they take issue with his revisions. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Indef block for Calibrador - Quinto, that type of sanction is only effective if Cali/Gage sees the continuing errors of his ways, and acts on them. He's been warned repeatedly to no avail, even reverting the block message on his Talk page when warned not to. Stemoc is likely right, Cali/Gage has deep reasons for his Talk page scrubbage. I say indef the character, at least until we get a serious commitment to reform that he can be held to. He's been gaming the system here for too long and shows no intention of stopping. Jusdafax 01:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Indef Calibrador - I'm probably not going to be liked for this but the editor has caused enough problems and I think the 1RR won't solve anything at all, We could go down the 1RR route but he'd end up being reported at ANEW and then it'll be this discussion all over again and he'd end up being blocked - Once unblocked we'll be doing it all over again. Indef seems a better and wiser idea IMHO. –Davey2010Talk 01:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree -- In complete agreement with Nick here. The 1RR proposal for Calibrador makes a lot of sense. However if that doesn't work an indef seems like the only other option. -- Shuddetalk 05:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I can understand 1RR and renaming of the files to remove his name (per DGG's comment), but before this last Bbb23 block for edit warring, he's never been blocked, and he has over 25,000 edits behind him. Indef blocking is excessive at this stage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
A lot of that was to get him to respond, which he's now doing, if less than satisfactorily. But Dennis, it's my firm belief that if he gets off with 1RR and renaming, he's getting off easy. I really don't want to go wading through his edits, just to find more examples. We are already at TL,DR. Davey 2010 has it right. Jusdafax 20:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Current and past problems with Calibrador, formerly Gage Skidmore: suggest extending current BOOMERANG with indef block[edit]
Good double block, and I share Nick's concerns. By the way, isn't this diff above in this very ANI complaint (!) using "very close to libel" as an implied legal threat in violation of WP:LEGAL, as well the use of the term "paranoia" an attack on the mental condition of the editor Cali/Gage has brought to this board? If so, wouldn't a continued block of C/G be protective in nature?
In any case, I've had some troubling issues with Cali/Gage Skidmore at the L.A. Reid article. In brief, he lies, distorts, ignores and in general does whatever needful to get what he wants. My involvement began in 2012 when I cordially welcomed him to the page while expressing concerns about his captioning. He gave no reply.
In August 2013, he repeatedly inserts his own photography as the infobox photo and refuses to reply on his Talk page or on the article Talk page when I attempted again to discuss. When challenged, he lied in his edit summary saying, as clearly shown in this diff that I had reverted him without explaining, which the diff shows my edit summary had, and that I was in violation of WP:OWN, when in fact I had repeatedly asked for Cali/Gage to discuss the matter.
I also noticed others had similar issues and Cali/Gage failed to respond to them either. Finally in disgust I walked away from what I felt was an unpleasant and manipulative editing experience. And this editor has a serious set of issues, as noted above, and in his warning at AN just last month, also as noted above. He's a fine photographer, but we can do without his hostile gamesmanship and relentless self-promotion, in my view. Jusdafax 12:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment The use of "very close to libel" once probably shouldn't be construed as a legal threat per WP:LEGAL. I don't really see enough diffs to support this strong of an action. I started looking through some of his photos and they are quite good. Personally, I think it would be a shame to loose his future contributions. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Reply - Not to go all Wikilawyer on you but the pertinent paragraph in that policy: It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats against them or against Wikipedia, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended. To avoid this frequent misunderstanding, use less charged wording (such as “That statement about me is not true and I hope it will be corrected for the following reasons...”) to avoid the perception that you are threatening legal action for defamation. As for photographers, he's good but not good enough to allow his brinksmanship and outright bad faith editing to continue, in my view. Jusdafax 06:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment I don't think you are Wikilawyering at all. I just think his phrase "very close to libel" is not quite the same as saying it was "libelous" nor did he do it repeatedly. I think before an indef block is decided, there should be more discussion about whether adding his name to the end of file names is a serious issue. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Darn it - that's not the only issue, as I demonstrate in this section just above. He's been abusing the place for years. You're right, the word "repeatedly" is in the policy too. But, now that he's unblocked, what does he do? Wipes his Talk page clean, and ignores the issues raised here. He does not apologize, does not comment, just up and vanishes. You OK with that? Why? Because he takes good pictures? Jusdafax 06:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you that there are serious issues. I just did Google search in images for "Gage Skidmore" and it returns pages of his photos. So, maybe 1RR or 0RR would be a better starting point for now? --I am One of Many (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the first thing we all need to agree to is to get him to talk. He has a well-established history of avoiding discussion. That has to stop. Indef him, he's forced to face the music on his pristine talk page. He can answer questions there, express contrition and understanding of our policies, etc. Seriously, he must not be given a slap on the wrist and turned loose again on the project. Enough is enough. Jusdafax 07:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
If you look at my more recent edits, aside from accidentally reverting too many times on one article without knowing (trust me, it was my mistake), I have begun using edit summaries, tried to seek consensus, and mostly tried to avoid conflict. Stemoc reverted several different edits over several different pages within a short span of time simply for the fact that he believes I am somehow a COI violator. What should I really have done differently? I tried to include discussion, and a clear edit summary at every opportunity.
I sincerely apologize for my past indiscretions, I have seen the error of ways in the past about not discussing changes seen as controversial. I don't need to be punished in order to see that, I see it clearly already. Also, I did not disappear, and inviting everyone that has had something bad to say about me with no one on the other side to defend me is a little biased.
The main issue that was at heart here that was underblown because Stemoc enjoys making a lot of noise, and crying COI at every possible chance, is the WP:Wikihounding and uncivil nature of their edits. I have no idea why this has changed into a discussion about me. I've realized my edits in the past were disruptive, and if you look at my edits recently, I made sure to include an edit summary in nearly every contribution, and when necessary, created or participated in discussion. This includes the 3RR that I accidentally got myself into without realizing, I created a discussion on the talk page, and included a reason for making the edit in my edit summary. Unfortunately that was completely ignored by Stemoc in favor of COI accusations, and stating that I'm profiting from Wikipedia, which I have not ever. I suggest concentrating on that rather than my past mistakes which I apologize for, and have tried to amend. Calibrador (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Also the thing on my talk page was a mistake, I did not know about that policy, and when it was re-added, I accidentally thought someone re-added it to my talk page just to rub it in or something like that, I didn't look at the history page until after I had made the edit. My mistake once again. As for now, all users have control over their talk page, I think Stemoc is once again assuming bad faith, and made another COI allegation that was unfounded. I don't want to distract from the main issue though that I think has not even been addressed yet, so please discuss Stemoc's offenses. Calibrador (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I actually found Gage creating this article really odd until I did a bit of research and found out that he is somewhat of a "follower" and then i found this..should we now assume Gage is a Paid editor as well cause your edits related to Rand Paul sure looks a lot like public relations work..no? So you use the wiki to push your own agendas, create articles on stuff which again boosts your own career and then you lie about it and then come here and blame me for foiling you? Just claim that you are a political photographer and you are doing all this just to boost your own career and this will all be over...Heck, you even uploaded a new yet poor picture of Donald trump because you didn't like the one I added as it wasn't one of 'yours'...When i first came across you a few years ago, I thought you were a hero for adding HQ pics of celebs and politicians free of charge, boy was I wrong and yet even when multiple users above have claimed that you have been 'gaming' the system, you still deny it and deflect it back to me...Honestly, if all this does not result in a ban or a block for you, I worry that you will do it all over again cause honestly, I do not think you joined wikipedia to help grow the database and you have no intentions whatsoever to follow our policies if they contradict with your ambitions and you have already been on the Edit Warring notice board 3 times over the last 50 days and yet you keep blaming others and refuse to accept that you made mistake after mistake and you even blanked your talk page twice even after 2 admins warned you not to and then you blanked it again the 3rd time just 10 minutes after your block was lifted..Why would anyone not worried about their image do that?...If you somehow walked away from this with just a slap on your hand then this would mean Wikipedia has failed...--Stemoc 13:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Please stop stalking my edits and crying COI. You've made your same point over and over and over, I'd like an admin opinion on your behavior, not your same opinion. Calibrador (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
No doubt, Stemoc has his own issues. But this is the first I've heard of this Rand Paul article, which opens a new and distressing window on your POV pushing activities, Calibrador. Leaving that aside for the moment, as well as your excuses for blanking the block notices on your talk page repeatedly, which strain credulity since you are saying you didn't read the admin postings at all, we come to the issues I have delineated in detail above. You have posted a lot of words here. Not a single one addresses my specific and documented concerns, and those of others who have further concerns. So is this the best you can do? A "sweat promise" to now, after years, act like most decent Wikipedians, and actually use edit summaries, actually seek consensus? Now that major sanctions are under discussion here, I challenge you to address the charges that have been brought forward. Jusdafax 13:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I thought I addressed them? I admit I should have participated in discussion in the past instead of acting in a cold manner. I hardly even remember the incident you are talking about in regards to the LA Reid article. FWIW, that was not my photo, I did not take it. I was acting like any other editor looking for a better image that was freely available on Flickr, and thought that better illustrated the subject of the article, and thought it was weird that a photo with someone else in the photo that was years older was preferred. I did not look at the article history you linked, I'm just going by memory. Not sure what else I can say, but I'd very much like a response to Stemoc's behavior, as absolutely no one with any authority has had anything to say about their hounding and uncivil behavior that I documented in my original report. Calibrador (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, not to make this any sort of issue, but I just looked at the article, and would note that the photo that I added is now the photo that is universally used to illustrate the article across Wikipedia projects, and not as a result of me. Someone else did that. I really have no memory of that situation though, it was several years ago. I know I was in the wrong on that though, so I apologize. Calibrador (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The fact that GageSkidmore/Calibrador suddenly changed his username is an indication that his intentions here are likely less than good faith. I really don't see a pressing issue at all with Stemoc, but with GageSkidmore/Calibrador we see a user who is all about self-promotion, and in many regards, whose motivations, i.e. Rand Paul book, etc. are questionable. He likes to ensure his pictures retain precedence over all others; yes, he takes many pictures that are free-use, and that is good. But many of his pictures aren't of article quality and composition, and he many times fights for ones that are the least worth inclusion. There have been problems in the past, and I see them again. He likes making great streams of edits on pages, rather than carefully consolidating his efforts, he continues to put 'by Gage Skidmore' on every single picture uploaded to the commons, obvious self promotion, and his consistent efforts to evade (name change and notification deletes) demonstrate his negative impact here. Spartan7W§ 14:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I would just like to note that I stole that idea from David Shankbone, should we bring David Shankbone to AN/I? The stream of edits that I think you are referring to were an effort to try to control my own content. Many (not all) of the photos that were uploaded from my photostream were cropped very poorly, or were not the best one to illustrate an article in my opinion. Most (not all) of my recent photo additions were replacing of my own photos with an alternate crop, or slightly different color, sharpness, etc. Some mistook that as simply uploading the same photo with a different title, but that was not the case, people were adding my photos to Wikipedia unknowingly to me, and I wasn't particularly a fan of the way they looked, however minor it was. I don't specifically recall very many instances where a "stream" of edits other than that one instance where it was controversial and someone took notice of it. After I was brought to the noticeboard, I did not continue that behavior. Despite what you may think, I'm capable of learning from my mistakes. As was the case with the recent noticeboard discussion, and is the reason I used an edit summary and created discussions on several recent articles. Unfortunately that was disrupted by Stemoc who reverted several different edits across several different pages, crying COI and that I'm somehow being paid to edit Wikipedia, how exactly should I have responded to that other than the way that I did? In the first few instances on one specific page, I reverted with a descriptive edit summary stating my opposition to the revert of my edit, and also included a talk page post. That post was met with a paragraph of COI accusations. In the end, another user, PrairieKid reverted the page back to my version twice more when Stemoc reverted it to their version. The fact that I overstepped 3RR was an accident on my part, I understand that policy very clearly, I would not have overstepped that if I had known the first edit I made also counted as a revert, I was simply re-adding official portraits that were replaced for some reason unknown to me. In regards to the Paul thing, I would simply consider myself an expert on the topic, the book article was added because I was trying to keep it consistent with the previous two book articles. Not sure what you were trying to imply with that, especially since the article is not written in a biased manner. I don't believe I've ever made any sort of NPOV edits to anything Paul related, if I did that was a mistake, but I do not believe I did. The only thing I can think of are stylistic article choices. Calibrador (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Really Shankbone? the guy that took random celebrity pics and never had a COI or ever pushed his POV across wikimedia? only a handful of his celebrity pics were with his name in the image title which i mentioned above, we ALLOW...not 100% of his images..He rarely if at all replaced someone's images with his own unless it was outdated and I doubt he made a single-cent out of doing this..I would be really surprised if he was ever dragged onto any of the WP:AN boards..and again, you are deflecting..Now you are claiming that users like Lady Lotus and I made "bad" crops?. Are you seriously suggesting that for example, this image by Lady Lotus was so "badly cropped" than you just had to replace it with this image of yours? or replacethis with your cropped version or replacethis image with one of yours for the exact same reason.. I don't think you care about the quality of your images cause if you did and you thought your version was BETTER, you would have uploaded your version over the "same image" that you were trying to replace, instead of uploading a same if not similar crop with again, your name in the image title...I have told you on multiple occasion that if any user on enwiki or commons finds an image on flick with a free licence and they find there is a need for that image on ANY of the 700 odd wikis we have (300 of which are wikipedias), they will freely be allowed to upload that image to commons so if you have a problem with it, please, feel free to change the license of your images on flickr to ARR (All Rights Reserved) but at the same time, you won't be allowed to upload those images here either without scrutiny....and regarding the PrairieKid edit, If you actually see the history, he changed an image because another user reverted my edit because he didn't understand why my "revert" of your edit was a "self-promotion" because you had your name changed which is why you did it (you can lie about it many times but we all know why)..infact there was no 3RR by me but I accepted the block because I felt that maybe NOW people might see exactly what I have been saying all along, I don't have to repeat myself again as everything i have said is listed above..You may not see it but even though you have been around since 2009, you still refuse to understand or follow our policies so you have not only violated one, but MANY of our policies over the years and you only got away with it because of your name. I have listed a few of your violations above and on the 3RR thread which you keep going back too, this board is NOT for 3RR....this board is about your attitude on this wiki and how you deal (or lack thereof) with other users and your ability (on inability) to both understand or follow our polices and your insistence of claiming over and over again that you are the victim here when its clear that you are not....So instead of deflecting to me, why don't you tell us why an admin should not block you? and P.S, I'm NOT Hounding you, I'm getting you to talk because over the last 6 years you have been on this wiki, you REFUSE to talk when posed a question and you always ignore hierarchy on this wiki and now when you have this opportune time to save yourself, you deflect, passing the blame onto someone else without realizing that this will only make it worse for you....the only reason I'm replying to your posts is because you keep mentioning my name and pointing fingers at me, i know how to defend myself since I have been in similar situation a few times....Everytime I post, I added more proof regarding your edits, and everytime you posts, its just more accusations hurled at me without an ounce of proof and yet, I'm the one hounding him as you claim....anyways I have wasted too much time on this, I have better things to do across wikimedia--Stemoc 00:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Stemoc, first off, you gotta learn to not slap up these giant text walls that make the average editor's eyes glaze over, and tone down your use of caps. That said, it appears to me you have a number of decent points. There is no doubt that Cali/Gage has utterly and repeatedly failed for years now to discuss and come to consensus, except when he is lying, which I document above. I'm hoping by keeping this thread open that others will come forth, so we can establish what kind of sanctions Cali/Gage will be facing. There is growing consensus something has to be done. Cool out, man. Jusdafax 02:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Haha, yeah can't help it bro, once I have something to talk about, my wall can be higher than the Great Wall of China..I actually cut myself short there cause most of the things that needed to be said has already been said....I have mentioned a few times that i use Bolds or Caps or "quotes" for "emphasis" only, I'm not really "shouting"..I agree, this has dragged far too long and needs to be solved once and for all...I have no interests in making edits to the wikipedia-space as i prefer most if not all my edits to be on the main space..--Stemoc 02:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Three words: Use paragraph breaks. BMK (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I was notified about this discussion on my talk page. I do not favor an indefinite block of Gage Skidmore (the username change was in bad faith, however, and should be reversed imo). Though he has demonstrated a strong POV against notable minor candidates for office as I documented here, my main issue with Skidmore is his lack of communication, specifically his refusal to discuss contentious edits he makes in furtherance of his POV. Nevertheless, based on what he has written above, I believe he has the potential to change. He adds great content to articles and wikipedia should not eliminate his ability to do so through an indefinite block. A 1RR restriction seems like a fair remedy. This may encourage him to discuss his edits (as part of the WP:BRD method) rather than reverting reverts without providing any justification.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
At this point I think it would be very wise to consider implementing an interaction ban between myself and Stemoc, I don't conceive this ever resolving amicably as far as their prerogative goes, so I think this would be the best way to not be disruptive. Calibrador (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose such interaction ban since the only one to benefit from it would be the proposer himself, who would get rid of a vocal critic. Criticism that IMO is justified, because like many others here I see Calibrador's activities as using Wikipedia for promotion. Thomas.W talk 16:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - Yup Thomas's hit the nail on the head - WP:IBAN states and I quote "The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved - There is no conflict - It's simply one (well actually quite alot) of editors unhappy with you and your self promotion here. –Davey2010Talk 17:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment If they were civil about it, I wouldn't have made the request. Unfortunately they are one of the most uncivil people I have ever had interaction with. Calibrador (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
They have been civil tho so that doesn't wash either..... –Davey2010Talk 20:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - per Thomas W. I'm fed up, obviously. As I comment above, Stemoc's off-putting delivery is annoying, and post-block, he needs to cool that down. But Stemoc's got some valid points, and I for one am glad he's making the push to inform the wider community about Calibrador's promotional and conflicted edit history. This self-serving proposal merely continues that pattern, and coming in the midst of an ongoing discussion of boomerang sanctions against Calibrador, is arguably disruptive. Cali/Gage has clearly learned nothing from the way this thread has gone. If this is the best he can do, indef him, and we can discuss it without his attempts to turn the discussion. Jusdafax 02:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Proposal for a ban on Calibrador/Gage Skidmore to add his name as author/photographer to articles on en-WP[edit]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Credits we should notcredit the image author or copyright holder in the article, unless relevant to the subject, but just having taken a photo of the subject of an article does not IMO make the photographer "relevant to the subject". So I propose a ban on Calibrador/Skidmore to add his name as creator/author/photographer to articles on the English language Wikipedia, whether it's done in the image caption, as a footnote, as a reference (yes I've seen his name added as <ref>Author: Gage Skidmore</ref> to articles, so that his name appears among the references at the bottom of the page, see Matt Groening) or in any other way. Having his name on the image page, visible when clicking the image, should be more than enough. Several proposals to add image attributions to articles have been made through the years, but all have AFAIK failed, so we should go by what MOS says, that is no image attribution unless relevant to the subject of the article. Thomas.W talk 16:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment Any actual mention of my name in an article, whether that includes a reference like you mentioned, or in the caption, was not done by me, and I oppose that as well. Calibrador (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
What about taking that to ArbCom so that arbitrators decide what to do? --TL22 (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, because no admin wants to dig into this murky time sink. But who's gonna file it? Jusdafax 13:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Not moaning but I guess Arbcom's better than no action at all, I wish an admin would deal with it tho but there we go. –Davey2010Talk 22:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Gone through this 3 times so definitely won't go through it the 4th time, An admin should deal with this now..as i said before, I have no time for this type of stupidity and also, this is not ArbCom worthy as its an open and shut case of policy violation..any high ranking and uninvolved admin should post a verdict in the next few days as this has dragged far too long....--Stemoc 03:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Support You do have the MOS on your side. We can just remove them whenever they are in violation. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Onel5969 repeated removal of WikiProject talk page banner[edit]
After the reported user first deleted the WikiProject Organized Labour banner, I sought feedback from my fellow project members at our project talk page, at which time I discovered that the reported user had nominated the article for exclusion from the project. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour#Americans for Prosperity. Significantly, the reported user made no mention of his anti-nomination at article talk. Please see Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Article Wikiprojects and rating.3F. I nominated the article for inclusion in the project, briefly summarizing the evidence for inclusion. A fellow project member concurred for inclusion, as did a third editor. Subsequent to an explanation of WP:PROJSCOPE from another editor at article talk, and subsequent to a consensus for inclusion at project talk, in which both threads the reported user participated, the reported user reverted the project add five more times. Reported user's article talk page comments and edit summaries seem to indicate familiarity with WP:PROJSCOPE; possible WP:IDHT. Respectfully request administrator clarification of WP:PROJSCOPE to reported user. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Hugh (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
"This issue has just been resolved" No, this issue was referred here from WP:EWN by the closing administrator Darkwind, who explained that repeated removal of a WikiProject banner from an article talk page was beyond the core scope of WP:EWN, of article space edit warring, please see the closing comment. Respectfully request assistance with a WP:IDHT issue with guideline WP:PROJSCOPE. Respectfully request administrator clarification of WP:PROJSCOPE to reported user. "A WikiProject's participants define the scope of their project (the articles that they volunteer to track and support), which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then do not edit-war to remove the banner." Thank you in advance for your time in addressing this issue. Hugh (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
You really don't get it, do you HughD? That's not what the closing admin said. The issue regarding the revert was closed on that page, as per the closing comment by Darkwind at the top of the discussion. Period. Darkwind's comment to which you allude, was at the end of the discussion, and was referring to your ludicrous request, here's the quote, "The admonishment/warning you seek is beyond the scope of this noticeboard". But again, not shocked to see you misrepresenting stuff once again. And continuing to fail to acknowledge consensus. Onel5969TT me 20:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
If you honestly believe that Wikipedia guidelines are not being followed, and the disruption is severe enough to warrant administrative action, open a thread at WP:ANI. is pretty clear. --Izno (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:WikiProject Council/Guide clearly lays out that a WikiProject ("WP") can choose to include (or disinclude) a page in its scope. A consensus-gathering action is presently ongoing at WT:WP OL regarding this subject, so from that point ANI is clearly the wrong discussion forum.On the point of whether the guideline was not followed, so much so as to warrant administrator action against Onel, I would disagree, and personally find the edit restriction as provided for at AN3 to be sufficient for now. Suggest closing this discussion. --Izno (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Checking myself, it appears to me as if the discussion at WT:WP OL has stalled as of June 18, and some of the reverts above are from later in June. There seem to be editors on the talk page of the article who (perhaps?) still disagree with inclusion. I disagree with the aspersion of WP:CANVASS - the use of the WikiProject's talk page to discuss the article in question certainly un-cavass-like to me, even if the contesting editors were not invited to join in the discussion at WT:WP OL for the second go-around.In conclusion, I would suggest someone get an RFC or similar together on one of the talk page to consider inclusion, ensuring they also notify all of the original editors who are interested in the (dis)inclusion of the topic under that WikiProject, as well as maybe also notifying the editors of the other listed WikiProjects. --Izno (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. The discussion at WT:WP OL did not so much stall out as end once two project members and a non-member concurred on inclusion, which simply seemed sufficient to us for satisfying the antecedent condition to "do not remove" in WP:PROJSCOPE. If WP:EWN is not the forum for repeated reversions of a project banner, and WP:ANI is not, what is? I recognize I have many, many RfCs in my future if Americans for Prosperity is to make it to good, so I am not adverse to that recommendation, but frankly I was hoping a project banner add might not be one of them. WP:PROJSCOPE reads to me as if the intention was that an RfC for a banner add should not be necessary. My humble read of WP:PROJSCOPE is that the clear request not to edit war was us all more or less agreeing with each other that project adds are way too silly to war over. I filed this hoping someone would simply say to the reported user "please stop," and we could all move on. I am not seeking a block or official wrist slap of any kind, just a little help educating an editor. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
You misunderstood me somewhere in there. ANI is the appropriate place for discussion of the content dispute from a behavioral standpoint, and my opinion on that should already be clear per my second paragraph in my comment at 21:22. (You'll note I said nothing of your behavior…. [ominous ellipsis, to be clear])As for the recommendation regarding an RFC, you did not include the editors who disagreed with you when you posed the re-raised question at WT:WP OL. This means I do not find it clear myself whether there is consensus for the project to include or not the project banner in question, and this is why you were slapped with an allegation of canvassing. --Izno (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Please help me understand how the edit restriction addresses the problem of this report? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
"...you did not include the editors who disagreed with you when you posed the re-raised question at WT:WP OL." An RfC is our mechanism for assessing community-wide consensus on a issue. A thread on project talk is our mechanism for assessing project-wide consensus. WP:PROJSCOPE is rather strongly worded; a project's scope in terms of article inclusion is unusual in guidelines in that it is specifically exempted from community-wide consensus: "A WikiProject's participants define the scope of their project...if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then do not edit-war to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article..." Reasonable persons may disagree with this, but there it is. In asking me to RfC a project banner add, are you asking me to right some perceived wrong? WP:PROJSCOPE does not require an RfC for inclusion of an article in a project. In fact, I read WP:PROJSCOPE as in effect us saying to each other, look, guys, adding an article to a project is way too trivial to edit war about, and it is way too trivial to RfC. What is your read? In asking me to RfC a project banner add, you are asking me to jump through a hoop beyond guideline. A key point in filing this report is that the reported user participated in a thread at project talk at which project members concurred on the project banner add, with no dissenting project members, and subsequently deleted the project banner five more times. The antecedent condition for "do not edit war" in guideline was met. Respectfully, please reconsider your recommendation. Respectfully, I came here seeking a very little help with a simple issue of an editor needing a straight-forward clarification of a guideline that is clearly intended to help prevent edit warring, and upon reflection I still think it is a reasonable request, and I ask again for help here. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Please help me understand how in your view an RfC is necessary for a project participant to add a project banner to an article talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I did advise HughD(tc) to post here about his request for someone to admonish Onel5969(tc) about the WikiProject banner situation if he still felt it was necessary, because his request was out of scope for WP:ANEW where he originally posted -- not because I find merit in any of the allegations. I encourage everyone to avoid seeing this as forum shopping. Regarding the removal of the WikiProject banners, I have already determined that the removal was not edit warring per se a violation of WP:3RR, although it may be considered a very slow edit war due to the number of reverts. (corrected by —Darkwind (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)) I placed the 1RR restriction on the article and its talk page simply because the contentious behavior related to this article, and the ensuing allegations, are getting out of hand—not specifically(added by —Darkwind (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)) because this instance was edit warring. —Darkwind (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for commenting to confirm the referral and to refute the reported user's defense of charging the reporting user with forum shopping. Thank you very much for your efforts to restore a collaborative environment at Americans for Prosperity. I am committed to restoring a collaborative environment and I look forward to your continued engagement. I view making explicit the broader stakeholders in a good Americans for Prosperity article, beyond WikiProject Conservatism, as a small but important step toward improving the collaborative environment, and I ask all for support here in that. Hugh (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
"Regarding the removal of the WikiProject banners, I have already determined that the removal was not edit warring per se." When you suggested WP:ANI, I thought fine, whatever, wrong forum, live & learn, I'll refile. Respectfully, upon reflection I find I do not understand how this is not edit warring. I understand it is not 3RR, but there was a 2RR in 6 hours on 18 June, and I understand there is such a thing as a slow edit war. Is it not an edit war because it is talk page editing? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Please help me understand why this is not edit warring. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly why I phrased my comment above that way; in my ANEW closing I did not actually state my view on whether there was an edit war in this case. Reviewing it again, it could probably be called a slow edit war, but that would not have changed the action I took of applying a page restriction under discretionary sanctions. I'm also not sure why you're so eager to call it an edit war, HughD(tc); since you're the one who was putting the project banners back in, you'd be equally guilty of edit warring. —Darkwind (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Can somebody ask User:Dubs boy to stop harassing me on my talk page? After what I considered unacceptable behaviour at Talk:Derry, I posted there saying I was not willing to continue the discussion, and saying, "Please respect that and don't continue to pester." Ten minutes later he was back, trying to bait me. Rather than rise to the bait on the article talk page, I posted to his user talk page, asking him to desist. I specifically said, "Also, please do not respond to this by posting to my talk page." He responded by deleting my post and attacking me on my talk page. I answered his post, and said, "Please do not post on my talk page again. If you do I will have to take it further." Apparently, he took this as an invitation, because there was another attack this afternoon. The reason I asked him not to post to my talk page in the first place is that this had happened before (me opting out of discussion, him baiting me, me telling him I mean it when I say I'm not continuing, him deleting it, him baiting me on my talk page). In hindsight, perhaps I should not have rejoined the discussion at Talk:Derry. But I have a right to state my views without fear of being bullied, and I have a right to expect that I will not be harassed on my own talk page. Scolaire (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
If I read this correctly, I made Scolaire come to my talk page. And when he was there he told me not to comment on his talk page. This was triggered by me NOT commenting on his talk page.
2. At this point I cleaned my entire talk page of discussion, not just Scolaire's point.
3. I responded to his comment at his talk page only for him to blank it saying that he didn't want to discuss any further.
4. Then responds at my page. I responded to his comment then blanked my page as I no longer wanted to engage with a user with such erratic behavior.
5. Fast forward 2 weeks at he's back at my page again, telling to stop baiting him. Baiting him into coming to my page to shower me with abuse? He also told me not to comment at his page. I don't think he is in a position to come to my talk page unprovoked by anything at his own page, to tell me NOT to post at his page. I blanked my page.
6. He baited me into responding to his comment at his page. If he was so offended by my edit, why then did he respond?
7. Now I find myself at ANI because Scolaire can't keep off my page.
All the while a discussion has been going on at Talk:Derry. A discussion in which Scolaire has exhibited irrational behaviour, first by claiming the original RFC had failed, then claiming that the RFC wasn't a failure with a vote count, then goes on to say that an RFC is not a vote. Hard to follow.Dubs boy (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
To add that Scolaire has been extremely dismissive of my comments at Talk:Derry, and demeaning of my opinion, without presenting any physical opposition argument, this along with claiming I am a minority in a phoney 11-4 RFC vote, would make anyone struggle to believe that I am the bully and oppressor. I think action should be taken against this user and his disruptive approach to dealing with issues and other peoples opinions.Dubs boy (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Scolaire has come across as a user going out of his way to be offended but was happy to laugh at a similar situation here.Dubs boy (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Scolaire had also made a blind revert of this edit with the reasoning "no, it's not". Valid point? My edit was restored and had support at a discussion I had started at the same article talk page. Note that Scolaire did not join the conversation.Dubs boy (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
He also felt the need to troll and follow me to another users page.Dubs boy (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Nick, please read this Talk [page] again and show me exactly where you have stated a preference. All you have stated is that the decision was based on WP:CONSENSUS. Quoting policy is not quite the same as stating your own preference, nor a reason for keeping something the same. Scolaire has come to my page twice to pester and harass me, not the other way around.Dubs boy (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, for God's sake. You presented several options, one of which was "Title:Derry - nothing changes". I wrote, repeatedly, in favour of that option, and I explained my reasons - because it's a long-standing agreed compromise which satisfies most editors on a question that cannot be definitively resolved, and there is no consensus to change it. For some reason you refuse to accept that, and like a really annoying toddler you bleat "but why? but why? but why?" every time I tell you.
WP:CONSENSUS is "the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia". If you continue to behave the way you have behaved over this issue, refusing to WP:LISTEN to what others are saying and repeatedly pestering them to give different replies to your question because you don't like the one they've given, you will give yourself such a reputation for disruptiveness you'll struggle to get consensus that the sky is blue. --Nicknack009 (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Simply saying that consensus hasn't changed is not a reason. Tell me why you think the article is neutral in its current form? Tell me why we have ignored the results of an Equality Impact Assessment? This is going off topic. Scolaire trolled me to my page twice and is now trying to get me blocked for responding to his harassment. Ridiculouso.Dubs boy (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
See what I mean? he just will not accept the answers he receives. He's either trolling or incompetent. Admin action, please. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Are you serious? Ok. I honestly thought that there would be some onus on an editor to present an opposition argument. Someone explain to me how stating "consensus hasn't changed" is a reason for not making a change. Surely those opposed to a suggestion have to provide a tangible reason as to why they are opposed? This is still off topic but here we have 2 users ganging up on me yet I am the "bully". Scolaire has raised this issue, obviously skipping some of the key events. I have presented a timeline. Let the admins decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubs boy (talk • contribs) 16:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Just to add - very odd how Dubs Boy complains above that Scolaire has been "dismissive of his input" at Talk:Derry, and doesn't see the irony making [comments regarding my Topic Ban] (which he knows is on a different topic relating to inseting/removing the term British Isles). His comment is clearly designed to shut down my participation and belittle/devalue any disenting voices. Looking at the history of Dubs Boy's editing, it certaing appears that he is disruptive and combative at all times and does not not the meaning of how to collegiately reach consensus and/or edit. I am not suggesting this course of action as some petty "revenge" (although no doubt it might be seen as such by some) but may I suggest (as I believe) a temporary Topic Ban on his participation at Derry related topics might be in order. Perhaps if he tries editing other topics where he is not so emotionally involved, not only will WP improve overall, but perhaps it would do him some good also. -- HighKing++ 19:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
And where there is 1 there is always another. Birds of a feather. Very odd that you should show up here Popaice. Where have you been the last 3 months? Weird that you just happen to stroll by. In ref to topic ban, I honestly was just asking? I assumed that when you didn't respond that you were in fact topic banned. If you had responded with "No, I am not topic banned", then you would have nothing to worry about. In saying that, its very hard to keep up with your blocks and sockpuppettry.Dubs boy (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to engage any further. I would like to point out that Dubs Boy was [previously warned by Cailil] that a repeat of any behaviour such as we are seeing now would result in a block under WP:TROUBLES. -- HighKing++ 19:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair point. I'll not bring up your past any further. I'll just lift the rug. Though you haven't exactly engaged, Just laid the boot in. See you in 3 months again when another friend needs support.Dubs boy (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Adds unsourced material, eg. [21], despite warnings. Never adds edit summaries, despite requests to. Does not respond to talk page requests from other editors. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I only saw the one revert, but he is actually right. Took me 10 seconds to find the citation for it at [22] The best thing is to just put it back with that reference. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I also linked him to the essay WP:Communication is required. If someone is going to revert back, they need to be willing to discuss it, via WP:BRD. Since I've found the citation, told him on his talk page, I think we can wrap this up for now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Here's the person's edit analysis. Behold and be awed.Yeah, discussed this person here a while back. The general consensus of the admin corps was leave him alone, he makes occasional minor mistakes and won't talk, but his overall contributions are net positive by far, so let him carry on. Herostratus (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Cliff1911 has more than 40,000 edits and it looks like every one of them is mainspace. He hasn't used an edit summary in his last few thousand edits, and may never have used them. He adds material to articles, much of it potentially useful, but never adds sources. He has had hundreds of comments left on his talk page, but has never responded, ever. This is the world's worst case of WP:IDHT. How do you deal with an editor who refuses to follow policy and refuses to communicate about not following policy? Alansohn (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
In the past, IPs have gotten blocks around here just because they won't respond to Talk page comments. I've got to think the same would apply to account-holding editors. This is supposed to be a collaborative environment, and not responding to queries, etc. pretty much destroys that. The other editor I can think of in this vein is basically a Wikignome, and about 80% of his edits are constructive, while the other 20% are more unhelpful, but their edits are so gnomish that no one has pursued it further in that case. But I'm of the opinion that not responding to queries at all is unhelpful, no matter the "quality" of the edits, and can and should be the basis for Admin action. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The editor helps create content without creating drama. Leave him alone. GregJackPBoomer! 04:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Editors don't edit or create content in a vacuum. Is an editor really adhering to the fourth pillar if they never communicate... well, ever?! Look, I'm not saying to block for not communicating in this instance. But the discussion on their Talk page is entirely correct – the first time this editor commits an infraction, possibly even an inadvertent one, they're likely to end up indef blocked because the Admins will have no other choice if they never communicate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Amazing that the only non-mainspace edits were also article edits, to an article that's now in someone's userspace (and someone might want to take a look at that too). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd probably recommend an attention getting block. I can't remember the name of the editor but I remember a similar case from a year or so back where an editor refused to reply to comments on talk pages. If I remember correctly, it took 1-2 blocks for him to realize that people meant business and he eventually began responding to comments and leaving edit summaries. Honestly... at this point he's been getting so many warnings that at this point the only way to show him that we're serious about talking with other editors is to actually back up our words with actions. While he may have made beneficial edits, he's also made some non-beneficial edits and he's continued to do this despite several very clear warnings about a lack of sourcing. I'm of the mind that his continued actions (despite warnings) shows a refusal to follow the rules. If this were any other editor he'd have been given at least 1-2 warning blocks by now. The only reason he hasn't received them is because he hasn't responded to anything. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support attention-getting block. If he were just making helpful edits, it would be no issue. But there's some problems with his edits. Looking at his talk page, he doesn't just add info, he removes it without explanation, and does not respond/correct various problems like disambiguation links he adds. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course, it's worth noting that the result of that was that the blocked user in question went the sockpuppet route... [[File:|25px|link=]] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support attention-getting block. If he doesn't want to communicate with people that is absolutely fine, but that does not mean that he can continue editing in a way which, whilst it is not going to break enWiki, has received sufficient attention here and on his talk page from numerous editors that it is now disruptive. I don't really see a material difference between his behaviour and point 5 of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. His behviour is taking up more and more of other editor's time. I don't really see why he should not be blocked until he states, however briefly that he will act on the repeated suggestions of the community as I don't see a single post on his talk page that could be deemed to be a positive reaction to his editing. If he then wishes to return to silence that is his choice Fenix down (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Not yet. We've had a few of these lately, which inspired me to write WP:ENGAGE. The key here is asking how much disruption has he caused. One or two recent reverts is not enough. I've put him on notice, pointed him to the information that he can get blocked if he continues to revert without talking about it, the fair thing is to wait and see if he stops reverting. No one is required to talk here, as long as they aren't doing something that requires talking. The last thing we want to do is run someone off when it isn't necessary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
"Not yet"? "Leave him/her alone"? Cliff1911 has made 40,000 edits in seven years, refuses to leave edit summaries, refuses to communicate and -- most fundamentally -- refuses to add sources for anything. If either Dennis Brown or Anthonyhcole would follow every one of Cliff1911's edits and add the reliable and verifiable sources required for these edits, I'd have no issue. Until then, we have an editor who refuses to follow bedrock Wikipedia policy and who seems to be operating in their own encyclopedia, not ours. Alansohn (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The issue with this is that he's done this for years and he's been receiving warnings about his various edits since 2008. This post from 2011 shows that he'd been warned several times. He's clearly been warned dozens upon dozens of times about his editing and at this point he should be clearly aware that we want him to at least respond when people have issue with him. I mean, he's been brought to ANI TWICE, both in2013. He never responded in either circumstance and he was never blocked. At this point he's extremely unlikely to pay any attention to further warnings. I mean, at this point our lack of action is pretty much giving him the message that not only are his actions OK, but that Wikipedia is condoning his actions because he made a lot of edits. I mean, that's the message I'm getting from all of this, that an editor can be problematic and have the same problems over a period of six years and never actually have to face repercussions for repeatedly going against people's requests and Wikipedia policy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Think about it this way: if he'd responded to us and basically told us "no way, I'm going to keep doing this, forget you guys" then we'd have at least blocked him temporarily. Well, that's pretty much what he's telling us with his outright refusal to even respond to anything. I mean, what does he care? If we continue on the way we have, he has nothing to fear - he doesn't have to change since people will argue that his amount of edits gives him immunity. (And yes, that is essentially what is being said here.) The length and amount of edits are nothing to sneeze at, but right now this is pretty much setting a dangerous example, that Wikipedia will turn a blind eye to problematic editors if they exist long enough on Wikipedia and edit enough. I mean, come on guys- this guy isn't going to change unless we make him pay attention and if he's not going to change then he's going to continue to make problematic edits, leave no edit summary, and refuse to talk with other editors. I'm not saying we should hang his head on a spike and never allow him to edit again, but clearly he's not going to change or respond unless he's at least given a 2-3 day (or even a week) block that forces him to stop and respond. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
When I get time, I'm going to try to count how many of his last 50-100 edits have been unsourced. I'd say that the bulk of them (like 70-80%) appear to unsourced and while these aren't huge BLP concerns (ie, he's not saying that Cher married a fish), they're still BLP concerns because they're unsourced. He's fully aware that we require sources, yet he also refuses to source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
You don't have to add citations to your edits. If someone challenges what you add without a good citation they may delete your contribution. I'm fairly sure edit summaries aren't mandatory either - at least, they weren't the last time I looked. Perhaps I misunderstood the above, but I thought his/her contributions were good faith efforts and generally good. I thought he/she wasn't vandalising, edit-warring or in any other way harming the encyclopaedia. If I've got that wrong, I apologise. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
This is correct, though most people start to get upset when they keep finding their edits get reverted and either learn policy or quit. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 15:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Refusing to talk isn't a violation of policy, and specifically, a person can NOT be compelled to participate at ANI. He's been put on notice: if he edit wars (an actual violation), then he will be blocked. Blocking him solely because we want him to talk isn't supported in policy. Unless someone can point to a specific policy that he is violating, then a block won't stand, as it would blocking to force them to do what we WANT them to do, not what policy requires. We aren't here to do that. There are many, many individuals like this here at Wikipedia, who act in good faith but won't talk. I'm not prepared to get into the psychology of it, but it is common enough. If he edit wars, I will happily block for 24 hours the first time, and otherwise follow normal procedure for behavioral issues. Not talking, by itself, is not a behavioral policy violation. It is a pain, but not a violation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I've spun through the last couple of hundred edits by this editor, and I cannot see any obvious clear policy violation other than possibly mild violations of WP:BLP through adding unsourced content. Most of the work seems to be insignificant plot summary gnoming. As Dennis says, if he starts to edit-war or violate real policies that can be backed with diffs, we'll look into it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 15:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's where I am now too. But I agree with the discussion on his Talk page as well – if it ever comes to a block, it'll probably have to be an indef, as that may be the only way to get this editor to communicate... In the meantime, if this editor continues to add anymore unsourced info to any BLPs, they should simply be reverted as a matter of course. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely do not block this person. The only question for this particular person, since he's so unusual, is: is he a net positive, or not? If he's not, kick him off for good. If he is, leave him alone.
We cannot be at all certain that he is even aware of the existence of his user page, his talk page, or article talk pages, or how to use them. Any block of this person would perforce be permanent in my opinion, since he would presumably continue editing exactly as before when the block expires (which would then require longer and longer blocks, unless we were to back down), and he would presumably be unwilling (or possibly unable) to request reinstatement.
Some situations just need a good leaving alone. This is one of them. Herostratus (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The question we should be asking is whether the disruption caused by this editor outweighs their positive contributions. While Dennis Brown's essay is very good and highlights good reasons why users should strive to communicate, there is no policy that requires any user to respond to talk messages or to use edit summaries, and I think it sets a poor precedent to start sanctioning users just because they don't use their talk pages. From what I see, this is an editor who is occasionally an inconvenience, but the disruption is extremely minor, and a long way off from being blocked under WP:CIR or any other guideline/policy. We all probably have better things to do. Ivanvector (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
While it may not be an "explicit policy", communication is absolutely in an implicit requirement of the fourth pillar. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The calls for an "attention-getting block" are ridiculous. So this guy/gal operates in this odd way -- big deal. On balance he's way more helping than hurting, so leave him for God's sake alone. EEng (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
We can, but you've got to figure that he's had dozens of complaints over his edits and thousands of unsourced BLP edits. He's been asked to explain his edits multiple, multiple times. My biggest point with this is that the only thing he has going for him is that he's edited a lot. It's kind of well... this is what people talk about when they say that we play favorites. We could just ignore him now, but I can guarantee that he's going to end up being brought up at ANI again and I can guarantee that he's going to continue to collect complaints on his talk page from multiple different editors. Maybe it seems like this is all minor, but what we have here is essentially someone who is following their own rules and doesn't even have the consideration to at least respond to people's complaints. He's not following Wikipedia's rules, he's following his rules. If the two come together, then that seems to be mostly coincidental than anything else - he's been warned about several policies (using citations, for example)... and his reaction was to continue to ignore those policies. It looks pretty clear that nothing is going to be done to him, but I still have to extend the warning that eventually it's going to become necessary. He's adding BLP material without any sort of citation. The material may seem minor, but what happens when he adds something major? Something that someone might actually want to complain to Wikipedia about? What do we do then? Just say "oh, he edits a lot and refuses to talk to anyone, but he edits a lot, he gets a pass"? He doesn't have to write a book or anything, but to my knowledge he's never spoken to anyone since he's signed up with Wikipedia and there have been multiple complaints about him - and those are just the ones on his talk page and at ANI. I have no doubt that there are probably at least a few dozen more in the edit summaries of the articles he's edited. Long story short, at some point we're going to have to deal with his BLP violations (even though they may seem minor to some) and his constant refusal to talk to anyone or to even follow basic guidelines. If he'd at least started using citations in his edits that'd be some improvement, but I don't see where he's ever really done even that. I really don't think that a long edit history and seemingly beneficial edits should give you immunity to everything on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
If you want to keep pushing this, you need to stop saying he has to use citations. Except in certain circumstances, citations aren't actually required. Is he disruptively restoring unsourced material removed by other editors? I really get the feeling a few people just can't stand this guy's eccentricity. It's weird but leave him alone. EEng (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Uh... sourcing absolutely is a requirement on BLPs, which is what this discussion has been about. Yeah, sure, explicit sourcing isn't needed on all articles. But it pretty much always in on BLPs – adding unsourced material to BLPs is definitely not "OK" in most of the circumstances that count. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Is he putting in negative or controversial BLP material? And the graph above showing how all his edits are to articles....we are here to build an encyclopedia, so someone who is dominated by article edits doesn't inspire me to instablock. We keep rehashing the same arguments, but he has been warned, and unless he has new actions that warrant a block, then blocking is improper. And this talk of an indef block is completely out of policy. We use escalating blocks as needed, we don't indef block someone out of the gate for stuff like this. The tone is almost vindictive and I simply don't understand why, and frankly, it doesn't matter: we don't block punitively, we block to prevent disruption, meaning even if he needed a block, it should be proportional to the risk he poses, NOT just to twist his arm. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Dennis, please see what I said above, as a follow-up to Ritchie – I don't think a block here is appropriate right now. That said, if this editor is adding unsourced material to BLPs, it should essentially be reverted as a matter of course. I'd like to believe that such reversions much get this editor to actually communicate then, but I suspect it's too much to hope for... But my overall point stands – we are building an encyclopedia together, in a collaborate environment, and as such communication is key. Those editors that choose not to communicate (like, at all) will sooner or later likely crop up as a problem. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, when that actually happens we can deal with it. Or are we putting people in jail now for crimes we predict they will commit? EEng (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think the problem is that Cliff's editing is already an issue – not a "blockable" issue – but an issue (e.g. adding content without sources, adding overlong plot summaries as was potentially done at The Postman (film), etc.), nonetheless. Which I think is Tokyogirl79's point. And that's where the lack of a communication becomes a problem – without communication, there's little hope of getting across exactly what others' problems with Cliff's editing is (the details just won't come across in single templated messages, even assuming Cliff is reading those), or prodding Cliff to change and improve as an editor. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
That's pretty much my point: he's already done things that people have had issues with and he's had people flat out ask him to source material and to communicate. He's done neither of those things despite many, many, many requests. There's something very troublesome about the fact that we have an editor that continually refuses to add sources to articles or talk to anyone. The lack of communication wouldn't be as huge of an issue if he would just do something to show that he's actually listening to anything anyone says to him. That's what is most concerning here - he doesn't even seem to show that he's willing to do even the smallest amount of work to back up a fact with a source. It doesn't matter if it's something seemingly small or not - what bothers me is the implication here that Cliff is essentially editing by his own rules. Not Wikipedia's rules, but Cliff's rules. What if something changes and it's something that's direly serious? He clearly doesn't respond to comments on his talk page or anywhere else, nor does he even show any indication that it has even registered? That leaves Wikipedia liable for pretty much everything that he writes. It may seem small because the edits seem inconsequential to everyone else, but what if he writes something that's blatantly incorrect and someone takes serious offense to it? He's obviously not going to respond at that point in time either, nor will he likely pay any attention to anything anyone writes. Basically, what bothers me most here is his continued refusal to communicate and his displayed indifference to the fact that people have repeatedly asked him to edit within policy. Odds are that this is going to end with nothing done to him, but mark my words - this will be back on ANI in the future and eventually something will have to be done. I just really dislike the fact that the only thing this guy has going for him is a long edit history. We've temp blocked newer users with less edits for stuff like this (small edits that seem inconsequential, no communication) so it just seems massively unfair for us to allow an older user to get away with this. I mean, people accuse us of having a bias all the time and while most of the time it's full of crap, stuff like this does kind of lend credence to this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Let me give an example: He was threatened with a blcok by an editor on his talk page for adding someone to the list of people born in Goldfield, Nevada. It was a final warning. It took me all of 5 seconds to find a source proving this fact: [23] (there are others, I just grabbed this one). It was an uncontroversial fact about someone who died 13 years ago. Magnolia677 threatening him was completely inappropriate. It wasn't a BLP issue. People put in correct but unsourced facts all the time, it is how a Wiki works. WP:V does NOT require we source all facts. It requires than they are able to be sourced, and it assumes that someone else will source them. Obviously contentious facts about living people should be avoided, but this isn't the case here, this was a matter of where a dead guy was born. It isn't against policy to add this to an article, and it isn't proper to warn. Period. Revert as unsourced or simply go find a source like I did, we are here to build an encyclopedia, after all, but you don't warn or block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the level 4 on that was overkill. So was the level 1 vandalism warning that Cliff just got from User:NeoBatfreak for the additions to The Postman (film) – Cliff's plot summaries there might have been over-long, but they certainly weren't vandalism... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Dennis Brown, it's impressive that it too you "all of 5 seconds to find a source". The problem is that Cliff1911 refused to spend those 5 seconds. He's never done it. He won't add sources, he won't leave edit summaries and he won't respond to talk page messages. If you're willing to clean up the crap he leaves behind after each and every edit of his, adding the required sources that he refuses to add, that's great for you, but Cliff1911 isn't doing that. We're here to build an encyclopedia by working collaboratively; he isn't. Alansohn (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
That pie chart must be unique for that number of edits on Wikipedia. However, what nobody has noticed or cared to mention is he extroadinary cyclic monthly editing pattern. Now that tells a story, but not one for which I am going to commit an indiscretion by publicly hypothesising. I say we leave well alone. If he does s do something egregious enough to be blockworthy, we block, but certainly not before. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
A further thought: If this person was editing anonymously on rapidly changing IP addresses, we wouldn't even know they existed, let alone be talking about "attention-getting blocks". We would just wonder why none of these constructive IP's bothered to register. Perhaps this tells us why. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 20:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC).
I'm curious, can anyone who has already investigated the particulars here tell us if there is any history of even light edit warring or other efforts to force his preferred version of content without discussion? At first blush, I am inclined to agree that refusal to discuss content and procedure is grounds for some kind of action, but if the editor never quibbles over reversion of his content, I'd need to see more information that details instances where his decision not to engage led to unambigous disruption. Even if that disruption were very minor, I'd probably support a short block to try to make it clear that collaboration through detailed communication is the rule of thumb here. If, on the other hand, the user never pushes for an edit once it is rejected by one of his fellow editors, and the vast balance of his edits are thought to be beneficial, I'd say there's not much harm in his peculiar manner of involvement in the project -- though clearly it is a less than ideal approach. Afterall, it'd be pretty difficult to reach 40k edits without having some of them challenged, and technically he's not obligated to engage in discussion on any particular content matter -- though he does himself no favours by staying quiet if he in some way breaks policy with his mainspace edits.
And that's the distinguishing point -- I agree with others here who have said that his refusal to engage in discussion is not necesarily in itself a breach of policy or inexcusable, but this does not preclude him from justifiably receiving a block for any of his other behaviour. For example, if upon review his edits are found to too often make unsubstantiated claims lacking appropriate sources, the he certainly should be blocked for that. And for those who have leaped to defend him in a more blanket fashion (some I think from an unworkably abstract position), we wouldn't be blocking him for not talking, but rather for the behaviour that was less ambiguously problematic -- it's just that in this instance he disadvantages himself in not discussing the issues; most admins (and other editors broadly) would be inclined to give him a pass on a few instances, provided his other contributions are overwhelmingly positive and that there is at least some minimal recognition that the concerns raised have been acknowledged and that the editor will work within policy and consensus.
But I find the filing of the ANI to be inadequate in fleshing out the details of this user's contributions to suggest whether such problems already exist or if we are putting the cart before the horse. Personally I have a hard time imagining 40,000 edits without having made at least a few mistakes that require discussion to iron out, but I'm not willing to presume mistakes on only statistical suggestion, and if another editor wants to seek community sanction for problematic behaviour, that behaviour should be detailed more significantly than was done in this case so the rest of us need not search through 40,000 edits nor pass judgement on principle without specific instances of problem editing provided. Snowlet's rap 02:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
A couple of quick points, and hopefully someone will just close the thread: If he does have some edit warring in his past, no one is going to block him now that it is stale. That would be punitive, and we don't do that. Second, putting in facts that aren't sourced isn't blockworthy. Putting back BLP claims might be, but that isn't the issue here. We don't block someone "to make a point"...that is the definition of a punitive block, and is considered abuse of the admin tools. Rich sums it up best above: if this was an IP we wouldn't have even noticed, so we are actually dissuading people from registering with this exercise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
In response to each point: A) Any block or sanction would hardly be punitive if it were meant to address recurrent and ongoing issues, which is the context I was referencing. I just don't know if there are any such issues, and I don't get a definitive sense from anyone who has posted here that we know if such exist. B) I wasn't inquiring about whether the editor in question added information without sourcing it -- I was asking specifically if they have edit warred to keep any such claims in, which is a different matter altogether and most assuredly a blockable offense (and a block would be the only option open to admins/the community in such cases, since Cliff1911 does not seem to want to communicate on the matter to assuage concerns). C) I'm not sure where in my post I gave the impression that we should act "to make a point"; indeed, the very aim of my comments was to inquire if there were any specific and unambiguous violations of policy that this editor's detractors could point to that would require action in order to address (for purely practical reasons, as opposed to vague objections to the refusal to engage generally). Snowlet's rap 11:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user's talk page doesn't have a long history, so anyone can do a quick check. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Talk page behavior from this user show a pretty clear NOTHERE case. I'd say it's time for the BANHAMMER. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Just looking at the talk page and his own admissions made it clear he was not here to build an encyclopedia. Block, talk page access revoked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:54, 5 July 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.
Not that I'm entertaining all this, and I don't have OS access, but how do you know E. B. White is related to her, other than the fact that they share the same last name? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I also just noticed those OS's weren't last week, they were 4 years ago. 2011. This is probably something you should instead forward to the Arbitration committee. Admin don't have access, this is really old, it doesn't look so nefarious to me at first glance, and even though she is on the ArbCom, she would have to recuse from considering it. Just email [email protected] instead. We really can't tell if there is anything to it, nor really do anything here at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Was Gorilla Warfare an oversighter back in 2011, or were these RevDels? And how does the IP know what the content of the deletions is if the IP is not an admin? (Do we have IP admins now?) BMK (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and the IP is from Brazil, and Geolocate says it's a confirmed proxy. I call shenanigans. BMK (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I've reported the IP as a possible open proxy. BMK (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Dennis already blocked it. BMK (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Reporting wasn't needed, I'm fairly capable, have my own scripts ;) Scanned, tested, open on port 80, blocked. I notified GW as none of that has anything to do with the merits or lack thereof. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm no expert in how OS or revdels work but it seems only the editors username was removed and not their edits. Wouldn't that imply that an editor used thier real name as their username then later regretted it and GW just did the clean up for them? I'm not seeing anything nefarious here. Capeo (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Jeez, these aren't OS, they are RevDel. They are a bit unusual, however, so I'm going to peek just a bit more. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, here is the deal. What she did was fine. It wasn't necessarily how I would have done it, but there was no policy violation, nothing nefarious in what she did, period. I can't say why, but trust me, it's nothing. As GW and I are often on the other side of debates and not beholden to each other, I hope you can just take it at that. The IP is just trying to stir the pot. Policy prohibits me from saying more. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Figured as much. Can't this just be closed then? Capeo (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Dennis - there is no violation of policy here and no benefit to continuing discussion about something this old. Thryduulf (talk) 22:53, 5 July 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.
[35] I've just been threatened with being sued for financial damages by the subject of a BLP. The claims he is making are quite ridiculous, court judgements are published see [36]. However, I wouldn't have used a court document had I been aware of WP:BLPPRIMARY. I have WP:PROD'd the article in question as a result. If someone wishes to delete this to remove any legal problems I don't have any objection. This is my first and last foray in WP:BLP. WCMemail 21:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Same IP, another legal threat here. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:55, 5 July 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.
Handpolk is already currently blocked by Bishonen for 48 hours. He has a history of PA, combative, and disruptive editing including at RfA where his vote has been dicounted by Bureaucrats. He generally removes messages he doesn't like from his talk page but has been warned by several admins that should his attitude not change, he can expect loger blocks. Any boomerang effect of this ANI case should be treated as a separate issue if necessary. For any accusations of incorrect use of multiple accounts, SPI is thataway. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC) P.S.: Handpolk now blocked per Sockpuppet investigations/DegenFarang. Bishonen | talk 09:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi,
I want to report User:Handpolk. He keeps harassing me, reverting all of my recent edits, calling all my edits vandalism/spam/etc. He also stalks my every move on Wikipedia, makes personal attacks on my talk page and other talk pages where I try to discuss with other people.
I tried to dicuss disputes with this person, but I couldn't as he keeps writing the same thing all over again and you can't make a proper dicussion with him on anything. He also keeps deleting my every message from his talk page and spams my talk page.
There are more examples of his similar behaviour related to me, but 3 examples should be enough for now. I call this stalking, harassment, vandalism. This user is doing all that on purpose and is trying to engage me in an edit war which I won't take. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you really want to be accusing Handpolk of needlessly calling your edits vandalism? Anyway, near as I can tell, these two are disagreeing over a pair of NBA-related disputes. First, How to describe the current champions in their article, and second, mentioning certain players who have been elected to the NBA Hall of Fame but not yet inducted on team articles. And if this thread is any indication, neither is the other's actions in good faith. However, there does appear to be merit to Sabbatino's arguments. I came somewhat involved in this when noting Sabbatino's removal of an uncited piece of trivia on a hockey article with the summary of "No source + not relevant". Handpolk reverted that 23 minutes later, then immediately reverted another one of Sabbatino's edits with the same "No source + not relevant" summary, despite the fact that the only thing Sabbatino did was convert a plain date into a template format in an infobox. IMO, that was a bad faith revert by Handpolk designed to anger Sabbatino. And I don't get the impression the latter needs much help in that regard. Both are acting in bad faith, but Handpolk does seem to be stalking here. Resolute 17:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I've watched this for a bit, and I agree that both editors are not behaving well. Neither Handpolk, nor Sabbatino have engaged in any article talk page discussion regarding their edits. Handpolk has followed to Sabbatino to other articles, however they all appear to be sports related. He has not changed any edit that Sabbatino has done to non-sports related articles. Also note that Sabbatino has filed at WP: AIV against Handpolk, and a long term harrassment complaint against Handpolk. Neither editor has acted very well, and both editors should be reminded to use the talk page to resolve their dispute instead of constant reverts, and accusations of vandalism. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't disagree with anything. He just started editing everything I edit. That's all. He also started harassing me when he became a stalker. Then he called me a troll and said I personally attacked him. And he didn't even asked to go to talk page as he just started his "fun". Normal users always ask me why I did this or why I did that, but not this person as he just started all those wars for no reason (maybe to make me angry, but I was/am/will be calm, because some people just don't know what discussion means). – Sabbatino (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
If you had the ability to remained calm previously and engaged in normal, collaborative discussion -- we would not be here right now. Handpolk¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Oi, discuss the edits not the editor. Your comment here does nothing but convince admins that maybe there is something to Sabbatino's concerns. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 20:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Pretty difficult not to discuss the editor in ANI but ok, I have modified my prior comment slightly. On talk pages etc, I agree 100%. Many of the comments Sabbatino has made focus on me rather than content, which is a very large part of the problem here. Handpolk¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I warned Sabbatino three times about WP:BOOMERANG but he ignored me...
Our interactions began when he engaged in an edit war, calling it 'idiotic' 'vandalism' and 'irrelevant' another editor updated the Golden State Warriors lede to note they had won the 2015 NBA Finals (1, 2), making repeated personal attacks (4, 5).
Finally, I decided to look at his recent edits to see what kind of editor I was dealing with -- and discovered several other edits I disagreed with. Including on New York Islanders, where another editor added the Islanders had drafted the first Chinese player into the NHL, which he reverted as 'not relevant' and when reverted he called it 'obvious vandalism'.
I will note that another editor has pointed out two of my reverts were incorrect. I was perhaps too hasty in some of my assessments. Particularly on BC Pieno žvaigždės, where it appears he was just fixing a dead link.
Overall the pattern is clear. This editor is disruptive, makes frequent personal attacks, often engages in edit wars, is very difficult to work and collaborate with and relies frequently on original research to arrive at dubious claims of relevance, rather than deferring to RS's. Since he seems to put in a lot of work on sports related articles, it would be a shame to see him indef blocked or topic banned -- however I think a temporary block based on his recent conduct would be in order -- or at the very least an admonishment to remain civil and focus on content and not people. Handpolk¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Handpolk, what was the deal with this diff? You seem to revert Sabbatino with the edit summary "No source + not relevant", but all you did was remove a template and re-insert the same information. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 20:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The first one I saw was removing the first Chinese player drafted into the NHL from the Islanders as 'not relevant' -- which was almost as absurd as when he argued it isn't relevant the Warriors are NBA Champions. It was hard to assume good faith after seeing that and I appear to have made some bad assessments as a result -- that being one of them. Thankfully we have other editors watching these articles who've stepped in to decide which of my reverts were correct and which were not. Handpolk¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Stop imagining facts. I didn't say that it's not relevant that GSW won NBA title. I said it's irrelevant in how many games they did it (4, 5, etc.). And I can discuss, but YOU make personal attacks and then say that I started that. So stop reverting my reverts without no reason and before doing such thing – make sure that you're not reverting a reverted vandalism. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
"I said it's irrelevant in how many games they did it" that was the final iteration of your argument. The first was to remove the entire sentence with the edit summary 'vandalism'. When I reverted you, you started an edit war and made your first talk page comment to me about it: "I made some research and that edit was made on JUNE 17 and it's irrelevant. I wonder how noone saw that garbage sooner. You can report me, but I'm right by reverting that edit." diff. (I'd be curious to know what research you did that informed you the Warriors winning the NBA Finals was 'garbage' and 'irrelevant.') Later you changed your objection to be about the ordering and when I changed that in an attempt to appease you, you still insisted it was 'idiotic' 'vandalism' and 'irrelevant.' After we got a 3rd opinion, you decided the problem was the number of games. Handpolk¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
1. Too bad there was no control over that sentence during NBA Finals as it appeared there before game 6 and kept changing from Cleveland Cavaliers are currently beating GSW in 2015 NBA Finals. to GSW are currently beating... and all that was happening before and during game 6! Of course I wasn't watching game 6, but it's obvious from the logs that during the game there was constant vandalism happening. 2. That sentence was in the middle of the paragraph when it shouldn't been there. 3. I didn't say it's irrelevant that GSW won NBA title. 4. However, it has no relevance in how many games they won or who they defeated. 5.Later you changed your objection to be about the ordering and when I changed that in an attempt to appease you, you still insisted it was 'idiotic' 'vandalism' and 'irrelevant.' – Sorry, but I changed the wording after 3rd opinion was given and you still reverted my edit and started your edit war and you didn't even try to find how that paragraph would appease both of us. You just went your way. When I saw that you didn't listen, I just left that thing alone so you can have it your way... 6. I'm always willing to find a solution to one thing or another, but when a person doesn't try to listen to what I'm trying to say then I just turn around and leave it be. Yes, I could have wrote that edited part in talk page so that we can discuss and correct it, but I didn't as you just kept writing your stuff. 7. I'm done with with hopeless discussion over nothing. But if you start to stalk my every move and harass me like yesterday, I will again report you. Next time go to talk page and try to be civil and LISTEN, and don't bring old stuff for reason, because you are the one who's hot headed, not me and that edit war yesterday was you idea not mine. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
That's not a personal attack. That no pun intended is there for a reason. If it wasn't there then I would consider it as personal attack. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
So you can just say anything and then add (no pun intended) and it's not a personal attack? Well I guess you have an ID if you feel that way (no pun intended). Handpolk¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
PLEASE TAKE NOTE He has started to stalk and revert my edits again. He reverted my edit which removed content which was deleted from Wikipedia. Here:
Self-reverted. My mistake, I did not realize the article had been deleted in the last few hours. Handpolk¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Handpolk is a sockpuppet of nine-time and now permanently banned User:DegenFarang. He should again be banned and his IP blocked. 2005 (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Allegations like that are not allowed. Provide proof of that in the proper venue or retract this attack immediately. Handpolk¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 04:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I've filed a report. You couldn't be more obvious. You can't even edit for a month under a new account without bursting into flames. And don't revert my messages on other user's talk pages or AFD pages. You may want to use the time making yet another identity. 2005 (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I've been on Wikipedia for a year and I have no idea what you are talking about. Cease making these baseless allegations immediately...SPI is the venue that allows that. Handpolk¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 04:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Sockblock: Hope it's OK to open the thread just a crack, to note that I have indeffed Handpolk as a sock of DegenFarang per Sockpuppet investigations/DegenFarang. Bishonen | talk 09:30, 6 July 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.
This is getting ridiculous – is there any chance a rangeblock would work in this case?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:55, 6 July 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.
I've blocked the user for 72 hours for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Account registered at the beginning of the month. Her activity consists of:
Starting a slow-motion edit wars at Summer Rae and Total Divas to assert that the former is present in the new season of the latter, as well as at at Real Housewives of Atlanta to remove reliably sourced information:
(I will note that they have tried to add something like a source at Total Divas, but it does not mention Season 4 at all. This has been pointed out at Talk:Total_Divas#Summer_Rae_status_for_Season_4.3F, but ValleryKing doesn't seem to understand that.)
The above diffs are fairly representative of the user's overall behavior.
Multiple users attempted to explain how things work here, but her comprehension appears nonexistent, as can be seen at Talk:Total_Divas#Summer_Rae_status_for_Season_4.3F (especially here), on my talk page, on their talk page, and here. Despite insisting that she understands, she regularly goes in the opposite direction of any advice given and acts as though everyone else is at fault for failing to understand her, when she communicates like this:
For the record, I grew up with a babysitter who spoke Gullah to the exclusion of normative English, I can read Chaucer in the original middle English, I worked for over a year in a rural Walmart located inbetween two housing projects and down the road from a trailer park, and I have a TEFL certification (should be using it to teach as well in a few months). I feel pride when I can help ESL users, and enjoy conversing with the different dialects of English (including unfortunately maligned ones like African American Vernacular English). I have little reason to suspect that my comprehension is the problem here.
Oh the administrative. They not helping me or understanding me. I need help to do the article and it is true that Summer returning and she announced it on June 30, 2015 but they understanding me and I understand them so idk . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.5.201 (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
It would help if you weren't using textspeak (which frankly has little to no place on an encyclopedia project). —Jeremyv^_^vBori! 04:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I know that I need to start speaking better English so I ne'er people to understand me and where I'm coming from on this and idk need help for the thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleryking (talk • contribs) 04:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
You also need to demonstrate that you understand other people by really citing sources that actually support claims you make, and by not edit warring. We understand that you claim to have seen the information on TV, you haven't shown us that you really understand that we need sources that we can verify. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
No you don't understand I understand y'all claims but I'm doing the right thing but u are telling me I'm not and other stuff that I know already and I did warn u but that didn't work socwe reported it like we said that we were gonna do but Ian come on now! I'm providing stuff you not so don't we were doing it together but we were fussing and idk.
Summer Rae is returning for the first half of season four as a series regular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleryking (talk • contribs) 04:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
You are doubting me for no eason and its not fair to me or our other fellow wikipedia users.
No one has made any claims but you. WP:CITE is not a "claim," it is a site guideline. WP:3RR is not a "claim," it is a site policy. If you want to do the right thing, read those pages and follow what they say -- in other words, quit adding claims to the Total Divas article, and go to the talk page and present a source that says that Summer Rae is returning for season 4 of Total Divas. What part of that do you not understand? Don't just say you understand and then act like you don't.
You are giving us no reason to believe you. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Ian stop right there? I did read the links that u gave me but u still not understanding so idk what to say because I'm not the only person to claim that Summer Rae is returning for season Summer did to so please don't say I'm the only one but I'm not she did to and u don't believe so why I gotter prove my self to you And u no we both said something so stop reverting and everything U act like u don't understand where I'm coming from and you. But thank you. I told u that I'm gone say when I will do a change but idk and everything else. But u still doubting me and you know about
This talking gotten out of line and its been so idk anymore for uK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleryking (talk • contribs)
That is the whole problem though, you say this information is true but you can't prove it. That's what we are saying to you, that you must provide the right references to back up your edits where needed. Clearly you do not understand at all, we are understanding everything you are saying yet we are giving you the reasons why they are invalid. It doesn't matter if you tell us before making a change, that doesn't help at all, the only thing that will help you is if you can provide legit references to make your changes justifiable. Until then, editors of the Total Divas page (including myself) will not be able to keep your changes or anyone else's changes that don't have references. I have explained this to you over and over again on both of our talk pages, but it's not sinking in. MSMRHurricane (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
MSMRHurricane u don't understand I gave u the proof and stuff and I told u to n it do make a difference when I'm telling u that IMA make a change I understand but u r not undastsndin nothing I say and I really could careless n u don't beleve me do idk n I told u that we were going to it again but not understanding.
Point Blank Period
Dats Da Bottom Line
Stop doubting me n stuff becuz u I'm right n everything else — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleryking (talk • contribs) 05:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, no one is saying you're wrong. No one is saying you're information is wrong. It just can't be a permanent change on the article since you don't have legit references. And again, you have provided us with invalid references. The link you submit every time doesn't relate to your statements about Summer Rae's return, and your word isn't considered a reference at all, no matter who believes you or not, it doesn't count. You must proved a legit, readable and reliable reference for any changes you or anyone else does. If I (or anyone else) were to make a change such as yours with only our word to prove it, it wouldn't can't. Regardless of the person, legitimate references are required. I don't know how many times we have to explain it to you, it's as simple as that. It's nothing to do with you personally or doubt or not believing one another, it's a simple rule that must be followed while editing on Wikipedia. Like I said, we're not saying you're wrong, the way your're going about all of this is wrong. Your actions are wrong and you are just not showing capability to comply with those rules. Point, blank, period. MSMRHurricane (talk) 06:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I am showing I'm complying wit those rules and I am providing the right stuff n links sources n etc I'm right n I'm not wrong becux u dont understand MSMRHurricane and u know u don't all IMA saying I. Doin the right providing it but u keep telling Me I'm wrong n did n DAT we were going to do it together but idk noe n everything n I'm following that rule n u telling me I'm not brcyz udk y u sayin DAT n days niy fair to me n u not understanding gfor the Summer Rae claim for her return so stop doubting me and sayn dat. It is simple that I'm coin hut u dont care or wanna understand and I don't have no understanding PROBLEM. But it not doing it the way allvu worrying about me n my edits n u are sayn I'm wrong u wouldn't be sayn that n u don't believe me. Stop copying the words I say OK n dats not fair to my word is so stop acting on da INTERNET and stop I love did site but ever so since I joined this website its NEGATIVE for me to tell to constanly telling u n stop it. Doubting me n this how u treat me like I'm a child n its not fair n u keep doubting me and some other stuff to me GROW Up_ and stay in your LANE this is aggravating u are though telling me I'm not doing stuff wrong and no one believe me BUT I AM doing stuff RIte.
I FOLLOW THE RULES and I don't do wat I WannA Do on here. Stop fooling ur self on here I'm takingp up for u so stop fussing wit me o. HERE n idk if I'm done but I'm telling u DAT IMA make changes for a reason but u don't understand me or me it my stuff.
Da only reason wen I say DAT IMA make a change do for u to know in stet of doing it be her ind ur vac so understand. Stop da MADness. U got me looking like I'm not I'm not doing da rite ding on here but I AM with All OF MY HOLY HEART.
God is a awesome GOD.
I was being nice to u n I'm still being nice but this is childish that we are doing and stuff.
The only childish behavior is coming from you. I'm not going to cross the line to where you are standing as that is immature and won't get anything solve. So until something is done with your statements or with your privileges to edit articles, I'm done trying to explain anything to you. Your edits will be reverted unless the appropriate references are provided, thank you. MSMRHurricane (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Folks, can you really not see when you're being trolled? Mr Potto (talk) 10:37, 6 July 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.
Words were said that should not have been said, and things were done that shouldn't have been done. A ruckus ensued. But it appears the following discussion has effectively thrashed out the incident here, so it does not appear any administrative action is required. Both editors are encouraged to keep their heads going forward, and attempt to discuss issues in a civil manner, and try to avoid taking things too personally when they aren't. Note also that this discussion may be used as evidence in any future "incident" cases. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
During our discussion about the 2012 Aurora shooting categorization in his talk page, he has been consistently challenging the opinions of me and VQuakr, giving smart-aleck retorts, and insulting us. In particular, he called me "stupid" and it has offended me a lot. Can someone please take care of this? DisuseKid (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
You weren't a part of that conversation till you showed up to call me butt-hurt. After that, you made a stupid comment, so I asked if you were stupid. Maybe you aren't. I didn't even come close to insulting the other guy. InedibleHulk(talk) 09:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
You DESPERATELY need to rethink your choice of words. DisuseKid (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Now this is someone calling someone stupid. See the difference? InedibleHulk(talk) 09:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
And telling me to "fuck off" is any better? Please. So immature. DisuseKid (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
For the record, this is what I was talking about. DisuseKid (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm probably biased, but I think mine was better. Harsher swear word, but useful advice on how to avoid troubling situations. There's nothing helpful about "stupid bitch". Even if you say it to an actual stupid bitch as some sort of "wakeup call", it's not going to inspire them. Just attacking for attacking's sake.
Welcome to your first visit to this page after all of 15 days editing. There are no rules against consistently challenging others' opinions or giving smart-aleck retorts. Second, if you want to report violations of WP:NPA, you have to provide diffs of same; no one here wishes to go hunting down the remarks you're complaining about, and sorry but they're not going to take your word for it. From what I've observed of your situation I doubt you have much of a case here, but at least present your case correctly. ―Mandruss☎ 09:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
There should be rules against those, then. It's not professional. DisuseKid (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC
The Should Be Rules Department is that way. ―Mandruss☎ 09:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Bad behavior by another editor does not justify or excuse bad behavior in response. When you behave badly, complaining about another editor behaving equally badly makes you look silly. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. Arguing that the other editor's bad behavior is slightly different from your bad behavior makes you look even sillier than you did before. Finally, I advise both of you to knock it off before an admin steps in and makes you. Your behavior is hurting Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Propose short time period ban on both editors (48 hrs - a week). I've seen InedibleHulk make constructive contributions but we can't just let incivility like this slip. However if InedibleHulk has added more incivil comments then his penalty should be greater. GregKaye 20:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't care if I'm affected as well, I approve. Seems fitting enough. DisuseKid (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd support WP:BOOMERANG. Contributions indicate DisusedKid is on a mission to be disruptive. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
InedibleHulk is just as guilty for making unwarranted changes despite a consensus regarding the subject matter not being reached as of yet. DisuseKid (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
It's my understanding BLP issues are of a higher priority. Removing murder/murderer references until BLP noticeboard has a look is a reasonable thing to do. I suppose I should change my stance to a weak support for WP:BOOMERANG, DisuseKid may just have been too cocky while not recognizing the significance of a potential BLP issue. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I was tricked, all right? DisuseKid (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
No, you tricked yourself. Your confidence level greatly exceeded your experience level. Don't feel bad, it happens all the time, but you might consider a softer stance against editors who have 50 times your experience. ―Mandruss☎ 22:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Either way, Hulk was incivil towards me and I expect some sort of adequate response to it. DisuseKid (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I've "known" the Hulk for close to two years and have grown to like and respect him more than I did at first. And he's made substantial contributions to the project. But I'm a member of the minority who believe in one behavior standard for everyone, regardless of who they are, how much I or anyone else likes them, or how much they've contributed. I think "fuck off" are words that never serve any constructive purpose, and a zero tolerance on such words would do a lot more good than harm. I think you can reasonably plead ignorance at only 15 days, and I'd be inclined to cut you some slack - one time - provided you indicate that you've learned something here. The Hulk doesn't have inexperience for an excuse. ―Mandruss☎ 23:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm standing by my "harsh word, useful advice" excuse. "Fuck off" isn't "fuck you". It just means go away, but "colourful". But yes, it was uncivil. I'll not say it again, unless I'm sure I'm talking to someone who doesn't mind. InedibleHulk(talk) 01:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Ummmmm... You could've easily just said "Go away" then, and we wouldn't be having this conversation... DisuseKid (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello? I wish to hear your response. DisuseKid (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Mine? I said I was sorry above. Not sure what else you want. InedibleHulk(talk) 02:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
It was uncivil (i.e., a violation of WP:CIVIL), you won't do it again, but it just means go away and you're standing by it. Um-kay. I'll leave it to others to decipher that. ―Mandruss☎ 02:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The message is fine, the way I worded it was uncivil. I could have said "go away", but since I was responding to a lack of tolerance for my language, I figured "fuck off" worked better, rhetorically. Sometimes I give my words greater consideration than my audience. It's a flaw in dealing with people, no doubt. InedibleHulk(talk) 02:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Responding to a lack of tolerance with a lack of tolerance is not the most tactical method in dealing with people like me... DisuseKid (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hulk and I have disagreed in the past. I don't recall why, but IIRC correctly, we didn't see eye to eye and clashed a bit. In the end, I respect him and value his contributions. I admittedly haven't read through the history to find out what led to the f**k off response, but I know my ability to tick people off and I didn't get him to that point.....no allegation, just finding it hard to believe that it's as one-sided as the initial complain makes it sound. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear, my comment wasn't made from anger. I wasn't exactly happy, either, but not "driven" to it. Just where the conversation went, I think. Part of my inedibility comes from my foul mouth. I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure you got some of that from me at Fox News Channel (and Rupert Murdoch probably has grounds to sue me). But yeah, you're fine with me now. I'm not the grudge sort. Not against people, anyway. I hate serial commas, and have a burning disdain for "however". InedibleHulk(talk) 05:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Crap. I was favoring a no-action close here, but forget it. I like serial commas. ―Mandruss☎ 06:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Give me naturally flowing lists, or give me death! InedibleHulk(talk) 06:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I admit I am just as guilty of being aggressive in this ordeal, but I did expect some sort of response to be taken from all this. DisuseKid (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you've gotten a response. Seven editors have written over 1,300 words, you have received an apology, and there's a good chance you'll be forgiven this time for your side of it. The only other available responses are: 1. A warning issued by an admin, which is basically a slap-on-wrist and doesn't mean much in the long run, and 2. a block. A block of even a couple of days is a fairly serious matter for anyone who gives a shit about their record, and I believe the Hulk to be such a person (I could be wrong). Considering that you didn't come here with clean hands, and you soiled them further after you got here, I'd suggest dropping this at this point. If an admin feels a Hulk block is warranted, fine, but it's a good time for you to step away. ―Mandruss☎ 05:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I was blocked for 24 hours once. Forget the details, but it was a bit annoying. Now that my record's already tainted, a second wouldn't be so bad. That's not to say I'd like a block, just wouldn't be as bad as the first. InedibleHulk(talk) 05:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Proposal #2 short period ban on both editors (24 hrs - 3 days) unless they indicate that they understand that saying things like "fuck off" and stupid bitch" are not allowed here and that they will make a good-faith effort to not act that way in the future. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I understand completely and I will do my best to avoid using such language again. DisuseKid (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Your move, Hulkster. Will it be the "Hulk Smash!!" of the early comics or the new, more cooperative Hulk who beat up Loki in the Avengers movie? I am really hoping that we can all agree to play nice and close this. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I stopped watching Marvel movies after the first Iron Man, so I don't know about that. But I'm down for playing nice. InedibleHulk(talk) 05:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Both parties have agreed to be civil, so I move to close this as "no action required". Does anyone object? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Support that. This thread has already accomplished more than most I've seen on this page. I stand by my general comments above, but the Hulk has shown an unusual degree of contrition here, and there's the boomerang issue. ―Mandruss☎ 06:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Boomeranging doesn't make much sense, at least on civility. Like I said above, I'm fine with personal attacks (against me) on my Talk Page. As long as they don't get personal personal, like revealing my secret identity (I am notLou Ferrigno, if anyone was wondering.) InedibleHulk(talk) 07:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your first sentence, DK's behavior should have no bearing on the response to yours. I guess I was looking too hard for reasons to close, but as far as I'm concerned you're welcome to a block if you want it. As to your unusual and somewhat odd personal policy, PA is really an offense against the community as well as the target individual. Even on your talk page, other people would see it and it would affect their perception of what is acceptable speech around here. That wouldn't be good. They often wouldn't know about your policy, even if you stated it in big letters at the top. ―Mandruss☎ 07:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, blocks are preventative, not punitive, and both parties have agreed to stop insulting each other. BTW, if anyone really feels that they need a good insult, I have a page at http://www.guymacon.com/flame.html that they can use. But not on Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't want a block. I don't want the Kid blocked. Don't want to set a bad example for others, either, so maybe some sort of censure? Big scarlet letters at the top? Not my choice, of course, just my two cents. InedibleHulk(talk) 08:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I've never really gotten my head around that preventative not punitive thing. It's effectively a license to do whatever you want, provided you stop before you get blocked. Wait a week, reset, repeat. Nice utopian concept, not very useful in my opinion. ―Mandruss☎ 08:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Support close, no action, everybody 'kiss and make up'. Personalising/abusing isn't clever or effective and justifications are almost guaranteed to look silly.Pincrete (talk) 08:41, 7 July 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.
Blocked as a sock by FreeRangeFrog with talk page access subsequently revoked. Favonian (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user created an autobiography at Gregory Britische which I tagged G7. He logged off and started alleging misbehaviour on my part, [37][38][39][40][41]. After logging in again he started on User:Acroterion, [42].
He's now recreated his autboigraphy at Gregory britt which has been tagged by Qwertyus, and nominated himself for the mop [43].
Clearly someone with "issues" (as declared in his autobiography) who needs some time-out, if not some real help off-wiki. Bazj (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I deleted the article as an obvious A7 - completely unsourced biography of a totally non notable person with no evidence of unreliable sources (let alone reliable) whatsoever. If the creator objects (and I suspect they will), we can take it from there. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 09:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
And, as predicted, [44][45]. Then blocked as a sock. Can't help but feel he needs some care, and he has linked to the hospital who are his caregivers (and edited their article), but I'm totally clueless as to the proper form in cases like this. Bazj (talk) 09:51, 6 July 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.
User:Antonis521 is repetedly uploading non-free images of footballers, the current total is about 25- they claim to own all the images, which seems highly unlikely, and they haven't licenced them properly in any case. They've received warnings [46], [47] and final warning [48], but continue to upload copyrighted images, see [49]. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Now blocked as a sock. Nthep (talk) 14:01, 7 July 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.
At the article Faisalabad, in June @Edward321: did some copy editing with the edit summary "tightened wording, reduced pov", and it looked good with a lot of bad material excised. But we now have two accounts reverting it and putting back all the POV/peacock material - "prestigious", "renowned", "influential", "famous", "international stardom", "worked tirelessly", etc. Edward321 also removed some material that was not actually about Faisalabad, sourced from a caste-based publication, and they've put that back too. The original account that reinstated all the puffery and irrelevant material that Edward321 removed was @PK7999:, whose account was created at 12:02 today, and they unfairly labeled Edward321's copy editing work as vandalism - and I got no response whatsoever when I approached them on their talk page. After I reverted a couple of times and warned them about WP:PEACOCK and WP:POV and told them they need to start a talk page discussion, the @Qalandarjjj: account was created at 15:25 today and reverted me again. There's a content dispute certainly, but I bring it here because there are clear policy violations too - edit-warring in defiance of WP:PEACOCK and WP:POV, refusal to follow WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, refusal to discuss, and probably sockpuppetry (but at least some meaty collusion). I think some kind of force is needed to get them to the talk page. (Note that I have reverted 3 times, after the PK799 account avoided exceeding 3RR with the arrival of the Qalandarjjj account, and as this does not count as a 3RR exception I will revert no further without admin action or consensus). Mr Potto (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Talk:Faisalabad#Peacock/POV where one person already seems to be in agreement with me, so I'd appreciate admin help to halt the wholesale reverts while it's under discussion, if they continue. Mr Potto (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
If there are any more reverts I'll semiprotect it for a while, and I'll keep an eye on the discussion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
That would be great, thanks. Mr Potto (talk) 22:00, 6 July 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.
AFD closed by Dennis Brown. Blackmane (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primo-vascular system started 13:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC) so is over the 7 days, could some kind soul please put the AfD out of all our misery? One user has expended around 400 edits defending it. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I had actually been following that for some unknown reason and read the article. Interesting stuff if true. Regardless, I closed it and tried to explain as best I could, but I'm not going to be shocked if it goes to DRV. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Dennis. Yes, one day it might make an interesting article. When we have reality-based sources. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 6 July 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.
Page move against consensus/naming conventions[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. Please can Mohammad Imran Khan be moved back to Imran Khan (cricketer, born 1987), per the naming conventions for multiple sportspeople with the same name, the disambig page and the cricketer's bio at Cricinfo. The user has moved several pages against consensus, which I've noted on their talkpage (I'll point them to this, too). I'd move this myself, but the target page has now been edited more than once. Thanks. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 08:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Mohammad Imran Khan page can be moved to Imran Khan, Jr. because Imran Khan is known by his name Imran Khan, Jr. in his home country Pakistan. His is notable Pakistani Test cricketer so plse move it to Imran Khan, Jr. which looks more reasonable GreenCricket (talk) 10:24, 7 July 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.
RfC close was reverted, and I have now reclosed the discussion. Sam Walton (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm obviously not going to close this one myself, but I do request a neutral admin to do so.—Kww(talk) 14:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Without regard to the merits of that discussion: Pseudoscience is under Arb restrictions. It is probably not a good idea for the vast majority of non-admin (particularly one with less than 4k edits) to close RFCs or other major discussions on Arb restricted areas, nor in any discussion where the vote is split this much. As such, I support the idea of the revert, in case that comes up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment - I agree with the revert of the close. I disagree with any argument that this close originally required an administrator, and a close should not be reverted only because the closer was not an administrator. My own opinion is that the close should have been reverted because it was an unwarranted supervote, and the closer did not provide adequate rationale for casting a supervote that contravened consensus. At this point I do agree with the two admins that an uninvolved admin should close, not because the original close required an admin, but because this RFC is contentious and the close may unfortunately require the block button. As noted, the previous RFC and its close are no precedent at all. I closed the original RFC, and I voided my own close because it became clear that there had been sock-puppetry. I support the revert of the close, and the call for an admin close that either reflects consensus or provides a real strength-of-arguments reason for a non-consensus close. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
All RFCs that cover topics under Arb sanctions are automatically contentious by virtue, that was the point. I'm the first to say non-admin can close most discussions, but not when dealing with Arb restricted areas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Putting aside the issue of whether an admin is needed, there is also a concern about involvement. Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Closure procedure says "Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, not just admins", with emphasis in the original. The closer of the RfC has made substantial contributions to articles about yoga, yogis, India, and Hinduism.[50] (Contributions to Intuition, the second-most edited article by this user, are also Hindu-related, e.g. [51].) Would this constitute involvement? As a general question, if someone edits heavily in a given topic, is it appropriate for that person to be closing RfCs related to that topic? I don't mean to invoke the genetic fallacy, but there is a non-admin meaning of "involved" that may need elucidation. Manul ~ talk 18:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
It is a Catch 22. You need someone familiar with the material to do the close, so you would expect they have edited around that general subject matter. My personal rule of thumb is that if the person closing actually cares even a small amount about how the RFC comes out, they are too involved in the outcome of THAT discussion to close. ie: if you have a strong opinion, you don't close. Technically, closing IS an admin function (many closes require the tools, particularly at AFD, but even at RFC). Non-admin are encouraged to do uncontroversial closes where no tools are needed. That is the other point, if there is ever a chance of contention, then an admin should close due to WP:ADMINACCT. Non admin aren't held to the same accountability standard. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
This is covered by at least two areas, Arb restrictions on India pages should also apply here. —SpacemanSpiff 19:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that closing a content discussion is an admin function, whether speaking "technically" or otherwise. The sole mention of admins at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs says that NACs and admins are equal, and the community widely and strongly agrees that admins get zero special privileges when it comes to content disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Can an uninvolved administrator please close this section as consensus to reverse the closure? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 7 July 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.
It occurs to me that the guidelines on who should and should not close Requests for Comments are not sufficient, in two respects. This needs to be discussed further at Closing Discussions. First, the instructions state that any uninvolved editor may close most discussions. However, there is no definition, at present, of an uninvolved editor, only of an uninvolved admin. (An administrator may be an uninvolved admin, but should not close a discussion in which he or she is an involved editor, for instance.) Second, while Dennis Brown has a good point about the ineed for admin closure of some contentious RFCs, the guideline doesn't explicitly refer to ArbCom sanctions as a reason for contentiousness. Both the concept of an involved or uninvolved editor, and the rules for when an admin close is preferred, should be clarified. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Please take a close look at the contributions by the editor who closed the RfC. Things will become clearer after you review the contributions to similar topics by the editor who closed the RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I think that there are two or three issues. The first is that, although the criteria for an uninvolved editor are not defined, we agree that they were involved, and should not have closed. Second, the close ignored consensus, and did not give a solid policy reason for casting a supervote. Third, the close cited a previous RFC, but that RFC was corrupted by sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The rules about involvement are the same for admins and non-admins. "Involved" does not mean "biased", unless your bias rises all the way to an actual (off-wiki-based) conflict of interest. This is a double-edged sword.
I'd have been happier if the editor reverting the close were someone who (a) didn't have a history of objecting to closes on that page, and (b) could not be very plausibly accused of reverting it because the close didn't support his personal POV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Those last issues are precisely why I immediately brought my revert here for review. While I've been accused of not understanding what it means to be involved with a subject, I am clearly in an involved state in regard to most pseudomedicine articles.—Kww(talk) 21:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Did it occur to you that hitting the undo button is not actually a necessary precondition for contesting a closure that you disagree with? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, I don't believe anyone is suggesting that "involved" means "biased" -- it just means involved. The reason for the WP:INVOLVED policy, in the admin sense of the word "involved", is not because admins are automatically untrustworthy or biased whenever they are involved. We simply wish to remove confounding factors as a matter of principle. Even if someone is 100% trusted by everyone, we wish to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Involvement with regard to non-admin closures should have similarly high standards.
Separate from that, strong objections may be made to the closing itself: What does "more addressable" mean? Why is the Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry not a "quality reliable" source? Did the closer not understand that the previous RfC was rescinded? This puzzling closure raises so many questions, and those are only a few of them. Manul ~ talk 22:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Did you read what QuackGuru said about looking at the other articles that the editor has worked on? We have an editor who has not edited that talk page since March (the sole time he ever contributed to that page, and then only to offer a comment on an {{edit requested}}), and who has never(!) edited that article, and yet several editors here really do seem to be trying to claim that he's somehow too "involved" in this discussion to be capable of summarizing it. I don't believe that a person who has never edited an article and never commented on this discussion is "involved" by any reasonable definition. I think these accusations of "involvement" are mere wikilawyer-speak for a complaint that's actually an accusation of bias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, my comments were not in reference to what QuackGuru said, and that will continue to be the case. There are two issues here:
Involvedness. In the semi-protected edit request you mention, Shrikanthv chimes in to support a (now-known) sockpuppet's removal of the pseudoscience characterization from the article, saying
I see that already the lead mentions that it is not scientifically prooven and pseudoscientific means that some one has to claim this is science first, and then to call it a pseudo later. I see no point in adding mis guiding words in the begining
Someone who has explicitly stated an opinion that X should not be included in a certain article should not close an RfC on whether X should be included in that article. If the editing history elsewhere isn't enough to show involvedness, then surely this is.
Problems with the closure itself. These have been discussed elsewhere in this thread, and I won't rehash them here.
The two are relatively independent, and either one would warrant a re-closure, in my opinion. Manul ~ talk 03:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Robert, that is probably the case that it needs clarifying. Often, as now, I'm using conventional wisdom and tradition as a guide. It has only been the last couple of years that we seem to have been forced to codify that which used to be accepted as "previous consensus". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the first part, the concept that closers should be uninvolved editors, has been consensus. In this particular case, the closing editor should not have closed, because they have a history of involvement. They also closed against consensus without providing a solid rationale. As to the second part, Dennis appears to be stating a "previous consensus" about administrative closures that makes sense but is at variance with a written guideline. If Dennis is saying that we ought to be bound by a previous consensus that is contrary to a written guideline, I disagree. Don't expect non-admin closers to "know previous consensus" that isn't written. Write it down. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Technically, since Wikipedia has no hard set rules, policies are nothing more than written versions of consensus :) See WP:POLICY. And WP:COMMONSENSE trumps all policies anyway. My point is that more policy doesn't guarantee better policy. I think that once you codify every little detail, the place is only fit for wikilawyers. If an editor is unfamiliar with previous types of situations and when someone should close or not close, they shouldn't be closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
But there is little guidance to editors wishing to close, whats there is mostly geared to admins. I agree that if your unfamiliar with when to close/not to close it isnt a good idea to close. But I think there needs to be more information like that available to stop someone from making mistakes while trying to learn in on the fly. Doing that is a disaster waiting to happen. AlbinoFerret 00:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
That is the point, no one should be doing it "on the fly". If you haven't watched it done many times and understand the process, you shouldn't do it. That goes for admin or non-admin. The difference is that with admin, WP:ADMINACCT holds them accountable, they can't just walk away from a screwed up close. THAT is why contentious closes are reserved for admin alone, and because admin have already been vetted by the community via WP:RFA, not because admin are some super class of editor. Regular closes are no big deal, that is where non-admin learn the templates and such, but contentious closes (ie: hot topic or not clearly obvious result) are NOT the place to learn. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I personally did not see any much "good" sources on catagorising or labeling something a pseudo and much of claims were of that "some body" or "some one" claimed of miracles and that would be reason to brand the whole subject as pseudo, but for a person who is not aware of the subject the logical arguments of "some one" or "some body" may seem contrusive and label the subject as a pseudo, I do also see some editors enormous persistive efforts to fill the entire article with word " pseudo " so that in the end there is no subject itself but the word "pseudo" in it!, I feel that it is cherry picking on selectively mentioning some of my edits and not disclosing my involvement in any other scientific articles like the following once here
actuall contribution to the article Intuition here, which was a mess before ( please note I have taken a broader persepective from all possible fields and cherry picking here is just bad politics )
A word of advice to the closing admin
I have tried to be neutral in closing the RFC, eventhough there is a perspective involved on calling it a "pseudo" in the article itself, I seriously did not find any good neutral sources stating that other than all of them claiming that " some one " has claimed such and such a thing! and has nothing to with the subject in itself and going by direction of the article, rather than eloborating on the subject and improving the article it would rather be a short para just terming it pseudo do not go through any more down Shrikanthv (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Those articles have absolutely nothing to do with medicine. The edits to Intuition seemed to consist mostly of expanding the religious coverage (a word of advice stop using the word "finds" everywhere!). Further, they do not indicate in any way that you can objectively treat subjects which are much closer to home and involve the negative aspects (and your edits to intuition are not great, they are unclear and very much from a religious perspective). In India, nonsense like astrology and ayurveda are mainstream amongst the public, as I'm sure you are aware.
"I personally ...". And that's where you went wrong. Your entire reasoning is a supervote. Do you accept that, scientifically, Ayurveda is unscientific folk nonsense? That's what I worry about, that perhaps your prior views on Ayurveda prevent you neutrally ever agreeing on a label that has negative implications. You seem to actually support Ayurveda when you mention "logical arguments". Would we really want a supporter of astrology to close an RfC on whether astrology is pseudoscience? Second Quantization (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for demeaning my edits & contributions to the article of Intuition and reducing my edits down to only "religious" aspects and being trivial !! as I find that you have closed yourself over looking philosophy and psychology sections of the article.(and thank you for your quick edits in the article which was almost dead for years! ) Please note that I have not gone into terming and branding anything as being scientific or unscientific and my actions were based on the comments there and the sources provided there. And has nothing to do with branding something to be Pseudo, I find its propostures to assume things that I have some background with the subject of Ayurveda, I feel this is turning into kill the judge because he does not think what i "think" and "feel" is right!! ? and paint brushing an edit made in one article towards generalisation of a personality of being a "trivial religious unscientifc pov pusher" and offcourse when i say "personally" it means that this "state of mind" has done it and do not see how others can close a RFC without there mind being present!. and let us catagories philosophy, culture, tradition, religion, freewill, happiness ... all as pseudoscience ?!! getting my point ? , before gauging, theorising, blaming and shaming please note this is my thought on the subject. I find Ayurveda and being "scientific" are two different things and while Ayurveda is more towards culture and tradition and nothing to do with modern science or medicine, its just like comparing a "Dog" to a "Cat" and there is no need for saying dog is not a cat or vice versa! , offcourse there are some people claiming miracles and using "ayurveda" as a cover, same is true with "science" there are many claimers who claim lot of things but reducing down a culture to a shame "pseudo" is a real way of going ahead, Shrikanthv (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the above comment perfectly demonstrates how you did a supervote. Second Quantization (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Agent of the nine (talk·contribs) has been blocked recently for disruption. In the most recent case, the user altered another user's comments on a ref desk page.[52] Someone with some authority needs to 'splain things to that user, who won't listen to us peons. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
And by the way, either the user did it another time, earlier today,[53] or else they've openly outed themself. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
This editor has been disruptive at the Reference Desks, and has the habit, permitted but discouraged, of blanking their talk page. The real question is whether they will listen to a warning from an admin or whether they need another block instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
They can delete from their talk page. The problem is their wider disruption, consisting of deleting stuff from article pages with no explanation. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Life is too short to deal with people like this; they were blocked for this same behavior a week ago. Blocked indef until they agree to knock it off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:16, 7 July 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.
IP User:172.7.162.92 has made a legal threat at the talk page of an editor, Keri. Diff of legal threat found here as well as on the IPs talk page here. -- WV ● ✉✓ 06:02, 8 July 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.
Editor is creating a series of interrelated articles, biographies of researchers, their publications and organization. The notability of the scholarship and the scholars themselves have not been established, and most of the articles rely on primary sources. May merit observation for conflict of interest, as well. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:99FD:4E02:9E12:4A31 (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
To follow up, this is a WP:COI account, with a strong promotional intent. A few of the articles may merit keeping, but the balance of them appear eligible for deletion. 2601:188:0:ABE6:99FD:4E02:9E12:4A31 (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
asked and answered digressions about unregistered editors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Many as an IP, and one as a registered, all without controversy. How, Baseball, is that relevant to this report? 2601:188:0:ABE6:99FD:4E02:9E12:4A31 (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
@Baseball Bugs: Please don't needlessly interrogate editors simply because they're not editing from an account. Sam Walton (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Sam Walton. There are numerous reasons I've mostly forsaken contributing as a registered account. One of the secondary reasons has been cultural, which is to say that as long as IPs are far more likely to get hammered for making constructive edits, I'll choose to edit that way. That any type of explanation is requested is, to be blunt, creepy. 2601:188:0:ABE6:99FD:4E02:9E12:4A31 (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for pretty much answering my question. I'll take it on faith that your registered account is not a blocked account. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why it's necessary to need to take anything on faith, or to assume the possibility that I've been blocked; the assumption being that no credible editor would opt to contribute anonymously. I've 15 barnstars, appreciate them, yet don't give a whit to acquire more. Nor to be questioned without reason. 2601:188:0:ABE6:99FD:4E02:9E12:4A31 (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Editors who show up from out of nowhere, and obviously know their way around, automatically raise suspicions. I can't tell you how many editors made the same claims as you, and were eventually found out to be evading blocks. Don't act suspicious, and you won't raise suspicions. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. I looked at several of these articles and they are just as you say. It sure has the earmarks of paid placement. Msnicki (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Without meaning to out the editor, it wasn't difficult to connect the dots and find that this is part of a public relations effort. To their credit, once addressed, the editor was transparent as to their connection. And maybe a few of the bios will stand as notable if the subjects' academic credentials are substantiated. But the lot of articles are problematic; perhaps several can be AfD'd together. 2601:188:0:ABE6:99FD:4E02:9E12:4A31 (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I've notified the user of the discussion. KrakatoaKatie 22:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
IP 2601:188:0 had already notified April Fain about this ANI thread (it's earlier on the Talk page...). But I've left April a note that will hopefully help this user with Talk page procedures... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Legal threat against Nigel Ish by block-evading IP[edit]
Here's the legal threat against Nigel Ish, which is enough to block the guy. However, what is needed here is a rangeblock to stop this persistent IP-hopper who has also used the account Philm540. Here are some examples of the IPs he has used in the last two months:
So for a rangeblock, it looks like it would have to be as broad as 2600:1002:Bxxx. Settling for 2600:1002:B0xx would get most of these IPs, as there are only a few 2600:1002:B1s. I have not seen any other activity at these IPs so I am not worried about collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
All seem to be Verizon Wireless IPs. Would 2600:1002::/47 work, or is that too big? Still having the troubles with figuring the IPv6 rangeblocks. The IPv4 range is a /20 for the 70.192.x.x group, and that might be too broad. KrakatoaKatie 04:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@KrakatoaKatie:, that would be far too small. I think you would need to do 2600:1002:B000::/39 which would cover 2600:1002:B000::-2600:1002:B1FF:: if my understanding is correct. Your proposed block would block 2600:1002:0000::-2600:1002:0002:: *I think*. Monty845 04:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Monty845: you're right - it's 2600:1002:B000::/39. Until/unless he gives us more data and we can narrow it down we should block the IPv4 addresses individually. KrakatoaKatie 05:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I should show my work in connecting Philm540 to the IPs. First, I cannot say what I know about the real life identity of Philm540, but I can say that the person lives in Pennsylvania, the same area to which the IPs geolocate. Second, Philm540 made this strange edit, which is a copy and paste of this edit by one of the IP6s. Third, Philm540 made this edit with Saipan spelled Siapan, and AAF written Aaf, and Group spelled Goup. All of the IPs listed here have spelling and typography which is equally bad, such as "engiine fire extingusher", and this tangle of typos. If I find the exact above-listed typos in the hundreds of posts by IPs I will be surprised. Binksternet (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
This user has been blocked previously for personal attacks and disruptive edits, due to the nature of IP hopping I have had to block the pop-up IPs sometimes one or two times a day, I and others have tried to discuss his edits and blocks but it is has been clear that the user doesnt understand how wikipedia works and the requirements for reliable sourcing. Thanks to the work of Binksternet he has tied the IP use to User:Philm540, also note that at [55] he uses the Philm540 identity while logged in as an IP. Perhaps after the legal threat and previous personal attacks we should consider a site ban of user. MilborneOne (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree, it does look as though we need a rangeblock. If there is collateral damage it is unfortunate, but necessary. The alternative is going to long-term semi protection of all affected articles. An action which would appear to involve more collateral damage than the proposed rangeblock. Mjroots (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
2600:1002:B000::/39 blocked one month for sockpuppetry. Holding on the Philm540 account because I think a site ban proposal is a good idea. KrakatoaKatie 13:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I started a long-term abuse case page about Philm540 which can be seen here: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Philm540. That page has a few more IPs which are not listed here. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I can do 70.192.141.0/24, which is 256 addresses, then block the other IPv4 addresses individually for now. Opinions? KrakatoaKatie 16:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
That would help, I'm sure. That's the central area of IPv4 disruption. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Done 70.192.141.0/24 and the other IPv4 addresses listed in the LTA case blocked one month. If the month is insufficient and someone wants to extend them, I have no objection. KrakatoaKatie 01:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Because of his insulting personal communication style, his refusal to work with Wikipedia's reliable sources policy and no original research policy, and especially because of the legal threat made against Nigel Ish, I propose that Philm540 be banned from English-language Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Support the user is clearly not here to work with others, refuses to listen and attacks other editors including legal threats. MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
MilborneOne Surely the problem is that the legal threat is not substantiated. Obviously other issues are of import but, if an editor has not broken the law, an editor can reply to a substantiated "legal notice". GregKaye 16:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry GregKaye I dont really understand your comment, the user clearly made a threat to use legal action against one or more editors, I dont understand what you mean by "substantiated" in this context it is not a term mentioned at WP:NLT. MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
MilborneOne one human being presented what was claimed to be a "legal notice" against another human being. One thing that has long been buzzing in the back of my mind is to ask if there is a legal president for saying that Wikipedia can deny access to legal options. Within which court was this decided? GregKaye 17:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye Still dont understand what you are on about the user made a threat of legal action, if you have a problem with wikipedia policy then I would suggest you raise it at the WT:NLT as it is not relevant here. MilborneOne (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
All I am saying is that in a situation in which wrong has been done according to relevant national or international laws then a person naturally has the prerogative to maintain her or his legal rights by any means of their choosing. Editing Wikipedia is certainly a privilege that that can be taken away for any reason by editorial consensus. However I would find it questionable for an editor to be excluded because they followed their constitutional rights.
However this is in no way meant to indicate that I dispute any of the other issues presented. GregKaye 17:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
This is not the forum for GregKaye to question the policy of WP:NLT, which Philm540 has certainly violated. If GregKaye thinks NLT should be modified, there's always the option of starting a discussion on the NLT talk page. Binksternet (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Support clearly this editor's presence here is highly disruptive, refuses to follow policy and will not engage constructively with other editors. - Nick Thornetalk 22:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Is there a "smoking gun" that links this account to the disruptive IPs? (Yes, I agree there's circumstantial evidence here, but I'm hoping for something more...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment at [56] he uses the Philm540 identity while logged in as a 2600:1002 IP. MilborneOne (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Regretfully Support. I think this editor is a very informed expert in a variety of fields and could become a very productive member of Wikipedia. I am willing to be a mentor if the editor chooses to come back under a "new" identity, and takes the time to learn the "ins-and-outs" of the project. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure, he's a topic expert, but I think he's best suited to publishing his work external to Wikipedia, with an editorial team combing through his grammar and facts. I don't think he's cut out for collaborative teamwork. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Though disruption has stopped due to the blocks, he cannot be allowed to make legal threats. KrakatoaKatie 15:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Tom Northshoreman deleting Leo Frank talk page content of other users[edit]
Discussion already in progress at AN; let's keep it centralized there. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 18:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm relatively new to wikipedia, so I'm not that familiar with how this works. Tom Northshoreman deleted, modified or altered a post I made on a talk page of the Leo Frank article about Leonard Dinnerstein's academic dishonesty. Tom Northshoreman deleted the content of the posts. I don't know how to show the exact location of it, but its there on the Leo Frank talk page. Tom Northshoreman has a history of doing this disruptive behavior. I saw the same behavior done in the archives of the Leo Frank page to other users. Can you please put an end to his disruptive behavior. I'm asking for admins who are not fellow travelers or partisans of Tom Northshoreman's political views, to please intervene. You can see in the archives, and also the current talk page on Leo Frank that he has a long history of this disruptive editing. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 18:50, 8 July 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 threats and/or BLP issues by ImDylannNotDylannWolf[edit]
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.
Noting that I won't be able to comment here further as unfortunately it's very late here (America/CST); sorry... L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 06:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh... it's been pointed out to me on IRC that this is likely a sock; no non-Wikipedian goes to ArbCom on their second edit and knows the acronym "BLP"... sorry, my bad. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 06:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Since this account is obviously not new, I felt no need to extend DOLT considerations. That said, I think there could be a constructive discussion over that redirect. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I think your version is better (and is what we usually do with 'odd' spellings of given names). Black Kite (talk) 07:26, 8 July 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.
User:Fourteen Eighty-eight has made it clear that they are WP:NOTHERE. Edits consist solely of Holocaust denial and inflammatory comments about Jews. A calm attempt to ask the user to stop resulted in this response: [57]. Agtx (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked indefinitely to put a stop to this, but I'm sure that won't be the end of it. Feel free to revoke talk page access if needed. --Kinut/c 03:44, 7 July 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.
Concur with Bugs: eighth letter of the alphabet x 2 = "Heil Hitler". "Fourteen" would refer to Fourteen Words. Usernames to look out for.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
1488 is now connected with Dylann Roof, see here. Yes it's per Shirt58 and Bugs' interpretation. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
User Jørgen88 blocked for 3 weeks for Socking (two IP socks were also blocked for lesser time periods) by Dennis Brown at SPI (casefile: here). Note that this action is in no way prejudicial towards any further separate action in regards to the mentioned BLP issues. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jørgen88 has demonstrated that he cannot edit the page Adam Kotsko - a BLP - from a neutral point of view. He began editing there with this addition [58] headed "Racist remarks" which took Kotsko's remarks out of context, sourced from a right-leaning blog, and also identified Kotsko as Jewish (another mistake copied from the source; Kotsko was in fact raised as an evangelical Christian and is now a Catholic). Despite consensus going against him, Jørgen88 proceeded to edit war to add the content (see User:Jørgen88 reported by User:Keri (Result: Page protected )). To evade sanctions, there is a very strong possibility that Jørgen88 edit warred at the page while logged out using 176.11.33.252. An SPI is open. That another Norwegian editor happened upon the page and began making identical reverts to continue the edit war is, of course, a possibility - but a very slim one. On the article's talk page, Jørgen88 has continued to demonstrate his true colours ("But I guess since he's a liberal, leftist Jew this incident can just be swept under the rug as if it never happened") and suggested that those opposed to his favoured content are students of Kotsko [59] and engaged in some conspiracy to whitewash the article [60]. Today he continued to violate BLP, calling Kotsko "racist scum" whose reputation is "very dirty ndeed" [sic]. This is entirely the wrong attitude to approach any BLP with and so I propose that Jørgen88 be banned from editing at Adam Kotsko and Talk:Adam Kotsko. Keri (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Support as proposer. Keri (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment Jørgen88 seems to want to use the article as a soapbox, dismissing other editors' points about BLP and sources. [61], [62] Articles aren't written to criticize subjects. [63] --NeilNtalk to me 16:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment I don't think censoring people from adding sourced content makes any sense. Not adding criticism where it is due, is biased in itself. Mr Kotsko made very racist tweets such as one where he suggested all white people should commit mass suicide. If that doesn't warrant criticism, then nothing will. I don't really care if you ban me from this article or Wikipedia all together, it will only strengthen my view of how biased Wikipedia is, and how a few cliques of users and admins block editing when they don't agree with it, often because of political or religious reasons. That's not how Wikipedia should work, but it looks like that's the way it is heading. The user above, Keri, has been very little diplomatic and obstructive in his/her way of dealing with my edits and my suggestion on the talk page, even deleting my inputs. I don't know why these users are so intent to keep the article clean from criticism, but either agenda, it doesn't matter what sources I bring regarding the racist and radical tweets, as the above user/s seem to insist to keep it away.Jørgen88 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Calling Kotsko racist for his comments about white privilege, incorrectly calling him a "left-leaning liberal Jew" and calling him "racist scum" demonstrate (i) your bias (ii) your ignorance about the subject of the BLP (iii) the ignorance of your sources about Kotsko and (iv) your unsuitability to be editing a BLP. As for deleting your inputs, I reverted one of your edits per WP:BLPTALK. Keri (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
lol! What? A comment that a whole people should commit mass suicide is "a comment about white privilege"?! You can't be serious. This guy and me and others all edited the article with sources and yet you persist make drama out of something as simple as a criticism section. And you even try to get us blocked from editing. That's very desperate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.33.252 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 3 July 2015
"This guy and me and others..." Specifically, just you and Jørgen88. Both from Norway. And you made your first and only edits (prior to the one above) to support Jørgen88's edit warring... Keri (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes I'm from Norway and so are five million other people. Unless you've got direct IP proof connecting me to any user (which there aren't) your accusations are groundless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.33.252 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 3 July 2015
Support topic ban for all BLPs - I don't think this particularly BLP is the issue so much as the behavior. Jørgen88's interest in Adam Kotsko is simply because he popped up on right-wing blogs for his facetious Twitter comments. Jørgen88 continually re-inserted false information into the BLP while arguing it is "well-sourced" and "sourced and verified content" (false) and then used an IP to re-insert the information to get his way. Then he went on rants about being censored on the talk page and the SPI. There has been no indication he understands the requirements of WP:BLP and not inserting WP:UNDUE information. He feels any blog that writes anything about anyone is a reliable source. Since his main contributions lie elsewhere [64], a topic ban would not prevent him from contributing to WP in other areas. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't call Washington Post or the Daily Caller which was posted as sources on the talk page blogs. Also its not false information. Kotsko posted racist comments about how all white people should kill themselves and there's direct proof of his statements even though he tried to delete them after knowing he said something stupid. There are sources that can add this to Kotskos Wikipedia page. It looks like some users here have a political agenda and wants to keep the truth from being posted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.33.252 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 3 July 2015 176.11.33.252
We're not here to talk about the content: that has been done at the article talk page. This is about behaviour at a BLP. And obvious sock is obvious. Keri (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Only thing obvious here is your disruptive attitude towards other editors and lack of social norms. Learn some respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.33.252 (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Neither the Washington Post nor the Daily Caller (both of which are right-wing anyway) were used as sources, were they? Do you understand what things taken out of context are? Because Peter Schiff said the "mentally retarded" might be perfectly happy to work for $2 an hour because "you're worth what you're worth." It's a fact he said that and that he made certain gold predictions and then bawwwed to his followers[65] that they should go "fix" his WP article to make it more flattering, which you did,[66] though you complain the article labels him unfairly.[67] Funny how the same standards don't apply to everyone - you want to include a joking tweet in Adam Kotsko's bio like he really meant it, but not include his very through explanation of why it was taken out of context and the idea is absurd. Yes, obvious sock is obvious. —МандичкаYO 😜 23:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I figure he meant to say right leaning; and the Post leans perceptibly to the right. Before the ip can derail the conversation back to content, can we now address how Jorgen88 figures Kotsko is a racist, racist scum, and a left-wing liberal Jew? Keri (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Possibly you should have checked the discussion on the page to see which it was before getting into a fight about the characterization. As it turns out, the reference in question was the Washington Times. --JBL (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@mandia I don't even know who this Schiff guy is. And yeah "all white people should kill themselves" and "Charlie Hedbo is hate speech" sure sound like really funny jokes to me. Not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.33.252 (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Support topic ban for all BLPs - per Wikimandia, behaviour here demonstrates intention to continue provocative/disruptive behaviour.Pincrete (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked Jorgen88 and the IP sock for two weeks at SPI. This is separate from the BLP concerns themselves and shouldn't dissuade any investigation or action on that front. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:10, 7 July 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.
Proposed desysop of Future Perfect at Sunrise[edit]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yesterday a case was filed at SPI. The clerk looked at it and requested further information. A few minutes ago Future Perfect at Sunrise, who has never assisted at SPI, closed the case without giving a reason and blocked. This is gross abuse of the tools by an involved administrator the like of which has never been seen before. I am bringing the matter here so the community can decide what to do in these unprecedented circumstances. 109.159.165.225 (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The community does not have the ability to desysop at ANI, only WP:Arb can do that. I would note that any admin can block a sockpuppet, in or out of SPI, with or without previous experience at SPI, and there are sometimes valid reasons to close without comment, so on the face of your argument (which has no diffs, no links to evidence to substantiate your claims), I don't see a call to action here. I would note that you didn't even notify FPaS, something that is required in in big bold letters at the top of the page. I have done that myself. I'm short on time, but I'm curious if you link back to this sockpuppet case somehow. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
What valid reason can there be for closing without a rationale when a clerk has asked for more information? The process has never been short - circuited before in this way. 109.159.165.225 (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
You geolocated to the exact same location as the blocked sock, you have never edited before, it is an obscure case, so it seems pretty obvious you are also a sock. Blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nishoo singh has repeatedly created articles on Prime Database, PRIME DATABASE GROUP, Pranav Haldea, and Prithvi Haldea using copyrighted material. Articles have been repeatedly created, deleted, and recreated. Editor is WP:NOTHERE, as far as I can tell. If someone could block him and re-delete/salt his creations it would be helpful. I'll notify him as soon as I post this. GregJackPBoomer! 08:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked them for copyvio since they've been doing this since May 20th. At some point they'd have to have realized that Wikipedia doesn't approve of copyvio. I've given them the option of getting unblocked as long as they show that they understand why they were blocked, promise not to do it again, go through AfC, and disclose their COI. I also asked that they go through one of Wikipedia's training modules. I've only recently started doing this, but I think that this might be a good idea to start requiring of blocked editors, depending on why they were blocked. I figure that this way we can ensure that they have at least gone through something that would give an overview of policy, especially since TWA participation will show up in their editing history if they've gone through the entire thing. Basically, giving them enough WP:ROPE because at that point they can't claim complete ignorance. (Plus if they do, then that can help show us some of the shortcomings with TWA if they really don't understand something.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. If he can go through the training and edit within our policies it would be great. Maybe this will prompt him to improve. GregJackPBoomer! 15:43, 8 July 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.
On the Freedom Pro Baseball League page I've been dealing with User:HollyBaseball (who also sometimes edits as an IP) who claims to be connected to the league and who continuously removed negative sourced information. At one point she posted press release material copied directly from the league website without citation and removed information about the league not playing for two years. Recently she threatened to sick the "league attorney" on me if I didn't let her whitewash the league history. She's definitely violated the conflict of interest rules as well as 3RR and I don't feel like engaging her any more on this issue so I'm seeking assistance here. Spanneraol (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The IP and HollyBaseball are the same person. Spanneraol (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I foresee a career-ending incident in HollyBaseball's semi-immediate future, unless she unambiguously retracts the legal threat. —Jeremyv^_^vBori! 19:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I verified it was highly likely the same person (although I didn't see they violated WP:SOCK, they did edit while logged out with other IPs in that range), thus blocked the IP for a short while but indef blocked the parent account, User:HollyBaseball for an indef period of time and took away talk page access, directing to WP:UTRS. I also semi-protected the article and talk page for a month. That last part might be a little controversial (and admin, if you disagree, feel free to revert or discuss). The rationale is that she works FOR that company so the threat has a bit more teeth, and I protected in the interest of preventing disruption. This is also why I took away talk page access and sent to UTRS. When a corporation sends a representative to threaten someone about their article, it needs to be handled off the pages if possible, as not to be a distraction from our main goal: building an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:00, 9 July 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.
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.
Nicknewman1971 indeffed by Jackmcbarn as a vandalism only account. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent disruptive editing bordering on vandalism by a new SPA editor. This looks like a pretty unambiguous case of NOTHERE. I am unable to revert the edits due to special community sanctions being in place.
Could someone block this editor? Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
[
Blocked indef as a VoA. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:54, 9 July 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.
User:TOBEYOUNGERTRUESAME24YEARS OLDWITHOUTWHITEHAIRS has not edited in article space and seems to only create pages with large quantities of unintelligible text in userspace. The user has moved off their own user page now and onto others', so it's probably time to deal with them. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Agtx (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Added userlink for convenience (because holy hell copy-pasting that username once was enough), notified user. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Looking at their sandbox, they appear to be advertising magical services. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I mean...maybe? Whatever they're doing, it apparently requires my entire year's allotment of capital letters. Agtx (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm somewhat fluent in crazy, that's why I work a lot of articles relating to magic and conspiracy theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Whoa, that one needs a quick permablock. After his weird spammy incomprehensible sandbox was tagged for CSD by Melody Concerto, he went to the talk page of her CSD log and posted the same insane text: User talk:Melody Concerto/CSD log. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:06, 9 July 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.
Agreed, any who know him will understand. Perhaps someone he trusts can reach out to him on a personal level. No, I won't provided diffs - but those who know, remember. Those who don't, should mind their own business and not ask questions. Scr★pIronIV 19:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? That was merely a remark of closing, asking for hard thinking on your part, given that you did something expressly forbidden by the possessor of said space. Please note the "regardless". RGloucester — ☎ 19:47, 9 July 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 has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The last thread about administrator misconduct was archived in under two hours. Is this a record?
At [74] Neil confirms it would be grossly improper for him to take any action in the Hackney Libraries case. He has now reverted and blocked several participants in the above thread. Come on guys, this is not the time to sit in the peanut gallery munching popcorn. Let's have some action. 2.96.179.6 (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Huh? NeilN just blocked the above contributor cannot edit own talk page. S/he doesn't have a talk page. And Thomas, your edit summary admins: feel free to revert this if you feel my rv was improper, that's like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. Stop pressurising editors and let them have a discussion. 92.31.92.83 (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
NeilN just blocked the above contributor - you guessed it - cannot edit own talk page. 86.134.217.249 (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
First at no point in NeilN's post is the term "grossly improper" used. Next a SPI report was filed here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change/Archive#08 July 2015. It was closed per WP:DUCK and the IP was blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise not NeilN. Next explanation is needed as to what the "Hackney Libraries" case is and some differences will need to be provided as to which participants were blocked. Lastly NeilN was not notified of this thread. IMO Thomas.W was correct in deleting it and either that should be done again or it should be hatted as all it is doing is drawing SPA IP edits that are basically personal attacks. MarnetteD|Talk 19:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for the long post, but I feel it is necessary for the reader to get a full sense of the entire picture. A TL;DR summary is at the end for convenience.
AnulBanul (talk·contribs) is an account that demonstrably belongs to user Wüstenfuchs (talk·contribs) a fact that runs counter to his blatant lie that he has "no connection to the said user whatsoever". [75] The user, in spite of his "Armenian who lived in Serbia" persona [76], has never once edited the Armenian Wikipedia (hy.wikipedia.org) or Serbian Wikipedia (sr.wikipedia.org). [77] Note that Wüstenfuchs joined WikiProject Armenia [78] and that later AnulBanul joined WikiProject Armenia as editing from Georgia [79] then Russia [80]. He then began building his persona changing his intitial name from Anulmanul to Anna Sahakyan [81], then Anushka [82], then Yerevani Axjik [83], and then to his current name AnulBanul. He then uploaded a selfie image [84] to presumably impersonate a person named Anna Sahakyan from Yerevan that he took off a Facebook profile or VK (Russian social networking website). He proceeded to use that image on his userpage and refer to himself as "Anna" [85] and created a backstory for the said individual. Numerous FB and VK profiles exist under that name, but I won't link any for their privacy.
Note that AnulBanul instead edits the Croatian Wikipedia which when he does concerns right-wing and far-right Croatian politicians and parties. [86] which is quite odd when the user labels himself a liberal from the University of Belgrade. [87] Indeed it's hard to believe it's anyone other than him when he does such obscure and specific edits such as [88][89] (among the litany of other identical ones shown below). Note that the Wüstenfuchs account became inactive on 20 September 2014, [90] two days later the AnulBanul account became active on 22 September 2014. [91] The last edit of Wüstenfuchs (Bilal Bosnić, ISIL recruiter) and first edit of AnulBanul (Military intervention against ISIL) are both related to Islamic extremism. Further note that Wüstenfuchs' Mostar IP was blocked for block evading in order to edit war. [92] That same IP (93.180.104.124 (talk·contribs)) edited three articles, all of which were created by Wüstenfuchs and all of which were later edited by AnulBanul/Wüstenfuchs with the same POV: Avdo Humo (IP: [93], AnulBanul: [94]), Hasan Brkić (IP: [95], Wüstenfuchs [96]), and Osman Karabegović (IP: [97], Wüstenfuchs: [98])
On 26 May AnulBanul was topic banned from anything related to Bosnia and Herzegovina for 3 months [99] Immediately the day after he proceeded to vandalize a Bosnia and Herzegovina related userbox in order to troll. [100] A week later he violated his topic ban via IPs 185.38.146.201 (talk·contribs) and 93.180.126.249 (talk·contribs) both Mostar IPs. Both have the same exact lines and POV on obscure articles with one of them being pushed against Dragodol, his edit warring buddy that was also topic banned, in the Nijaz Duraković article [101][102] and in the Jovan Divjak article the same exact line of unsourced nonsense that he was a "show general". [103][104] Note that the 93.180.126.249 Mostar IP's contributions on the Croatian Wikipedia. He picks up where Wustenfuchs and AnulBanul left off on the Croatian Party of Rights of Bosnia and Herzegovina article [105] and on the Croatian Democratic Union 1990 article [106] where his Herr Ziffer (blocked) and Wustenfuchs accounts formerly edited and on the Croatian Party of Rights (Bosnia and Herzegovina) [107] article where Wustenfuchs formerly edited. Another IP (blocked) that edited all those same articles in the same manner also created the Nijaz Duraković article on the Croatian Wikipedia. [108] He later admitted that those were indeed his IPs [109] however those were not the only topic ban evading IPs. Other discovered evading IPs that AnulBanul did not disclose include 85.94.128.192 (talk·contribs), 46.35.153.151 (talk·contribs), and 46.35.131.167 (talk·contribs) and there are more than likely many others out there. The story does not stop with using IPs to just topic ban evade as he has also used them to vandalize, commit BLP violations, edit war and circumvent 3RR, etc and the AnulBanul account is not the only sockpuppet he has and has used the K. Solin (talk·contribs) and RossaLuxx (talk·contribs) accounts to split his edits, evade scrutiny, and have sleeper accounts. There may be many more such accounts out there.
Wüstenfuchs joined WikiProject Armenia [114], later AnulBanul joined the WP as editing from Georgia [115] then Russia [116]
Dragan Čović, AnulBanul uploaded an image of the Bosnian Croat politician and credited it to Herr Ziffer [117] Herr Ziffer was Wustenfuchs' sockpuppet handle at commons [118][119]
addition of "illegitimate representative" content and reference stuffed by Wüstenfuchs [165][166][167][168], sources replaced (note sfn template) by K. Solin [169]
removal of information relating to Georgetown University degree by K. Solin [170], removal of information relating to Georgetown University degree by Mostar IP [171], removal of information relating to Georgetown University degree by AnulBanul [172]
Commons: Both at the University of Mostar specifically the Faculty of Philosophy/Humanities. Use identical name format using (1), (2), (3), etc. Use identical licensing and summary.
AnulBanul uploaded images of a speaker at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Mostar [186][187][188][189][190][191]
AnulBanul uploaded images of the exterior of the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Mostar [192][193][194][195][196]
K. Solin uploaded images of a speaker at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Mostar [197][198][199]
K. Solin updated logo of Faculty of Law, University of Mostar intially uploaded by Herr Ziffer [200]
RossaLuxx
First edit ever edit on Croatian Wikipedia was creating a sophisticated userpage with a gradient and image. Note the code in RossaLuxx's page <div style="background-color:{{prijelazna boja|top|#000000, #CC0000}};">
[[Datoteka: and compare to AnulBanul's page <div style="background-color:{{linear-gradient|top|#fdffe7, #FFFFFF}};">[[File:
Added category to AnulBanul's File:Croatia 2014 map results.PNG upload [201], then uploaded File:Croatia 2015 map results runoff.PNG in same style of original, same summary, and same license [202]
Mostar IP added AnulBanul's File:Croatia 2014 map results.PNG upload [203], 13 days later RossaLuxx added File:Croatia 2015 map results runoff.PNG using near identical description [204]
Herr Ziffer
Žitomislić: Herr Ziffer blaming destruction of a church on different army, [205], AnulBanul blaming destruction of same church on same army [206], later he claimed that he "wasn't aware" that he made the edit [207]
Bitka za Karvačar: Herr Ziffer uploaded File:Bitka za Karvačar.jpg map on commons [208], the map was added to the article by Wüstenfuchs [209], article edited by K. Solin [210] (note there are only 4 editors who have ever edited the page [211])
Dragan Čović: AnulBanul uploaded a crop of Herr Ziffer's copyvio image [212]
Rafael Boban: image uploaded by Herr Ziffer [213], added to article by Wüstenfuchs [214]
Note almost all of his discovered accounts have been indef blocked on various Wikis for tendentious editing and sockpuppetry:
As shown above the user shows a propensity to evade scrutiny throughout Wikis by constant logged out IP hopping, fragmenting edit history among new accounts, and making sleeper accounts. In addition to this he has also:
Used a Mostar IP of Anulbanul [223][224] in order to commit sneaky vandalism, a BLP violation, and libel by referring to a man as a "shithead" ("govnar") in Serbo-Croatian and pretending it's his surname [225][226]
Used a Mostar IP of Anulbanul to immaturely troll on the Valentin Inzko article [227] and has even vandalised a "on this day" template he personally dislikes while logged in [228]
Used Mostar IPs to help initiate and facilitate edit wars, avoid 3RR, and then report the other user [229]
His Wustefuchs [244] and Wustenfuchs [245] accounts were both blocked on commons "unfree files after warnings" and abuse of multiple accounts. [246][247] Despite this he has evaded his block via sockpuppets and continued to purposefully upload copyrighted material under false CC licenses with his Herr Ziffer, AnulBanul, and K: Solin handles as the authors.
Uploading as AnulBanul an image crop of a file uploaded by Herr Ziffer which was removed for copyright violation [248]
Uploading as K. Solin an image crop of a file uploaded by AnulBanul which was removed for copyright violation [249]
Uploading an image [250] taken from [251] while claiming he made it and falsifying the license
Uploading an image [252] taken from [253] while claiming he made it and falsifying the license
Uploading several other copyright infringing images as sockpuppets Herr Ziffer [254] and AnulBanul [255]
TL;DR:
In summary his activity on Wikipedia involves:
The absolute denial of any connection to his sockpuppet AnulBanul account and creation and non-disclosure of any other sockpuppet and sleeper accounts (K. Solin, RosaLuxx, etc)
The impersonation of an Armenian female individual named Anna Sahakyan from Yerevan to appear more neutral, completely unrelated to past edits/accounts, and assume her identity (even going so far as to upload her selfie image) in order to deceive other users
The constant splitting of his past edit history through new accounts and IP hopping to game the system, sockpuppeteer, deceive users, vandalize, commit BLP violations, circumvent 3RR, and avoid scrutiny
The forging of a clean slate that is without previous ARBMAC warnings and blocks to appear in good standing and receive more leeway around admins
The willingness to repeatedly avoid blocks and topic bans if he was sure he wouldn't be caught
I have not once edited with any of those accounts at the English Wikipedia, except Wustenfuchs, and I have the right to do so, I can switch to another account for several personal reasons. This was in order to protect my privacy and to protect myself from vandal attacks and other attacks after I edited several pages related to the Syrian civil war back in 2012. It is not my fault that Wikimedia creates accounts on all wikis if you create an account on a Croatian one. Those accounts remained inactive and will remain so. I was blocked for using IPs on your report, and my block ended today. Moreover, I said those were my IPs. Another thing, you will respect my gender identity. I'm not "he". --AnulBanul (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Good to know you that finally admit to the fact that Wüstenfuchs is indeed your account after claiming that you had "no connection to the said user whatsoever" and again admit to editing from Mostar and not Armenia, Serbia, Georgia, or Russia as you wished to purposely mislead others into believing.
The valid reasons for multiple accounts are listed here. None of them state that doing what you claim to have done it for is valid. In any event all the edits of the K. Solin, Herr Ziffer, RossaLux accounts were in 2014 and so have nothing to do with some 2012 harassment.
Nonsense those accounts have edits on English Wikipedia and correspond with your POV as demonstrated by a litany of diffs. Accounts are automatically made when you visit Wikipedia in another language (that's understandable), but you not only did this and edited on the English Wikipedia. You edited the Milan Gorkić page on 27 November 2014 as AnulBanul with HHVM (note tag in summary) [256] and then three days later as K. Solin on 30 November 2014 with HHVM [257] Adding content as AnulBanul [258] and picking up where you left off as K. Solin [259][260] with references you had previously added as Wüstenfuchs. [261] But I suppose that the brand new account adding info in your POV in an obscure article that you created with the same 1984 Croatian work you used is not you?
In my past correspondences to you as Wüstenfuchs I referred to you in male pronouns (Wikipedia is overwhelmingly male) and you never raised this issue, and up until this point the same with your AnulBanul account. I have a hard time believing that you're a female... or that your name is actually Anna, or that you are Armenian, or that you studied at the University of Belgrade, or that you were born and lived in Yerevan, or that that is your selfie image. More likely you are impersonating some poor girl using her name, photo, and location to deceive users. --Potočnik (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
It is clearly my name is not Anna, as I said, I used this previous account. You can proceede with sock puppet investigation, if you wish. I'll admit I used K. Solin as my account. But had no intention of hiding my edit history. If that's wrongful, I'll suffer the consequences. --AnulBanul (talk) 08:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't be shocked if others don't jump in on this, very much TLDR. Let me clear up a couple of things here and allow you to restate the things that really matter: First, whatever happens at Commons or other Wikis, we don't really care so much here. We have no authority there, the rules are different on different wikis, so our focus is really on activity HERE, under most circumstances. Having the account does't matter, only what you do with it matters.
Next, ANI is the wrong venue for a sockpuppet investigation, and in fact, it is the worst possible venue because it doesn't generate all the autolinks for investigating and ANI isn't a formal board like SPI. Regardless it is here, but you've made it more difficult to investigate.
What really matters most is overlapping edits on the same article, etc. Secondarily, a clear showing of avoiding scrutiny. If they are avoiding an Arb warning, you can typically just add that Arb warning to their page and be done with it. If they are using multiple accounts for reasons under WP:SOCK that are acceptable, then they aren't sanctionable. It isn't clear because you have focused on quantity rather than simple linkage here. Can you please narrow it down to what really matters. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I mentioned commons and the other Wikipedias to demonstrate that the behavior isn't restricted to a single language or part of Wikipedia and to show what he has a propensity for doing. I didn't dwell on it much. A sockpuppet investigation shouldn't be necessary in the first place as users who do have multiple accounts are supposed to have them "fully and openly disclosed" and not create personas for them, deny any connection to them, and keep them hidden. But if you insist then I'll post the matter there also. None of the valid reasons for using multiple accounts is applicable here. As shown above he has been "avoiding scrutiny" by "using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. (...) it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions" (AnulBanul, K. Solin) and "editing logged out to mislead" by "editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the principles of this policy." (edit war and avoid 3RR, delete sourced info, POV push, sneaky vandalism, a BLP violation, troll) --Potočnik (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The point is, you muddy the waters when you add all that extra stuff. Show links to articles where he edited first as an editor, then as another editor or IP. Those are facts, all the other stuff just makes it too long to read and determine. Sockpuppet investigating is about dry facts, no opinions. Honestly, WP:SPI is where it needs to go, as you are claiming four accounts, and there is the need for a formal board where random input from other editors isn't an issue. They key is getting it right, not getting it fast or in the ANI crowd. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I have violated my topic ban, and was blocked for ten days - that is, until today. --AnulBanul (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree this goes beyond sockpuppet as it seems to be all about long-term gaming the system and may need to go to arbitration. Even if it's tl;dr, I read and it's good detective work. The whole back story doesn't matter (there's no problem to invent an identity, outside of taking someone else's photo) except it's very easy to prove untrue and thus provides no plausible alternative as to another identity. Additionally, someone who goes to extravagant lengths to edit here is not likely to be dissuaded by the usual sock blocks. AnulBanul, if you are an Armenian (or Russian-Armenian, by your name Anushka) would you prefer to discuss this situation in Armenian or Russian? You only edited one article on the Russian Wikipedia and I can't understand it [262] - in the infobox, you changed the link to Split (town) to Split (the disambiguation)... a bit odd. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I already explained myself. See my other post. --AnulBanul (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
No. The one where I said, that I created additional account in order to distance myself from possible vandalisms made on my old Wustenfuchs account, after editing Syrian civil war topic. --AnulBanul (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
What vandalism against Wüstenfuchs? Your account was already blocked! You made AnulBanul in September 2014, right after Wüstenfuchs was finally blocked on the Croatian Wiki. (Btw, Wüstenfuchs was blocked for two-years after 19 PREVIOUS blocks on the Croatian Wiki. Wüstenfuchs was also blocked eight times on the English Wiki.) Then you made K. Solin in November 2014. So you didn't just make one additional account, you made at least two.... all to "protect yourself" from retribution against edits you made two years earlier? —МандичкаYO 😜 14:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Keep picking and it all falls apart. First he claimed he had "no connection whatsoever" to the Wüstenfuchs account and that it wasn't his, [263] then claimed all accounts but the Wüstenfuchs account weren't his, [264] and then claimed all but the Wüstenfuchs and K. Solin accounts weren't his. [265] Note he's deleted his AnulBanul userpage likely to make evidentiary diffs of his user page null and to make the RossaLuxx claim unverifiable. --Potočnik (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Proposal to take this to arbitration. I have been trying to go through all this information across the various wikis and admin reports, admissions of using multiple accounts without disclosure, admissions of ban evasion, admissions of violating topic bans, etc. I don't think ANI or SPI is the right place for either as the response will be "tl;dr" which is benefiting AnulBanul, as is the "different wikis have different policies" reasoning. He created the AnulBanul account after being given a two-year ban on the Croatian Wikipedia, in order to evade the ban (behavior not allowed on any Wikipedia) and AnulBanul was indeffed on the Croatian Wiki after being caught. As AnulBanul's favorite topics are areas under oversight, I think it needs to be taken to arbitration. Taking a random person's someone's photo off the Internet and uploading it to Commons as a "self-portrait" in order to use it on the a Wikipedia userpage to disguise oneself (sorry, this is not you [266]) is a significant violation of the rules, and should be investigated. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
You don't propose to take it to Arb, you either take it there or you don't. Please note that if you haven't even filed an SPI so a formal investigation can be done (and likely completely deal with since they can deal with anything, even behavior, and use Checkuser) then it will surely get thrown out. Arb is the final step after everything else has failed, not the first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
See my comment to Мандичка above. SPI is unnecessary and the evidence against the other two accounts are just as definitive. --Potočnik (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
OK struck out the proposal part. But my intention was to ask the people more familiar if they would like to take it to Arbitration. I just became aware of this situation, but it seems to me that the usual check user/ANI is not being effective in this case and are only of slight inconvenience to this editor. There are not enough people interested in taking the time to wade through this information on ANI. There is considerable, very aggressive gaming the system to avoid blocks and topic bans on multiple wikis, going back to at least 2008, all in order to make disruptive posts, and IMO there needs to be some kind of global checkuser to see the full extent. I've never created an Arb case so I don't know how to proceed. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, this is certainly cut-and-dried. The report is a bit TLDR, but its pretty blatant when you take a look. Uh.. will someone step in? -- Director(talk) 09:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Director, I honestly don't know what it is going to take for anyone to actually pay attention. Dennis Brown's response ("that's too long for me to be expected to read") is indicative of the apathy that has allowed this to go on. —МандичкаYO 😜 09:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure someone will eventually take the time... -- Director(talk) 17:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the complexities involved here (stemming from apparent wiliness in a seemingly problematic editor) mean that an arb case might be the most ideal solution, but those who want action here really ought to heeding Dennis' pragmatic advice on the matter. The arbs are going to be less than impressed by the issue being dropped into their laps without any intermediate steps in formal investigation. No matter how much a foregone conclusion the linking between the accounts is seen to be by those seeking action here, if they are not willing to file the arbitration case themselves, the best alternative course of action remains SPI. From a practical respect, it is most likely to lead to action regarding any breaking with policy. And if it doesn't work out, you'll be able to demonstrate that lower channels were pursued before taking the matter to ArbCom. Snowlet's rap 03:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I've posted an SPI. While I think it's redundant given all the surmounting evidence I also do think it's necessary to go through the lower channels before taking it upstairs as you've said. I note that AnulBanul is busy ridding evidence of his misconduct. [267] --Potočnik (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The user has been alerted here.Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Given his personal hostility to a known and established writer, his insistence on smearing him, I ask that he be sanctioned by being asked to refrain from editing any articles or pages where Blumenthal is being cited or discussed.Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Is this what you wanted? I didn't know how to "strike off" comments until now. It wasn't my intention to offend your sensitivity and I deeply regret it.--Averysoda (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
This means that you think striking out a smear is not compliance with policy, but bending to a threat by another editor who is acting as a censor. If you believe Blumenthal, against all the evidence, is an anti-Semite, and a bigot (as opposed to a critic of bigotry, you shouldn't be editing anywhere near articles where he is cited, or discussions boards regarding him as a source. My sensitivities have nothing to do with it.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a pretty clear attempt to get rid of an opponent. Notice the sanction being requested (for an alleged first offense by a relatively new user) would solve a problem for Nishidani, not the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia's problem, as far as there is one, was solved when "bigot" was struck out. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Another personal attack, as several on the page. I am asking for an independent judgement not a partisan harangue by either side. Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, Nishidani. I recognize I made a mistake. I should have chosen my words more carefully. Strong words like "antisemite" and "bigoted" are not appropriate, even when they were written in the heat of discussion, as you may understand (in response to the "repulsive Jewish state" you mentioned). I won't repeat those words again. Could we move on with the main subject of the debate, which is to determine whether Blumenthal is a reliable source or not?--Averysoda (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Averysoda's recent comment suggests the editor doesn't understand that WP:BLP is a non-negotiable policy, not a matter of violating another editor's delicate "sensitivity". — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 19:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Did you read his comment just above yours? You neglected to mention he removed the comment you reference above, 15 minutes after posting it and before you brought it up here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Did you follow the sequence of events before claiming a pretty clear attempt to get rid of an opponent? Cus I see the user declining to strike claims that a living person is a bigoted anti-semite until this was brought here. Might be a better idea to advise your pal to not smear living people on Wikipedia instead of arguing with the people who specifically asked him to remove the comment at his or her talk page before anyone brought it up here. And even after being brought here, its not that the smear has no place here, its that Averysoda thinks the problem is offending [Nishidani's] sensitivities. You know what is pretty clear here? When a user goes through these acrobatics at AN/I it isnt because they actually recognize a mistake, its that they are worried about being sanctioned so they say whatever they think they need to so that they may avoid that. Oh, and its also pretty clear that a support network will come to their aid in waving off any problem instead of trying to take them aside and informing them that we have certain standards of behavior here, and insulting living people without basis violates that. nableezy - 16:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that most of your edits in the last month were either reverting or talking about edits by the subject of this report, regardless of a BLP violation. I doubt your ability to read their mind (or perhaps you were just projecting). It's also pretty clear that a new editor is unlikely to respond well to this kind of "request". And lastly, it's pretty clear that treating new editors harshly doesn't serve Wikipedia's dwindling editor count that well, either.
He made a minor BLP violation and corrected it. Please explain why you are agitating for a sanction for a first offence that was corrected fairly quickly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I didnt know my edits were the subject here. Or yours for that matter. Calling a living person an anti-semite and a bigot is not a minor BLP violation and refusing to take it down when asked to by 2 editors until an AN/I report is filed, and then saying that they are taking it down to rectify the offense to another's sensitivities is not correcting it fairly quickly. I havent agitated for anything by the way. Id just like to see a Wikipedia in which people dont rush to the side of somebody who has clearly done something that violates the policies of this website by hand waving and obfuscating, and instead tries to advise them what the proper thing to do is. Guess that aint what this place is yet tho. nableezy - 20:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
A. He called him a bigot, not an anti-semite. B. It was corrected within 2 hours and 7 minutes. That's fairly quickly in my book. C. I'm fairly certain he now understands what he can and can't say re living persons. D. Do I need to show some examples of you "rush[ing] to the side of somebody who has clearly done something that violates the policies of this website by hand waving and obfuscating"? Because that won't be hard to do. So kindly cut the bullshit. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
A. he also said And I don't care if that guy is Jewish ... I doubt a non-Jewish antisemite can be worse than him. B. It might be fairly quickly if it hadn't been a shade under 2 hours from when this notice was posted. A notice that was answered in 2 minutes with a I'm going to completely ignore the issue comment. And then another request that the material be removed was likewise fairly quicklyshrugged off as "meaningless". It only was fairly quickly removed when it was brought here, when a praise the heavens Saul has fallen off his ass moment appears to have struck, and either it was that the user self-reflected during the 15 minutes between the last time the user decided that it was meaningless to call smearing a living person offensive and come to the conclusion that it really is against out policies to use such language, or it was fear of being sanctioned and doing whatever they felt necessary to reduce that chance. Im gonna take a shot in the dark and say it was the latter. C. Im not. D. Go right ahead, though that would once again fall under obfuscating from the issue at hand, but I would be interested in seeing what you come up with. Because I, nor you, are under discussion here. And as much as you would like to deflect from what is, the fact remains that it is Averysoda's actions that are pertinent here. nableezy - 21:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
That was very long and I kinda lost interest somewhere in the middle. What's your point? That he should receive some kind of serious sanction because for two hours it said on a talk page that a living person was a bigot, and that Averysoda didn't respond well to someone who was a complete jerk to him? What do you want exactly? I think the fact you follow him around and revert him on pages you've never edited before [268] is quite relevant to why you're here, btw. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Well maybe if you pay attention and make it past somewhere in the middle youll see I havent actually asked for sanctions. As far as following him around, when a user repeatedly makes poor edits and says dishonest things in their edit summaries which result in unambiguous violations of policy, I sometimes check where else that has happened and correct those issues. I think you should actually read WP:HOUND and see the part about fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. But again, my edits arent the subject of this report. Deflect all you like, but your pal is the one that has been editing poorly. nableezy - 16:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Averysoda seems to be engaged with various editors on a number of pages, he seems not interested in dialogue but to create various edits to suit a POV or nationalist agenda. Another report has been added on his page today, I fear this will only escalate as obviously Averysoda has been caught up in a very serious nationalist agenda. I see no alternative but to a 6 month topic ban in relations to History of Israel, conflicts in involving Israel including pre-modern state and all Arab-Israeli conflicts. --Rockybiggs (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
This was a WP:BLP violation, but in my limited interaction with Averysoda, he seems to be amenable to reasonable argument. For instance, he reverted his edit here, after I explained policy to him, and also he understood my explanation of WP:PRESERVEhere. He seems to be a new user, so a bit of leeway is fine. Kingsindian♝♚ 08:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Kingsindian, I think this latest edit sums up what we are dealing with here. Averysoda actually broke a 1RR rule, but then relised his mistake reversed this, and wait until today to revert without breaking the rules. Surely if we were dealing with a constructive and friendly editor in the time awaiting to revert within the rules, he could have taken to the talk pages. This will only get worse. When I have more time I will go through his full history --Rockybiggs (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
That does look bad. I wonder if he realizes that WP:1RR and WP:3RR are simply bright lines, and edit warring, even if slow-moving, is not allowed? He should read WP:GAMING. Kingsindian♝♚ 12:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Kingsindian, I've now started to look at his history, I can say with full confidence Averysoda is fully aware edit-waring isn't allowed, there has been enough warnings on his page. He has also demonstrated he is not willing to engage with anyone in the talk pages, as I'm really struggling to find any talk page comments from this user. Clearly has set himself on a path of editing and edit warring until pages look how he wishes with very little engagement with other users.--Rockybiggs (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Far from pot kettle, this was clearly edit warring by yourself, I've engaged on the talk page and a consensus was reached by a majority. You have taken no interest in that talk page or any page you edit, I cannot find one talk page comment. This causes myself and others great concern, as your actions go against the community, and why I strongly back a topic ban and until you prove otherwise--Rockybiggs (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Igorp lj I'm not actually sure if you are serious, as you mention 'attempt to add without any w/out any discussion?'. This has been discussed with the majority in favour of adding Terrorist to the lead. Averysoda is the one who months later has come along, NEVER posted on a talk page and started reverting. I presume you haven't seen this talk page or just a supporter of Averysoda POV agenda. here is proof we have an editor who is engaged in WP:IDontLikeit in nearly every page he edits and edit wars all over the place--Rockybiggs (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm serious and see these your non-consensus edits/reverts made w/out any discussion (and even after this edit of someone who surely isn't supporter of Averysoda :) as a trick and POV-Pushing . --Igorp_lj (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
If you are serious and you keep making the odd claim I haven't discussed this on the talk page, when a 2 second view proves I have, I can only assume your a supporter of the POV Averysoda, and this will be my last post in this rather pointless discussion.--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I noticed now that you are plunking, without reading the text, a blob or two from a dated book by a novelist who ventured into the intricate history of the PLO, on several pages, and whose book is so dated she only got it back into print by self-republishing it. This is becoming a behavioural issue. At South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000)here and here. This broke 1R. The same blob is introduced now at 1982 Lebanon War
That article has a well documented section which reads:
Between July 1981 and June 1982, as a result of the Habib ceasefire, the Lebanese-Israeli border "enjoyed a state of calm unprecedented since 1968."[7] But the 'calm' was tense. US Secretary of State, Alexander Haig filed a report with US President Ronald Reagan on Saturday 30 January 1982 that revealed Secretary Haig's fear that Israel might, at the slightest provocation, start a war against Lebanon.[29] The 'calm' lasted nine months. Then, on 21 April 1982, after a landmine killed an Israeli officer while he was visiting a South Lebanese Army gun emplacement in Taibe, Lebanon, the Israeli Air Force attacked the Palestinian-controlled coastal town of Damour, killing 23 people
The blobs you introduced from [[Jillian Becker] then read:
after constant attacks from the PLO on the civilian population of Galilee in northern Israel.(lead
From the ceasefire, established in July 1981, until the start of the war, the Israeli government reported 270 terrorist attacks by the PLO in Israel, the occupied territories, and the Jordanian and Lebanese border (in addition to 20 attacks on Israeli interests abroad).Becker, Jillian (1984). PLO: The Rise and Fall of the Palestine Liberation Organization. AuthorHouse. p. 257. ISBN978-1-4918-4435-9.
I.e. we have sources saying there was calm on the borders preceding the war. And you come up with a source with an outdated piece of official propaganda no one takes seriously any more, which says the exact opposite, a piece of hasbara at the time which was buried by later research, and edit-war to keep it in.
(a) Becker's work is so dated, and is only the Israeli official line which historiography doesn't accept, even in Israel, that the edition you cite is 'self-published'.
(b)You haven't even troubled to read the text. The figures you introduce stand in start contrast to the actual data given by the UN peacekeeping body observing Israeli and Palestinian behavior on both sides of the border. Articles are meant to have internal cogency and be neutral. You cannot plunk 'stuff' in that implies the documented remainder of the text is false. You are hyperactively dumping 'stuff' without considering the mess it causes, as here. Sheer POV-pushing in multiple articles, with very little talk page justification. Any attempt to revert you gets reverted.Nishidani (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Becker is a reliable journalist that was on the ground during the Lebanon conflict. In addition, I found two more reliable sources (from books) in just a few minutes, also reporting PLO attacks from Lebanon as a reason for the 1982 Israeli invasion. In any case, I don't understand why you refuse to discuss this on the talk page of the article instead of here.--Averysoda (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Except you blatantly distorted at least one of those sources. nableezy - 22:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't be disruptive. Anyone critical of Israel's policies regarding Palestinians is ipso facto anti-Semite in a certain quarterbaked lowbrow variety of polemics that thrive on smear for want of arguments. Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
"reasons given (by Simon Wiesenthal Center --Igorp_lj (talk)) being that chapter titles in the book Goliath were used to "equate Israel with the Nazi regime" and that Blumenthal had quoted "approvingly characterizations of Israeli soldiers as 'Judeo-Nazis.'"
User:Христо Зарев Игнатов (talk, contribs) has engaged in an array of disruptive editing over the past five days, edit warring and violating 3RR on numerous pages. He has also used roving unlogged-IP addresses to evade 3RR (mostly of the series 212.5.158.xxx). He violated 3RR at Tervel of Bulgaria (history) on 26-27 June. He was blocked from editing for a day on 27 June for edit warring and misuse of logged-out editing at Kardam of Bulgaria (history). On 1 July he engaged in further disruption at Kardam and at several other pages: for example, Krum (history), Malamir of Bulgaria (history), and Kotrag (history). The editor repeatedly adds POV content and non-RS sources. This has been explained to him on multiple talk pages: especially here, but also here, here, and on his user talk page. WP guidelines such as RS have been pointed out to the user, but he has ignored them. His edits have required users such as myself, User:Cplakidas, User:TodorBozhinov, and others to track and remove them and repeatedly explain WP policy to him, to no avail. The initial block on his editing privileges clearly has not stopped his disruptive behavior, and a further block should be instituted. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
User is currently evading their block by using IP's (212.5.158.188 and 212.5.158.218) to edit the articles and leave disruptive user talk page message. I've added one month page protection to the articles. Bgwhite (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Bgwhite: User is now evading the block under the IP 176.12.58.89 (contribs), edit warring with the same edits as before. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Laszlo Panaflex Page protected, IP block and reverted all their edits. I have a feeling this will take awhile till they stop. Give a yell if you see any more "fun". Bgwhite (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) In case anyone misses the editor's post to the Help desk, in which he admits "I do not have the experience (or even know how) to express my views to the reviewers". To WP:AGF he might just not know that Talk pages are a thing? 野狼院ひさしu/t/c 15:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Fklatt's edits seem to be heavily promotional towards his own device that he is marketing at bestelectricmachine.com. He added[285] and then continually re-adds the material to 3D printing after deletion by other editors[286][287][288][289][290][291][292][293][294][295][296][297] and Doubly fed electric machine is an article created and heavily edited by him[298] that he sprinkles with links to his website that have been removed several times by other editors (removed by me last go around[299]). I personally don't see the lack of skill or competence claimed by Fklatt. He has been editing for 9 years now and Guy Macon's links above show Fklatt does know how to engage in talk when necessary and, even if it was true, WP:DONTGETIT is not proof against sanction. Fklatt seems to simply be WP:GAMING, namely 'Borderlining' edits after reverts. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE and those of us who work on the engineering articles shouldn't have to spend any more time cleaning up after Fklatt's ongoing advertising campaign. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
See Talk:3D printing#Conflict of interest editing. It looks like he is making a good-faith effort to follow our COI rules, but he is still treating Wikipedia like some website where you do X, Y and Z and your edit gets published. I am trying to get him to understand that he needs to engage us in a discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Given his recent replies on his talk page, I think he is playing a "I don't understand the rules" game in order to trigger WP:AGF and thus be allowed continue his advertising campaign. I think a series of escalating blocks will result in a sudden ability to carry on a normal conversation. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
...and here is his response to being repeatedly asked to [A] respond here and [B] answer the questions several editors have asked on his talk page:[300] He is a "pioneering contributor" who has "added lots of important (non-commercial but technically 'promotional') info to Wikipedia", and we are "zealots" who need to "get off of our collectivist bandwagon and think 'promotional' innovation for all our sakes". I find it interesting that those who want Wikipedia to prominently feature new, not-yet-notable technologies always seem to be the exact same people who will make a lot of money if those technologies are widely adopted. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
User's inability to refrain from test editing, following multiple warnings and reverts of information[edit]
To me, it is hard to see where the edits are in bad faith. The only one to actually warn him is you. Twice you called his edits vandalism, but to those of us that don't watch the show, it's not readily obvious how these edits were vandalism. Specific diffs and explanations would be helpful, and I would be interested in letting others opine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
His edits show a history of only being here to annoy other editors. He constantly puts in the same, unsourced info over and over again, only to delete it and leave us all wondering, "What the ****?" Case(s) in point:
If they were always different, I could assume good faith that he's new at editing, making mistakes and cleaning up after himself but... when it's just the same things over and over again (there are others but, to keep going is time consuming), he's clearly just here to play around. As for Livelikemusic being the only one to warn him, that's only because I leave it for Livelikemusic to do because I know he will. If LLM weren't around, I would have issued warnings myself as well.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved
Category:Owned by the Bucksham Co-operative was deleted as vandalism but contains several pages of attacks from blocked accounts, probably sockpuppets of Evlekis and Max Pumpkin. alk page access needs removing for accounts that are not already locked as well as some of the blocked accounts used on the Nelson Brothers article. New user Eno Emit Laiceps Reffo Won has added their own user page to the same category and created a hoax article. Peter James (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC
I feel like I trod in something, clearing that up. -- zzuuzz(talk) 21:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Another one gone. -- zzuuzz(talk) 21:48, 9 July 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.
While this IP user's substantive edits have not necessarily been vandalism, their edit summaries have contained racist and homophobic slurs directed at other users (well, at me anyway: [301]). The user then falsely accused me of personal attacks. This pattern continued after a warning. Agtx (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Blocked, edit summaries revdelled. --NeilNtalk to me 05:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate the revdel. Agtx (talk) 05:09, 10 July 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.
Multiple IP Content Reverts/Re-addtions to Meat[edit]
I am not sure whether this constitutes vandalism, sockpuppetry, a WP:RFPP matter or an edit war at this point, so I am asking an admin to take a look. Along with another editor (and ClueBOT), I reverted some persistent editing to the article as vandalism. This initially resulted in the IP user being blocked. A glance at the history page for the article tells a pretty clear story of what is going on. The user initially began making significant, disruptive changes to the article (WP:POV issues, removing sources, some edits that look like pure vandalism) and has continued to do so. You can see the initial discussion between myself, another editor and the individual as 96.228.52.184 on that IP's talk page, as well as the block notification. There is some further discussion on my talk page. The same individual has returned as the 72.84.207.76 IP and continued to make persistent changes to the article. Here are diffs for some of the edits I am talking about: [302], [303], [304], [305], [306], [307], [308], [309] and so on. To me, it borders on pure vandalism, but in the interest of WP:AGF and understanding that this individual feels passionately about it, I thought I would bring it here. Thanks for your time. I'll put a note on the 72.84.207.76 IP's talk page immediately after this. Into The FrayT/C 04:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
See also User:Breanna4567 - clearly the same person. Note this post at Talk:Main Page [310] "What happened to the article "meat"??" AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
And now Breanna4567 has blanked this thread.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Update: So Breanna4567 has been indef blocked. IP 96.228.52.184 was recently blocked by by Kudpung, but that block has already expired. IP 72.84.207.76 was temporarily blocked back in April 26, but not since then... I'm wondering if maybe an WP:SPI report might be the way to go here? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I can certainly do that if needed. It was my initial inclination but as far as sock puppetry goes, it's not the most egregious of cases and perhaps I am being trolled, but at least as far as some of the more recent edits to Meat went, it did appear that there might have been some . . . however misguided . . . intent to add sourced content to the article. Hence bringing it here. If WP:SPI is the way to go, I'll put it there. Into The FrayT/C 02:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
It appears that a persistent UK vandal, the cause of death vandal, has begun using Greek IPs. Compare the following pairs of edits, one made by the UK vandal and the other made by newly active Greek IPs:
These UK and Greek IPs have recently been changing a lot of infoboxes from one sort to another, that is changing Template:Infobox musical artist to Template:Infobox person, most likely because the former template does not support parameters for spouse or cause of death.
Joe Cocker gets visited by the UK IP 86.8.78.35 changing a header to "Death", and then by the Greek IP 46.103.174.17 changing the infobox, followed by more Greek IPs 87.202.0.191 changing the infobox, and changing the cause of death parameter 176.92.64.150, finally changing the infobox 46.198.23.4.
So it appears that our LTA vandal has shifted his activity to Greece, either physically or by proxy. Any suggestions for stopping this guy? Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps he's on holiday in Greece? It's a very common destination for UK tourists. Black Kite (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Yikes! So we're thinking that he's vandalizing Wikipedia while on vacation?!! That's just all kinds of wrong... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
This place lost the ability to surprise me a long time ago. Black Kite (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Vacation to consistent vandals=unsecured shop/hotel wifi and IP's free from blocks and simple collateral damage they don't have to take responsibility from once the trip ends. The children's TV/broadcast vandal community loves when they get away and go to town on their favorite articles while their parents/SO sees the sights, so sadly this is hardly new. Nate•(chatter) 04:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The question remains: what to do about this guy? Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
With them operating from random IP ranges at the moment and hitting random articles, there's nothing really that can be done through blocking or protection. However, if they're making very similar edits over and over, an edit-filter could be useful. I'll post over there. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Update: the guy is starting to use IPv6 addresses. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
IP 190.178.197.152 has admitted to being Mike Bingham, who as IP 190.178.230.223 was blocked for legal threats on 5 July. They are pushing their unsourced version of the article again, and claimed to be Mike Binghamhere. Not only is their editing disruptive (they're calling sourced information incorrect, and replacing it with unsourced information), but it's clear block evasion. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Blocked with a note saying they cannot edit until they explicitly withdraw the legal threat they made. --NeilNtalk to me 11:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
It appears the IP did attempt to withdraw the legal threat (stating so both in this post and subject line here) prior to being blocked. There's still a WP:COI issue; but it appears the WP:NLT issue is resolved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Not sure how I missed that but I've unblocked and apologized. --NeilNtalk to me 16:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if the recent edits to AnonCoders are spam, soapbox or vandalism, or all three. Pleaase see history of last 3 days Repeated re-addition of vast, totally unreferenced series of sop-box claims and accusations e.g.
Stop Blaming Islam For All Those False Flags Done By The Zionists , The British Empire And The Empires Around The World
Islam Was Never The Reason For The First World War , Never The Reason For The Second World War , It Will Not Be The Reason For The The Third World War... Islam Was Also Not Responsible For 9-11 Or In London , Moscow , Munich Or Now In France
Also repeated re-addition of vast list of External links, and removal of Maintenance templates Primarily by SPA User:DonKovalski (who is now autoconfirmed so semi-protection won't help on its own) also by an IP 74.120.223.154 Identical style (Every Word Beginning In A Capital) to originator of article User:AnonCoders who was indeffed in March - assume sockpuppets. Suggest User:DonKovalski is indeffed and article semi-protected, please. - Arjayay (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Activity has stopped cold, so protection is likely no longer needed. Please post at RFPP if the situation changes. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I protected anyway. The chances of him not coming back are slim to none. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I was just about to close this thread, but then I read the article, and, well, is AnonCoders even a notable subject? Erpertblah, blah, blah... 00:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure that it is, but I removed the PROD template anyway. My reason: An (Otherwise Grotesque) Version Has A Large Pile Of What Seem To Be References, And I (Arbitrarily) Clicked On Those Mentioning Kentucky And Most Of These Seemed OK. The article needs dispassionate attention (or perhaps deletion); and yes, as long as it survives, it might benefit from continuing S-protection. -- Hoary (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
WORKSFORME. Either a temporary server issue or a problem on OP end. -- KTC (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It has not been deleted. It loads just fine for me. -- GBfan 00:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@Smarkflea:, just a little reminder that if an article has been deleted, the article will load. However, this will show, see Reading Plus. The reason why it won't load is because of either your internet or Wikipedia was temporarily down. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 02:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Surely they mean the page will still load and you'll just see a glaring red box that says A page with this title has previously been deleted.Swarmwe ♥ our hive 05:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@Baseball Bugs: My apologies if my message wasn't clear, but Swarm states it perfectly for me. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 05:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I see what you're saying. If the viewer were seeing that, everyone would be seeing it. Presumably, for the OP, nothing loads when he selects that page. But ANI loads, obviously. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Then it must have been their internet. If all pages elsewhere within Wikipedia (ANI, ANEW, 3RR, etc.) load perfectly, then it's not Wikipedia. I have no issues with the article mentioned above. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 05:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Internet in general, or maybe just a blip in their router. Sometimes I'll get an error, and then I click the refresh button, and it usually loads, unless there actually is a router problem. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:56, 11 July 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.
Editor has been blocked for a week. By that time, enough contracts should be signed that it's a moot issue for the editor to care about. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user has been warned plenty of times about adding teams to the infoboxes of new NBA draftees before those players have actually signed contracts, as WP:NBA consensus is that it is a violation of both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V to say that players are on the teams they were drafted by when they haven't actually signed contracts yet. Despite these warnings, this user has persistently added this false information to the articles of new NBA draftees, most often D'Angelo Russell. While this type of editing may not necessarily be considered vandalism, it is definitely disruptive, because as I said, it goes against WP:NBA consensus, and this user has also been warned more than enough times. At this point, I feel that a short block is necessary for them. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, they haven't completely ignored all the warnings I've given them. They did leave a comment on my talk page in response to the second warning a couple weeks ago, but after I pointed out that they were incorrect about the information, they still continued to make the same kinds of edits despite the continued warnings, including the most recent warning where I explicitly said that I would report them to this noticeboard if they continued with their disruptive edits. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Here's another edit that just occurred: [315] ~ RobTalk 21:12, 9 July 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.
There is already a thread open at BLPN. If needed, sanctions can be given there, but ANI is not the place to discuss content or be constantly rude to people trying to point you in the right direction. Closing this because it seems like we are beating our head against a wall trying to get someone to the right venue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could an admin with an ounce of sense block DiscSquare per WP:TE, so we just might get Evelin Banev back on track? Alakzi (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Quick to block a sock blabbering on ANI, but nobody's got any time to block a tendentious SPA who's compromising the integrity of the encyclopaedia and has been doing so for the past four months, with the consent of an incompetent admin. Alakzi (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
First off, calling someone an "incompetent admin" is a personal attack. Good taste would be to strike it. Second, asking for "admin with an ounce of sense" isn't a good way to endear or attract someone to help you. We are volunteers, not your personal hit squad, if you don't give the same respect you would any other editor, don't expect people to jump to help you. I'm at work now, don't have time to research at this exact moment, but did make the time to make those two points. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Helpful, thank you. The correct response upon hearing that the encyclopaedia is being compromised is to nitpick over my vocabulary. We're all volunteers here; you're no exception. However, I expect of editors with elevated privileges to assist other contributors, and not make their life more difficult. Please understand my frustration. Alakzi (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
No one cares about your frustration when you snipe at people like you just did. I'll go have a look, but don't have the time to get deep into a situation where I'm likely to have both sides (including the one I'm attempting to help) lashing out at me. Cool it. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 15:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, comparing his restoration to the version from March, a fairly stable version, I don't see what I think would qualify as WP:TE. I see an edit war on a WP:BLP. As to what version is best, that is up to editors. As to the methods, you both are reverting each other fairly heavy, and I'm not going to pick which side is "right" on content, admin don't decide content. You may be right in part on some of this, I'm not sure, but really the board to take it to would be WP:BLPN because the real question is if that information is ok for a BLP, not whether one of you is reverting more than the other, as you both are reverting entirely too much and using the talk page entirely too little. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
(ec)Dennis Brown has it - neither of you have edited the talk page at all. User:Swarm has semi'ed the article for a year, and might have some insight, but the next step here is discussion about the content. And that discussion doesn't go here. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 15:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
What is there to discuss with someone who reverts to a version which includes a falsehood in the very first sentence? The editor is an SPA with a COI. It doesn't get any more obvious than this. Alakzi (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The tone of Alakzi made me want to pass this by. However upon investigation I see a content dispute with very little attempt at communication. I think you will find admins don't have the same "sense" that you do when it comes to blocking one side in a content dispute. Chillum 15:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you should've conducted a more thorough research before proclaiming that it is a content dispute. Alakzi (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
It appears four admin disagree with you. Ultra, myself, Chillum and by virtue of his protection, Swarm. At some point you either decide that maybe you aren't being objective and should listen, or you assume the whole world is against you. The first is the more sane choice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:CIR. I'm arguing with four admins who've obviously got no idea how to write content, interpret the sources or identify violations of WP:NPOV. Alakzi (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
And I directed you to the talk page and WP:BLPN, where those things are discussed. As to the only reason you presented for coming here, claims of WP:TE, they are unsubstantiated. That is all we are saying. We don't decide content issues at ANI. This has already been noted a few times. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I despair. I'll find something else to do with my time; this is a lost cause. Alakzi (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't see how the semi-protection helps. There is persistent edit warring between autoconfirmed users. If there's protection at all it should be full protection. DiscSquare is repeatedly re-adding a 25KB chunk of badly written text whose sourcing doesn't look great by just glancing at the citations (they might hold up to inspection but aren't immediately recognizeable) and whose content is contentious enough to possibly be a real BLP problem. DiscSquare has been around for a while but has focused mostly on this one article, so in that sense is relatively new here. I do think some intervention is needed. I can't spend much time on this now but might be able to look into it later. Alakzi, you might open a WP:BLPN thread to ask for more eyes on DiscSquare's addition and other possible issues with the article. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you have a good bead. I'm not sure why that particular protection was used either. I agree there may be some BLP concerns, thus the recommendation for BLPN. Blatant violations we handle here, but borderline or simply "potential" BLP issues are not handled at ANI, and when they are, they are handled poorly. All we can do is direct someone to the right venue, but if they won't listen, we can't help that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify: User:DisqSquare has been around since February 2015, and has never edited any article other than Evelin Banev: [316]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Note that this was placed on WP:BLPN yesterday by the OP. There has been no response. 12.238.46.194 (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
This is content dispute over the fundamental focus of the article, which is a BLP dealing with a person in a tricky legal situation. These editors disagree on how he should be portrayed in the article—a known criminal who "got away" or a charged person who was vindicated by a judicial system. This is an understandable NPOV dispute and, from an impartial, outsider's perspective, there's no obvious "right" answer. As mentioned above, it's for editors to decide through DR and good-faith efforts to work this out so far have been scarce. Alakzi has been highly uncivil and tendentious throughout and has refused to consider the opposing viewpoint as anything more than disruption. I do not know much about the topic and have only protected the article due to it being a controversial target of BLP violations and vandalism that have continued after the last protection expired. Alakzi keeps taking it as a personal potshot for some reason. However his claim that DiscSquare is a biased, disruptive editor who needs to be blocked seems to be unfounded and by all appearances DiscSquare comes off as the more reasonable one here. Maybe he would get somewhere if he focused on good faith DR rather than personal attacks and stirring up drama at ANI. Swarmwe ♥ our hive 17:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Swarm, I can't endorse Alakzi's comments above, but this does not appear to be a typical "content dispute." I've just reviewed every edit to this article by User:DiscSquare: there is an obvious pattern of removing reliable English-language sources, including BBC news articles, removing references to "convicted drug trafficker" or "money-launderer" in the lead and/or text based on ostensibly reliable sources, repeatedly removing text related to multiple criminal indictments and convictions, and substituting such respectable-sounding characterizations as "businessman, entrepreneur, and a published author who was formerly accused of criminal activities." While the legal situation in Bulgaria is admittedly confusing, with a trial court conviction, then overturned on appeal, with the appellate decision reversed by the country's highest court, the subject has also been convicted in Italy and indicted in Switzerland and Romania. A quick review of all edits of this article since January 2015 shows a clear SPA editing pattern by DiscSquare of attempting to remove or confuse all references to subject's criminal indictments, convictions and alleged activities. BLPN may be a better forum for resolving the substantive issues, and Alakzi filed an unacknowledged request there yesterday, but this situation deserves more serious admin involvement -- and it is important to remember that our BLP, NPOV, RS and V policies and guidelines do not enforce themselves, even when the complaining party is not being particularly diplomatic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
But you need good editors at BLPN, not necessarily good admin as the tools shouldn't be required. Regardless, trying to handle it as ANI is a bad idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
". . . our BLP, NPOV, RS and V policies and guidelines do not enforce themselves, even when the complaining party is not being particularly diplomatic." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Please refer to my comment dated 15:47, 9 July 2015. It is not expected of you to understand the context at first glance; it is expected of you not to harangue me in a situation you've not appreciated fully. The assertion by Swarm (above) that I am the one who's been tendentious is frankly deserving of satire. My patience with admins whose only purpose here ostensibly is to discourage the people who try to do the right thing has been exhausted; yes, I've been curt, and, yes, you may hold that against me. But it is no excuse for accusing me of a whole lot of other transgressions I'm not guilty of in the tiniest, nor is it an excuse for being unwilling to listen to reason. Alakzi (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the laugh. You've no idea what you're talking about. Not one bit. Alakzi (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
These editors disagree on how he should be portrayed in the article—a known criminal who "got away" or a charged person who was vindicated by a judicial system. This is an understandable NPOV dispute and, from an impartial, outsider's perspective, there's no obvious "right" answer. There is an obvious right answer: we follow the sources and WP:NPOV. The sources do not say that he's a former convicted criminal, nor do they paint a picture of a misunderstood do-gooder. When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truthneutrality does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. ... has refused to consider the opposing viewpoint as anything more than disruption That's because it is disruption. I do NOT need to waste any time arguing with someone who's inserting lies into one of our articles. Is this clear enough for you? Alakzi (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Alakzi, considering your attitude from the very point you opened this thread, don't be surprised if you get hit with a boomerang. Erpertblah, blah, blah... 00:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Anything to end my misery. Alakzi (talk) 00:45, 10 July 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.
Content dispute should be hashed out on the article talk page or WP:DRN not ANI. Blackmane (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User @Vesna Wylde: is engaging in a war edit at Europa Clipper space mission. He claims that the name changed to either "Europa Mission" or "Europa Multiple Flyby Mission", without understanding that those are titles used to describe the mission destination. The most recent news media refers to it as "Europa Clipper" ([317], [318], [319], [320], [321], [322]) and NASA still refers to it as "Europa Clipper" (April 2015: [323], [324], [325] and [326], [327] as of their last update on June 2015 - specified at the bottom of those pages, yet he keeps reverting the name and moving the page without consensus and without having demonstrated the name has officially changed. I have no patience to deal with such obtuse behavior so I am requesting of someone's assistance. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Our discussion was at Talk:Europa Clipper. Reading our discussion, you'd see that I had made a reasonable claim with a reasonable amount of evidence that the name of the mission indeed had changed, and I had "demonstrated" as such, and that any "obtuse behavior" came from him, with his personal attacks claiming that I would run off and start erroneously renaming articles and that I "can't use common sense". I just simply want to update the page, but he keeps reverting the page and continually disrupting my edits. That's just my two cents. Philip Terry Graham 18:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The sources supporting the name Europa Clipper are from January and May. Hardly the most up to date. Although: [328][329] Two names, same site, same content on pages, last updated on the same day. However, the formal name used on both pages is Europa Multiple Flyby Mission.
Dear Orduin, take a second look at those 2 NASA pages UPDATED June 2015 and look for Europa Clipper. The words "Europa Multiple Flyby" in those pages are a 'DESCRIPTION of the Europa Clipper mission. Please feel free to click on their link "Europa Clipper Mission Concept: Exploring Jupiter's Ocean Moon" (733.1 KB, PDF) at the bottom those 2 pages, UPDATED June 2015. I explained that to him yet he keeps reverting without a reference to support his claim. How do you cooperate with an edit warrior unwilling to provide a source for such major change and repetitive reverts? ANI seems the appropriate venue for a user introducing this unsourced claim, so my unwillingness to entertain a warrior any longer and to bring this issue here is the expected requirement to solve this and correct his edits. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Unwilling to provide a source? Vesna Wylde provided sources from the beginning of the discussion [330]. AND, the changes to the name have a source, included here. You are directly lying about the circumstances. -- OrduinDiscuss 19:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the Europa Clipper will do multiple flybys of Europa. Take a deep breath and look at the NASA source UPDATED JUNE 2015: [331]Title: Europa Clipper. "Goals: Europa Multiple Flyby Mission..."
I could also provide multiple, reliable and recent sources calling New Horizons "the Pluto Mision". Shall we move that article too, or use common sense and use its actual name? Additionally, it is not up to any editor to find a source stating that the mission's name has not been changed. If you two want to change it, please provide a source stating that Europa Clipper is now a former name, otherwise, please revert it yourselves. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok,
This is a content dispute not a behavioral dispute. Please calm down and take it to a better venue like the article talk page and your user talk pages.
NASA routinely has two names for programs, a friendly name and a descriptive technical name. Usually no later than launch the friendly name becomes the official mission name. MESUR Pathinder -> Pathfinder, Mars Microrover -> Sojurner, Mariner 10/11 -> Voyager, etc.
New Horizons was Pluto Fast Flyby, Pluto-Kuiper Mission (at the Announcement of Opportunity), and Far Horizons before the name settled. Ask me how I know this.
Europa Clipper being the current friendlyish name does not mean it will be the final name.
NASA is particularly obstinate about using multiple names for the same program at times. You're all right (and all wrong).
Please calm down and take it to talk pages. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:56, 9 July 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.
Sock blocked indef per WP:DUCK. Master's block extended to two weeks. --NeilNtalk to me 22:02, 10 July 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 and his sock indeffed.. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Most likely the same user as User:Papist emce (...), who has been blocked twice, last one for another week here: [334] and block-evaded with the new user [335]. Clearly only here for self-promotion - suggest to delete user pages and block. GermanJoe (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Kudpung has it under control. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Done. one blocked and the other re-blocked. User pages deleted.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:39, 10 July 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.
The IP editor 83.248.1.230(talk·contribs·WHOIS) is disruptively editing music infoboxes and adding unsourced genre information. See: [336], [337], [338] for some of many examples since their final warning. I've warned them multiple times and explained the issue, but they're either not reading the warnings or ignoring them. ~ RobTalk 09:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours - that should get them discussing. I sometimes find (particularly on album articles that have gone to GA / FA) a comment such as "Please don't change genres before reading [link]" helps - I think most Pink Floyd articles have them. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 10:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for assisting. I saw similar messages on at least one of the articles he edited to the effect of "See talk page before editing". ~ RobTalk 10:39, 10 July 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.
Hi. I came here to inform on the state of the Talk: Testicular torsion page and to inquire what I or anyone else should do about it. I recently noticed that since around 2007, around half of the content of the page are personal anecdotes on users' own experiences with the condition.
I subsequently added a discussion on the page intended for any other editors or administrators, which states my belief that the page needs an urgent purging of irrelevant content. As over a week and a half nothing has yet become if this, I wish to request administrator intervention, consisting of a possible note on the state of the article and/or a cleanup.
Please note that I am relatively new here and do not know all the ins and outs on dealing with these kind of things. Nevertheless, I hope that this will mean the long overdue sorting of this issue! Regards Aardwolf A380 (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
It's all predominantly from 2009 anyway but I clipped out all the unnecessary personal examples which didn't have much to do with the actual content. Anyone could have stepped in and deleted it, we do have a guideline for this type of thing. tutterMouse (talk) 13:09, 10 July 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.
User:Surtsicna is censorship in article Srebrenica massacre and removes all information about the murder of Serbs in Srebrenica in 1992-1993. According to him, it must be removed. He writes that the article can be only information about the murder of Muslims. It should be noted that he removes the source from the Russian Academy of Sciences and Human rights watch. I ask the administrators to review the situation. Соколрус (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
That's because the article Srebenica massacreis about the well-known massacre of Bosniaks. The material you are trying to insert belongs in Naser Orić, but it pretty much exists there already. Black Kite (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
More importantly this seems to be a content dispute rather than a user conduct issue. If you aren't happy with the state of discussion on the article talk page, you're welcome to use some other form of WP:Dispute resolution which isn't ANI for content disputes. Nil Einne (talk) 15:26, 10 July 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.
All articles have been dealt with and properly titled. Disruptive article-moving editor has been blocked for two weeks by Ricky81682. (non-admin closure) -- Softlavender (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ainvayi Ainvayi which seems to be moved to Oh Yaara Ainvayi Ainvayi Lut Gaya, possible sockpuppetry probably going on there. But yes it is odd and the AFD does not seem to match with one of them. Wgolf (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, honestly? The title could have been shortened, seriously. "Move war with AFD" would had been better than this long title. Sorry, I had to put that out. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 03:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It appears that Deepcruze is the user that has been moving it. His/her talk page also reveals that s/he has been warned (and even blocked) for doing the same thing in the past. WP:NOTHERE? Erpertblah, blah, blah... 04:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I think an Admin is going to have to fix this – the AfD tag is at the top of Ainvayi Ainvayi but the AfD discussion is saying it's about Oh Yaara Ainvayi Ainvayi Lut Gaya! I can't say that I've ever seen this before!! [[File:|25px|link=]] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, crikey, I see the problem now – there are two articles on the same Bollywood movie! – These articles need to be merged. (Oh Yaara Ainvayi Ainvayi Lut Gaya looks like the "primary", so Ainvayi Ainvayi should be merged into it, and converted to a redirect...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
One of the articles was about a song from another film [339], until it was coopted by film fans to be about a film instead. There is also a hatnote on both articles about the song, but the link in the hatnote goes to one of the two articles now about the film. Softlavender (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC) ETA: There really needs to be some careful research as to what the URL of the (film, and possibly also song) article(s) should be. That is, which is called which? Softlavender (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
So I see-I wasn't sure what to title this so I just went with that-that shorter one makes more sense, but whatever. Anyway it is pretty crazy of what is going on. And it does appear to be a possible SPI given that they were created by 2 supposed different people! Wgolf (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Update: OK, not an Admin here, but I've tried to improve this situation as much as I can – I moved the AfD tag to the correct article, Oh Yaara Ainvayi Ainvayi Lut Gaya (based on the AfD itself), and tried to merge some of the improved content from Ainvayi Ainvayi to Oh Yaara Ainvayi Ainvayi Lut Gaya... Beyond this, I think it will need Admin action as the edit histories between the two articles seem all messed up, and as Softlavender said there will need to be some research (likely from some of our editors from India) to make sense of and to unwind this mess... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE: OK, it's quite clear that the song is called "Ainvayi Ainvayi" [340], and the film is called "Oh Yaara Ainvayi Ainvayi Lut Gaya" [341]. They are also completely unrelated. The articles should be fixed and titled accordingly. Softlavender (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't see the comment here but Deepcruze has been blocked for two weeks. There have been a number of warnings on the talk page about moving articles and especially about this AFD and ignoring the warning on the page to remove it was enough. It's two weeks which is double the prior one block of one week for similar actions along with sockpuppetry). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Move to close this discussion. Although there has been some mixing of edit histories between the two/three articles because of the title moves and misapprehension, in my view the tiny size of each article means that that is no longer significant now that they have been correctly named and fleshed out a bit. Deepcruze has been blocked for two weeks, and if he continues his disruption after his block expires he can be blocked for longer. I do not think any further administrative attention is necessary for this matter now. Ready for a close. Softlavender (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Seconded – we can close this now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:07, 11 July 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.
Possible contested page moves made without discussion[edit]
RESOLVED
Article moved back to its original title by Dennis Brown. A formal discussion on whether it should be moved can now take place, if desired. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
user:Mohsen1248 is moving pages without discussion for articles that are potentially controversial. Per WP:RM#CM, these should be made via a WP:RM first. This user has previous history of doing this (here). Therefore, please can Wu Tao-yuan be moved back to the original page title of Wu Tao-yan and then if it needs moving, a WP:RM can be started. Thanks. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 18:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't a controversial movie, unlike someone makes it controversial since he think he owns articles he has created. This Taiwanese guy is a famous athlete and I provided two notable references for that, I will add more if necessary. that's it all. Mohsen1248 (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
You're more than aware of the policy, and chose to ignore it. If it's likely to be contested, then you must raise it via WP:RM. Thanks. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 19:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed – page moves that are likely to not be unanimous should be taken through WP:RM. Heck, I take page moves that I don't think are likely to be "controversial" through RM sometimes, just to make it completely "kosher". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
BLPs in particular are almost always going to be contentious. The very act of someone objecting fits the criteria for "contentious". Alternately, you can put a notice on the talk page article where you are very confident there won't be contention and let it sit for a week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Great so it can be moved back to the original title per the status quo and anyone who wishes to move it can raise a WP:RM. Correct? LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 06:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
That is the normal course, yes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:20, 10 July 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.
Blocked. This IP has also previously been blocked for the same reason. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. User:Shagadelicbasil23 is continuing to edit, despite several blocks and sockpuppets. This time, under the IP address of 124.180.231.61. Please can he be reblocked? Thanks. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 06:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
At a quick glance, their contributions say it's definitely them- only editing the current cricket tours and AFL/VFL pages, IP locates to Melbourne (like all the Shaga socks and IPs have). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Blocked for 3 months this time. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:52, 10 July 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.
This user from es.wikipedia wrote in his user talk bullying and insulting me in Spanish, also wrote insults in English in this edit resume. He was blocked in Spanish Wikipedia. --Taichi (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Blocked, will look around for more cleanup. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Since this user has apparently been blocked on more than one language-wiki, should WP:GB be executed here? Erpertblah, blah, blah... 04:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I've never asked for one myself, but you are of course welcome to. I've been seeing a lot of them lately. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:46, 9 July 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.
I tagged some articles that User:CrazyAces489 recreated for CSD and have !voted to deleted several others of his articles. Out of the blue, he decided to nominate an article I wrote last month, Amin Khoury, for deletion. I don't find it coincidental. The nom reasoning isn't even valid and has all the appearance of being just a WP:POINTy nomination. This isn't an AGF issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. You are the only one who even wrote on the article. I thought it was a vanity page and notability is not inherited. I didn't think the article seemed anything more than a vanity page. Now you saying that I came from the crap factory [342] or I am "butt hurt" is a violation of WP:CIVIL. [343]CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I wrote it. It's not even a month old, so no, others haven't yet. Your "notability is not inherited" reasoning is nonsense, since that's not asserted. Yes, I said you are butt hurt and run a crap factory. I shouldn't have and have struck those comments. That has nothing to do with this issue, but does tend to reinforce my position that you nominated this article out of spite. Thanks for helping me demonstrate that. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
That is a very long record of deleted articles, including a high proportion of biographies. It seems as if we ought to be introducing a restriction on creating articles other than by WP:AFC for a while, at least until CrazyAces learns to write a properly sourced first draft. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it's worth noting User:Tokyogirl79 also told CA to take more care in process, even to go through the drafting process and have it reviewed before creating any article. This is a pattern and someone needs to break it because CA clearly can't do it themselves. Along with several other issues CA chooses to not fix...TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how you would think that I have done a lot of articles as of late. [345] I am on my own self restriction. One of them just passed an AFD and the other is a martial artist who is a black belt magazine hall of famer. I actually nominated my last article to AFD so that others could bring forth opinions on its notability. [346] I am ok with not writing any articles outside of the ones I am trying to push out of userspace. So it is not like I wasn't trying. In terms of that article Mr Amin? It had 2 weak keeps and one keep from him. He was also the ONLY editor. I didn't see any notability under WP:ANYBIO or even WP:GNGCrazyAces489 (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course I was the only editor (I didn't need all caps to say it either). I created the article about 3 weeks ago. He is a low profile, non-controversial figure, so there's not likely to be a big rush to edit it. You act like every article must have a team working it the minute it hits live space. It's never going to be a GA unless he suddenly starts getting more coverage, but there's enough to reach GNG. I almost forgot that you were the one who nominated Crispus Attucks[347], a guy who has over a hundred books written about him. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Amin simply didn't appear noteworthy to me. [348] , than NightShift36 is settling even worse with multiple deletions across various articles I was editing on [349] , [350] and more [351]. Niteshift seemed to have found the time to edit and gut many articles that I started. Yes I nominated Attucks because I thought based on wiki policy there was no history that was documented on him. I was incorrect! It happens! Saying I am butt hurt [352]isn't Niteshifts first negative comment he has made about me. He has insulted me many times even on AN/I [353] and other places. This isn't the first time Niteshift has had trouble with insults. [354]CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
CrazyAces489, please don't make a virtue out of not creating articles recently, when you've in fact been creating articles with your other account, NegroLeagueHistorian. I hope that doesn't mean you're trying to evade scrutiny of what you did with that account, and I most certainly hope that you will stick to one account in future. (In your unblock request in April you stated "I won't create another account"[355], and yet you did.) Several admins have had a lot of patience in overlooking the fact that you were using (at least) two accounts concurrently, so please keep your nose clean it that regard. Compare User talk:Tokyogirl79. If you don't, and it comes to my attention, I will actually block you, despite the fact that I take systemic bias issues very seriously. It's because of those issues that I and others have been giving you second, third and fourth chances, but they'll run out eventually. Note: I see you've posted a {{retired}} template on your talkpage. You'll be most welcome to change your mind and return, as you've done before, but not, and I'll stress this, to simply jump to another account. Enough with the evasion of scrutiny, please.
As for your pretty obviously retaliatory AfD of Niteshift's article, you may remember I told you in April that I hoped you wouldn't have to be formally limited in your use of AfD because of your combativeness and poor track record there. But when I see this, I wonder. It may come to that. Bishonen | talk 09:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC).
I created a new account after an admin emailed me and said that I could if I retired. I minded my own business and was outed. I can even provide the link where I was outed on May 28, 2015 [356]. I guess being outed is considered to be ok. I had stayed away from martial arts articles when I had a new account (an area where I had an emotional attachment as per cleanstart ). [357] I created articles that were important to minorities including Congolese Genocide and African American History
which were automatically noteworthy based on accomplishments via WP:WPBB/N "Have appeared in at least one game in any of the following defunct leagues: All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, American Association, Cuban League, Federal League, Japanese Baseball League, National Association of Professional Base Ball Players, Negro Major Leagues, Players' League, Union Association." I made a few other articles and that was it." Automatically notable and no chance of being deleted via AFD.
In terms of TheGracefulSlick, after he saw that I created James Takemori he messaged PRehse and asked to nominate it for deletion and later claimed he wanted nothing to do with my work on 29 May 2015. [358] Yet strangely enough he started showing up on places my new account went to and started heavily editing there. [359] I retired my new account and went back to this one, I also left a reason why. [360] I felt I was being hounded and and asked Tokyogirl79 to ask TheGracefulSlick to leave me alone in the spirit of IBAN. [361] To which he agreed on June 29, 2015 [[362] ] and simply ignored as of June 30, 2015 to July 4, 2015 . [363]
He has voted to the exact opposite of what I vote (although once changed his vote) including [364][365][366][367][368] . The purpose of TheGracefulSlicks hounding me I believe is based on my nominating a few of his articles for deletion 2 months ago. [369][370][371][372] TheGracefulSlick stated that he believes that I have a personal vendetta against him [373] Another even told us to stay away from each other. [374] I have been trying to get away from him as early as April 25, 2015! [375]
In terms of Amn Khoury, I don't see how Amin_Khoury is considered to be noteworthy. YRCW has a CEO James L. Welch and the company is a fortune 500 yet he has no article. [[376]] What did he accomplish?! His firms website is listed as a source and according to the author Niteshift, a martial arts website isn't a good source for a martial artist. [377] So how is it a business website reliable for a businessman? I saw the various arguments used including notability is not inherited and other stuff exists. I learned rapidly these terms when I have had about 6 my articles placed on AFD at once by a small group of editors? Feb 23, 2015 [378][379][380][381][382][383] Feb 24 [384] It was overwhelming. I thought there was something to it. [385] I wondered what was the similarities between the individuals and there was 2 things (100 percent of them did Judo and 7 out of 8 were African American). When I made that statement, I was said to have implied racial implications. [386] The funny thing is that I saw that most of my articles in general that were deleted were African American or individuals of black descent. Strange coincidence? Possible WP:WORLDVIEW ?
Now I keep getting attacked because of my grammar. [387] I was even mocked for it by Niteshift36 [388] It seem that sadly, I am an innercity male where ebonics or African American Vernacular English is the language people speak. 91 percent of wikipedians are white males. [389] . Myself and most blacks speak very different, often listen to different music, and have a different relationship with the authorities from that of the average white male. Yet I am attacked for it? That is a bit unfair! I am told to go read rules and write "properly?" I am told by Niteshift36 that I am butthurt and make a crap factory and it is ok? [390]. Even earlier on April 9 he referred to me as "Crazy"Aces [391] on an AN/I . Even Bishonen stated that it was bullying "P. S., I just realized what CrazyAces meant by "he just referred to me as CrazyAces" above. Stop bolding the "crazy" part when you refer to the user, Niteshift36. Don't do it again. However frustrated you are, it's seriously inappropriate, and, yes, I'd call it bullying. Bishonen | talk 14:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)." Niteshift36 stated that " But you and WordSeventeen stroking each others, um , egos with barnstars " (implying a sexual innuendo). [1] Yet I had , I got blocked for personal attacks when I put forth a corelation of articles [392] and he blatantly has stated nasty things about me and nothing happens? He has a long history of personal attacks. [393]
I created an article Racial bias on Wikipedia and was being judged on it. Problem is that it exists on wikipedia despite what people say. It was nominated for an AFD and was speedy keep. [394] Do I believe that WP:WORLDVIEW exists on wikipedia? Sure do!
The only thing that I asked is that Niteshifts behavior and repeated personal attacks be looked into. That TheGracefulSlick be WP:IBANed from interacting with me. I made one request and it was ignored. [395]
To be honest, I believe nothing will come about from this. Niteshifts repeated personal attacks will be glossed over at the most a slap on the wrist. My request for an IBAN will be ignored despite violations of WP:Hounding[396][397] I will probably be reprimanded for something and or told that I am playing the role of the victim. It will be said that I have poor grammar, make bad articles, or the sort. I am pretty much semi-retired. I wanted to finish up a few articles Florendo and Paul Vizzio and quit. CrazyAces489 (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Stop being a victim. In all the time you spent digging up diffs of stuff that happened months ago, you could have actually read the policy on reliable sources and started using better ones. Yes, grammar matters. This is an encyclopedia. If you want to write something and be unconcerned with grammar, start a blog on WordPress or something. I note that in your tirade, you leave out the parts where I did admit errors, retracted things and.....oh yeah, actually tried to help you. Instead of accepting help, guidance or just good advice, you rejected it with excuses and continued the same errors with the statement "I create so others can work". That, in and of itself, is a hostile attitude. I hope a passing admin finally closes this since the issue of your revenge nomination has been handled. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Niteshift36 Of course, exactly what I stated! "stop being a victim." You retracted some of them after being told you had to. As per the link. As per above wth [User:Bishonen]] Other people have repeatedly told you to calm down on your tone with me. [398] Sorry, that my Ebonics isn't correct for you. It is still an accepted language of my people in America. I don't think that people who only speak with an African American Vernacular English should be regulated to Wordpress (and find it offensive that you would imply that). You have been so nasty to me that I am left to simply ignore almost anything you say. I had to semi-ban you from my talk page because of your attitude. [399] . You have been taking the same quote of "I create so others can work" is over 2 months old [400] and is taken out of context. With so many of my articles being gutted by you and others. I simply am left to only create stubs. You complain that I am taking personal insults that are old but you are bringing up this quote that is even older! A bit hypocritical don't you think? CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict):*No, it wasn't taken out of context. You actually defended it. It explains so much of what you do here, an issue that a number of experienced editors have tried to get you to correct. You keep claiming that your problem is that you speak "ebonics". I submit that isn't the issue. "Ebonics" doesn't make you use the wrong word, like you did in your response (It's "relegated", not "regulated"), misrepresent sources or fail to even try to comply with RS. You may be speaking perfect "ebonics" (if there is such a thing as perfect "ebonics"), so I would never say your "ebonics" isn't good enough for me. I will, however, call you on editing with "ebonics". I won't apologize for the Word Press comment, because there's nothing offensive about it. In any case, since this is the English Wikipedia and not the Ebonics Wikipedia, the grammar rules of English apply and if you find that to be unfair, you can be the founder of the Ebonics Wikipedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
African American Vernacular English is a form of English. With its own set of rules. Shocking how you stopped defending your attacks. They are what they are. Reliable sources from the limited African American publications makes it unfair. We must make considerations when it comes to SOME sources. I don't think that people who speak African American Vernacular English should only use wordpress. If you don't feel your statement has problems. That is a problem in itself. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
You're not quoting sources using AAVE, it's you that is using it. It's not acceptable. Nor did I say that people who speak AAVE should only use Word Press. I said if you want to write in AAVE, consider starting a blog. Thanks for demonstrating again how you misrepresent things. Speak it all you want. Write it all you want. Be proud of it all you want. Just don't edit the English Wikipedia with it. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
No one is concerned about your ethnicity! Your articles are gutted because you use terrible sources and the topics are unnotable. Maybe Niteshift said some regrettable things because he can't stand how you refuse to learn and think your work is ok. It's not! How many times does someone need to tell you, you need to improve?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
P.S. This was closed because Bishonen saw how clear CA was acting in revenge...who opened it again??TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
This one wasn't closed. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm just going to wait for Bishonen (or any admin, please end this!) to close this and hopefully block CA in the process. CA has caused too much damage and his excuses are getting even more bogus. He has been given too many chances because the work he is involved in is important, but CA's editing is not reflecting on that importance. It's hurting the project and the subjects of the article that deserve a better representation.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
So me speaking African American Vernacular English is bogus? Or creating articles that are about African Americans is hurting? Do you see the problem of not having articles ? In the article "Black History Matters, So Why Is Wikipedia Missing So Much Of It?" by JAY CASSANO it is addressed [401]. "Wikipedia is the go-to place for information, especially for young people who were born in the digital age. It's what they seek out. So even if they do a Google search and there is information about somebody or something online, they look for Wikipedia. The existence of an entry on Wikipedia gives it weight. It's kind of like 'Oh, it's on Wikipedia? Then it's important.' " I would rather an article written in AAVE than no article. Blocking me for addressing a problem is not how things should be done. You have not been working well with others and have been warned for it. [402]CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
That wasn't a warning that was Bishonen politely asking me to not comment on his talkpage. I never said creating article about Aftican Americans was bad, but you clearly shouldn't be the one doing it. You continue to not listen and it's completely astounding.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure it was closed? Anyway, I'm not sure it's time to close the thread, frankly. I'm pretty tired of CrazyAces' monumental timewasting IDHT behaviour lately, not least on my page. In April, I undid his indefinite ban. Because of the systemic bias angle, I gave a lot of extra chances and assumed a lot of good faith, and so have others. It seems to me that by now the only alternative to a renewed site ban is a ban against creating articles other than through WP:AfC. CrazyAces escaped such a ban by the skin of his teeth in April, pleading (reasonably) the backlog at AfC (though with the unreasonable rider "I create so others can work").[403] I told him I would no longer insist he go through AfC, on condition that he started focusing more on quality than quantity and gave his creations more love before posting them in mainspace.[404] Perhaps he did give them more love, and stopped intentionally relying on others to fix all problems; I don't know. But in that case — if he's doing his best with these new articles — then he still needs to go through AfC, where experienced editors can help him and inform him. It's not working as it is, and the use of several accounts concerns me very much also. See also this discussion on User talk:Tokyogirl79. This is my proposal:
Proposed: CrazyAces489 banned from creating new articles[edit]
BANNED FROM CREATING NEW ARTICLES
CrazyAces489 is banned from creating new articles other than by submission through WP:AFC for a period of 1 year. This can be appealed via WP:BASC. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that CrazyAces be only allowed to create new articles through WP:AfC, per argument above. Not a recommendation — I feel we've done enough recommending to this user, with very little effect — but an actual ban from creating new articles other than through AfC. There will also be no more tolerance for attempts to avoid scrutiny by creating articles (or other editing) using another account.
Support as proposer. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC).
Support – this doesn't overly penalize CA and prevent him from content creation, but does force him to "play by the rules". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - I have had too many conflicts with CA over his articles. Everyone has tried to help him, but he simply refuses to listen so this is the only alternative other than an indefinite block. Unfortunately, he is still getting into conflicts, right now with User:SubSeven so other things need to be addressed. And I should note this is not limited to his CA account, but also User:NegroLeagueHistorian and the other account CA mentioned he would use when he retired as User:NegroLeagueHistorian.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
support if TheGracefulSlick and Niteshift36 are WP:IBANned from me. If not I will "oppose" it. I have cut down on my article creation so that isn't a big deal to me. The ones who lose out is the people. Wikipedia suffers from Gender Bias on Wikipedia[405] as well as Racial Bias on Wikipedia[406] I use Ebonics / AAVE and as a result others correcting my articles will be helpful. The attacks on me have been ignored even though they are documented in violation of WP:Civil and WP:Hounding. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Funny, you never said anything about Ebonics/AAVE before your last "retirement" when your odd grammar was noted by an admin. Now, after you thought it up started using that excuse, it has been your sole excuse. AAVE doesn't make you use sources that aren't reliable. AAVE doesn't make you insert trivial factoids to increase the number of sources. AAVE doesn't make you misrepresent what a source says. The only thing you can blame on AAVE is grammar. The rest is all just your refusal to properly edit. Agreeing to a creation ban isn't required. Agreeing with multiple conditions? Good luck with that. From my end, I never noticed your edits under the other name because I don't edit those articles. If you stay out of martial arts articles, I probably won't see you. I can't think of a non-martial arts article we've interacted on. But if I do cross paths with you and your sources are shoddy, I will correct the problem. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Niteshift, I made mention of it before in April. I made another account and TheGracefulSlick was following me around in that one. [407] After I was outed by Peter Rehse. [408]CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
An AFC is essentially a ban as the backlog is over one month.[409] The funny thing is that many I had considerably less articles over the past 2 months. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Who ignored it? 17 is considerably less than the 36 I created in April or 45 in March or almost 30 in Feb [410]CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Niteshift and me were fixing your articles and suggested ways for you to improve so you wouldn't have them deleted. You refused with "I create so others can work". An IBAN doesn't make sense if you truly want your articles to improve.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't want your help or want to interact with you. Point blank. You have hounded me on 2 accounts and what appears to follow me around on wikipedia. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not hounding if I'm fixing your mistakes. No one would have to if you simply did it right the first time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
So voting to delete so many articles is helpful? CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
TGS Read up on what hounding is. Understand why I wanted an IBAN. I simply don't want to work with you. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:HOUNDING says 'Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. ' --SubSeven (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. Editor has a track record of questionable articles, has never taken the help and advice offered to him seriously and....well, I'll just stop with that. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
It's worth noting one of CA's most recent comments: "The sources are the sources. I put something in, and it gets gutted. So I just started to make stubs. Less work and less headaches."[411]. It's probably worth specifying to him in the final wording that creating a stub is the same as creating an article. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Creating a stub is better than having no article as Black History is very underrepresented on wikipedia. I try putting in good sources but many times they are just removed for a variety of reasons. I don't want to argue with people anymore so I just don't bother. Create a stub with some strong sources and hopefully other wikipedians can grow the articles. CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Strong sources? In the words of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Hmmm.....create a stub and hopefully others can grow it. That sounds a lot like "I create so others can work". Niteshift36 (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Is wikipedia not a community where we work together? If my edits are deleted, what is left for me to do? CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Work together? Yes. But you have to do your part. Just thinking up ideas isn't doing your part. It's your responsibility to use reliable sources. It's your responsibility to present what is in the sources accurately. Yes, others can assist on phrasing, grammar, structure, adding/deleting, but you have a responsibility to cover the basics. Your history of using sources that aren't even close to passing RS is a major part of the problem that you've refused to fix. Once again I'll make the suggestion that you pick a good strong topic and try to write it to GA standards. Even if it doesn't pass, going through that process will help you understand what makes quality articles and will help you grow as an editor. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Question: Would the ban/restriction apply to the user's alternate accounts and sockpuppets as well? Just want to clarify, since the problem could merely shift if a ban/restriction is put into place. Softlavender (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, certainly, Softlavender. It would apply to the individual and to any account they may create. That's what I meant by writing "There will also be no more tolerance for attempts to avoid scrutiny by creating articles (or other editing) using another account." But I'm glad you asked, it needs to be clear, since there has been so much tolerance before. And, CrazyAces489, I strongly advise you to not argue with everybody who supports here, as it merely makes a bad impression. Let people put their opinion without pestering, please. There's no need to repeat yet again the things you've said so many times, and definitely no need for bolding. Bishonen | talk 06:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC).
Support I've not crossed paths with CA in a while, so was quite surprised to see this here given the previous retirement. I note this where it appears where MKDW saw a consensus for an indefinite block, only avoided by CAs phoney retirement. I would think this alone is not going to stop people losing patience unless CA seriously addresses some of the other issues in his edits, particularly the continual failure to understand WP:RS --86.2.216.5 (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. I would greatly prefer that CrazyAces make his articles at AfC. As far as the IBAN goes, I brought that up at my talk page because I didn't think that CrazyAces was going to listen to anything GracefulSlick had to say and the two were just butting heads at that point. (For the record, I do agree with Graceful's concerns about CrazyAce's contributions.) Crazy, you can request an IBAN, however I will warn you that the problems that Graceful brought up will likely be brought up again by another editor - or multiple editors. That's why I heavily recommended AfC creation since that'd give you more time to work on the articles, (hopefully) a chance to have feedback from various editors if they decline your articles, and I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on my talk page that maybe you'd fare better if you worked with someone else. As far as making edits on pre-existing articles goes, I'd greatly recommend that you get a mentor and make frequent use of the WP:TEAHOUSE. I would also recommend that you go through Wikipedia's training modules on editing like The Wikipedia Adventure. If anything, I'd like to make this a requirement for you at this point just to make sure that there's some sort of record of you going through a training module so we can verify that you are aware of the basics. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Support – per IJBall, there's a lot of helpful advice here. Editors can help, but they can't spend their lives 'clearing up'.Pincrete (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
comment I have come up with multiple individuals and ideas that haven't come up in the almost 10 years of Wikipedia. It isn't like I haven't used AFC previously. I have with Jorge Gracie if you look at it's history. AFC has such a back log that it is ridiculous. I feel that the vast majority of people who have given an opinion on this should have recused themselves as they already have had considerable negative interactions with me. I feel that I have been mocked and attacked multiple times by most of the people who have written in support. My topics are very often very important in relation to African History. My usage of AAVE has been attacked and mocked. When I requested IBAN's against individuals previously it was simply closed in under a day as possible retaliation. It is quite disheartening to see this within wikipedia. Good luck finding anyone who can cover the range of topics in such a short amount of time in terms of women and african americans that I have. In baseball we don't expect the pitcher to play every position. We don't have the Designated hitter pitch! We let a pitcher pitch! I have created articles that many people haven't even touched in 10 year!! I am not good and have shown that I am not good at finding RS and other things. I start basic articles and wish the community would recognize my talents at that! Speaking about an article of mine that did well. Take a look at Marilyn Mosby . Signing off! CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
CrazyAces489 first off, don't take credit for the Mosby article, you hardly did any actual work on it. Secondly, stop using backlog as an excuse for avoiding the proposals outlines. If you simply followed advice this wouldn't have been neccessary. Like I said, what you work in is important, but it is a shame all of the subjects, notable or not, are misrepresented by how you edit. If you truly cared about the subject, you would take more time to write about it. There is no talent in simply finding the subject, anyone can do that. Perhaps you can finally realize that, but it is highly unlikely.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but the idea that people will recuse themselves since you've previously ignored their advice and thus had a negative experience with is ludicrous. As are IBan's you've managed to get problems with many of the people who regularly edit a certain subject area, there is no way that they are all going to be IBanned so you get a free run with no scrutiny. You are once again ignoring the problem, you've had the negative experiences because of the problems in your editing and attitude to criticism, and your continued excuses/ignoring of those problems. At what point do you accept that it can't just be "everyone else" and that perhaps a good part of it is you? As I point out above, you're pretending to retire already managed to prevent an indefinite block on your account, if you don't start to recognize the real problems, I don't think you'll be able to avoid if for long.--86.2.216.5 (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick Did you come up with the article or did I? You can take credit for articles you started. You created plenty of articles. Why didn't you create that article? I don't like you and don't like that you have stalked me. I was once followed in a store by "security." That made me uncomfortable. You stalking me makes me far more uncomfortable. By the way I have another article up. Feel free to nominate it for AFD. CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
CrazyAces489, yeah I do take credit for my articles because I actually do it right. As for what you did with Mosby, you just slabbed together a two-minute paragraph and then other editors had to take the care to save it from obscurity. I wouldn't feel proud about that. That article you made will more than likely be deleted, but I have actual work to do. And I really don't care if you like me, as long as you continue to damage articles and the subjects who deserve better, I will do my best to repair your wrongdoings.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
CrazyAces489, when you say, "An AFC is essentially a ban as the backlog is over one month," I have to remind you that you said the very same thing in April and I accepted it, with some hesitation, and with conditions (=more care in creation). That was your second chance to edit without the AFC restriction, after there had been community consensus for such a restriction. You have been ignoring the conditions — it doesn't look like you ever took them seriously, and now you're still insisting that it's your right to continue to create low-quality stubs directly into mainspace and it's other people's responsibility to put them right. You've made it extremely difficult, even by what you say in this thread, to believe you'd act any differently if you got a third chance. Sorry, but your subjects deserve better. I only see two options here: either a direct-creation ban, or a site ban. Bishonen | talk 23:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC).
Bishonen, have I not improved in my articles? How many have been deleted since April? Zero here [414] and 2 here (which were attempts at updating problematic articles (Jorge Gracie and Albert Gotay) [415]CrazyAces489 (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment and Oppose I have not seen so much racism under the guise of helping others in a while. You have a 17 year old white kid stalking a black male. You have gang style attacks on one person. So many people here say CA needs help but no one is working with him! None of these people are willing to take the role of a good nurturing mentor. This is borderline Jim Crow. Bigotry and Racism at its worst. 172.56.22.253 (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a race issue. People have been trying to help CA, but he refused and never tried to improve. I would love to help CA as would others but we can't force him to accept it. By the way, not that it should have been brought up anyways, but I'm mixed race, not white. I never brought up my race anywhere so I don't know where you made that up.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
TGS, The only one I really want no association with is you. You say you want to help me but a simple look at your history and talk to people on various talk pages show quite differently. [416] If you look on my talk page, I have requested a mentor. [417] Secondly, I never turned down a mentor. I welcome one. Not just someone to point me in a direction and say go! Thirdly, even if I believed that it may be a race issue, but I wouldn't verbalize that. People get blocked on wikipedia for that. [418] Sadly, it is safer to be a closeted racist than a person that alleges racism. [419] Just because someone is mixed race does not mean that there isn't racial issues with that person. Hitler was 1/4 Jewish , Rafael Trujillo was 1/4 Haitian. A better analogy is just because someone likes the NFL doesn't mean they like Arena Football or the CFL. I am not saying this is you, just a logical flaw in your argument. CrazyAces489 (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm finish reading your rants, they are embarrassing. Don't dare compare me to Hitler, you don't understand the kind of insult that is to my name and family. I don't care if it was intentional or not in your twisted logic, but to even bring him up in this conversation is so disrespectful. You have not tried to improve, actually reach out for a mentor, and no your articles have not gotten better. Though it doesn't seem possible, they have gotten worse.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
No one compared you to Hitler. Your logic is flawed and crossed it out. You have attacked me [420] on every corner and on two accounts. When you think someone else was stalking you. You said something. [421] Even in this reply you have attacked me. You are lying by saying that I haven't reached out for a mentor. In fact, you can see someone who voted to support the ban who admitted to it. [422] . If you are offended, I apologize. I still stand by the analogy. CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe its not my place, but I am going to insert myself into this conversation and fast. The personal attacks against TheGracefulSlick have gotten out of hand and are going to stop this very instant. I know racism when I see it, and I know how ugly it is. And, I also know goodness when I see it, and I know when I see unfairness against an innocent person take place. TheGracefulSlick is a good person who has given so much in his short time to make not only Wikipedia, but also the world a better place. I know how passionately he feels about the injustice done to Freddie Gray, and how he shares the rightful sense of indignation that every decent human being should have when one of the members of our human family is destroyed due to the scourge of injustice. So why would you want to slander him? Right now he is the one being victimized. He is a person of good intent, who wants to do good for others. How dare you try to destroy the this person's idealism and trust of others? What gives you the right? And, I don't think there is a single person on the this whole long page who wouldn't agree with me. You're outnumbered about 1000 to one Crazy Aces and your game is up. Give it up now. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
CrazyAces489. STOP. To date I have seen nothing to suggest that Grace's interactions with you have been racially motivated. In my opinion Grace was trying to fix errors on your page and he did this in good faith. Could some of his actions be seen as hounding? Maybe. The only problem I've seen with him is that he continued to try to interact with you after it became very clear that you weren't going to listen to him regardless of what he said. The bottom line here is that you have had multiple issues with articles you have created and right now we're trying to think of a way to allow you to continue editing and creating articles in a way that would not prove problematic. At this point the most likely outcome is one where you can only create articles via AfC and you edit with a mentor guiding you. What you need to show here is that you're willing and able to move on, assume good faith, and learn policy. So far you've been more worried about arguing about your interactions with Grace than anything else. I need to stress to you that this ANI thread could end with you getting permanently blocked from editing, end of story, no replays. This means that if people here decide that you're more likely to be detrimental than beneficial and block you, you will not be allowed to create any new accounts. I've been trying to assume good faith but you're making it extremely difficult here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) I am willing to have a mentor. In fact, I ask for help A LOT! I have been to RS/N and other places asking for help. You want to know something. I never accused TGS of being a racist. I said he stalks me. I think there is racial issues on wikipedia and gender issues. There is also articles on wikipedia and various reliable sources that make issue of it. You know what though! I will work with him. It is is a pain in the BUTT to keep him away from me so I have no choice. So from now on, I will work with other people and get their opinion on possible guys rather than just create and let them work on it. CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
You pretty heavily implied it with the statement that you just struck out. You can't write something like that and then follow it up with a mention of Hitler, then expect that someone won't see that as an implication that someone is racist. The thing about the Internet is that what you write can be construed in many, many different ways. You aren't there to provide body language and other inflections, so you need to monitor what you write very carefully. I need to stress to you that right now you need to prove that you're willing to work with people, since you're likely to run into these same issues again with other editors. What you need to be doing here is showing us that you can take criticism and that you're willing to accept that you will likely be restricted to AfC creation and monitored editing for the time being. We understand that you really, really don't like Grace or Niteshift and that you don't want to work with them. It's not an ideal situation but fine- we can request that you guys try to avoid one another. However given that you've had repeated issues with editing it's extremely likely that you're going to end up in a similar situation with another editor. You need to show us that you can deal with them in a calm manner and that it won't end up at ANI again because every time someone gets reported here the odds of them getting perma blocked greatly increases if it's decided that they were problematic. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I specifically stated " I am not saying this is you, just a logical flaw in your argument. " I also wrote to him to work with him. [426] Since it seems that my petition for an IBAN on AN/I was closed and thus thoroughly ignored. So there is nothing that I can do. How long is the AFC going to last for? CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
If the thread wasn't already heated you probably could've made that remark and gotten away with it. However the fact is that not only is this thread heated, but an IP has already come in and made an accusation of racism. Posting a comment with a statement like that will not be received well even if you said "not saying this is you". In any case, I'd recommend AfC for at least a year or until you've made enough good edits and articles to the point where it'd show that you're familiar with guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Support either ban on creating new articles, or a restriction to AfC or to Draft-space monitored by someone who knows what they are doing before posting live. There seems to be an intransigent lack of competence here, especially for someone who has created so many articles and should have learned from mistakes and feedback, or at least from WP:Your first article. This snide post on TheGracefulSlick's talk page just now does not inspire confidence either in his good faith, or in his competence (that is, reading the versions of those articles he posted live). Softlavender (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Softlavender there is bad blood, but I am willing to try something. My post is an attempt to work with him. So what did I do wrong now? How is that snide? CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Support ban from creating articles in mainspace, and support restricting creations to 'Draft' namespace to be submitted through AfC. Due to reviewing standards, AfC is sub-optimal, but something has to be done or CrazyAces489 will find himself on an even shorter leash. An admin please close this now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:52, 9 July 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.
I am in agreement with Champaign Supernova. Not only has Hugh become increasingly hostile and dragged other users into it with him, but more importantly it has been for the sake of POV-pushing and COATRACKING the page. I had previously wanted to make a post here on this user's conduct but held off hoping he had made the effort to improve. However, he has not.
User:HughD has in effect taken sole authority of the page and disallowed any editors from significantly altering the page. This user repeatedly uses arguments such as “restoring community consensus” to justify their reversion of edits. However, reviewing the article's talk page, it is apparent that the community consensus is far from HughD's version. He is undoubtedly acting as a rogue editor without heeding any questions concerns or criticisms from other editors involved on the page.
I cannot standby and allow these actions to be unnoticed by the greater Wikipedia community. Almost every other user involved on the page disagrees with HughD's version and yet he has assumed complete authority over the page to block any revisions that are not his. There's a major difference between gaining a community consensus over a content dispute, and the actions of HughD (which some consider COATRACKING or POV-PUSHING).
POV content
This editor consistently adds information in a manner to make the article an attack page. Almost every instance I am referencing adds undue weight to some aspect of the article. Am I suggesting there should be ZERO mention of Koch-funding, or opposition to environmental regulation, or organized labor reform? No. But trust me, what is present on the page is undue, and very likely Coatracking. Now since the page has come under more scrutiny this user has avoided 3RR, but still they have a POV push.
This user wanted to turn the page into an attack page against conservative organizations by making it appear as though the Kochs are behind every single action of this organization with nefarious goals. This user also tried to add blatantly POV statements to the article such as:
* “In September, The Washington Post editorialized that voters should know who is funding AFP's citizen education efforts.”
and “According to The Washington Post, NBC News, and others, AFP's policy agenda is aligned with the Koch brothers' business interests, for example, in opposing environmental regulation.” *and “Journalist Lee Fang, who has written about AFP for The Nation magazine, wrote in his 2013 book The Machine: A Field Guide to the Resurgent Right that the Obama re-election campaign erred in challenging AFP rather than confronting the Kochs directly.”
Time and time again this user pushed their POV without any community consensus, and then reverts any other editors' activity citing “no consensus”. I can not reiterate enough that no one else involved is pushing a POV of ZERO Koch mention, or policy stances, etc... But we have attempted dozens of times now to address our NPOV concerns on the page with Hugh directly to no avail.
Now I could probably list hundreds of diffs here that illustrate this users edits that create a NPOV or COATRACKING issue. But for the sake of simplicity I will only add a select few. I am sure other editors will note several POV and COATRACKING pushes in this user's edits:
Diff list
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If any admins were to read through the talk page they would notice that the community consensus is generally in opposition to Hugh's edits. Again, it would be rather tedious to list all these diffs as well and only jumble this so I will only add a select few.
More diffs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In only the most recent days has Hugh begun consulting the talk page at all to ask for a consensus of his edits. Still, for the most part they ignore the talk page consensus.
Wikiproject ratings & Canvassing
This user has continually rated the very same pages they have worked on as “B-Class” on the talk pages despite their very major stake on the pages and their POV-push. This user then justified many of their reversions on articles by saying something like “your edits diminish the already quality article”. Several editors have opposed Hugh's actions here since AFP is only tangentially a part of environmentalism or organized labor.
Even more diffs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hugh has presently succeeded in rating the page as B-class despite its many issues. In my personal opinion, as an editor who has rated pages often, I would give this a C-Class at best. With so many NPOV and UNDUE WEIGHT issues I would not consider it nearly a B-Class article. This B-Class rating allows Hugh to revert any edits opposed to his views again and again, reinforcing my claims he has taken sole authority of the page.
Also, here is an example of this user's hypocrisy to push their POV. When I first opposed Hugh's edits, I had sought other opinions on Wikiproject conservatism. I was wrong in doing so as per WP:CANVASSING. Hugh took the opportunity to jump on me and demand I be more drastically punished and blocked despite my voluntary removal of the canvass. He then violated WP:CANVASSING himself and when caught simply removed any mention of it from his talk page.
Yet more diffs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You can ask all the other editors involved on this page as well. Hugh is routinely accusatory of anyone who opposes his edits and then makes himself appear to be the victim, when in fact it is he who has attempted to push us all off “his” page. In typical WP:BOOMERANG fashion it has been detrimental to him as well. But, in typical Hugh fashion, he removes any mention from his talk page.
HughD accused me of edit-warring since we had differing opinions on a select piece of content on the page. While I justify my edits here with WP:BRD I understood the logic behind calling my edits and edit-war. However, since it was HughD who began the reverting cycle initially, I place the same edit-warring warning on his talk page that he had placed on mine. No big deal then, we had a content dispute. But then he reported me to the edit-warring noticeboard the exact same time he removed any mention of these warning from his talk page. I believe this was done to deliberately mask any mention of his wrongdoing while he accused me of the same thing he had done in an attempt to have me blocked and not him.
I reverted his removals on his talk page, believing him acting in a manner nonconstructive to the Wikipedia community. Although I now admit I was wrong in violating the 3RR rule, I do believe my intentions were good as I had hoped to provide full disclosure to any and all admins or users passing by. The checking administrator had only noticed my violation of 3RR and that was it. He did not dig any further into HughD's edit-warring, or his masking of the warnings he too had received despite his actions.
Some days later I removed more contentious material from the page as per WP:BOLD. Again, HughD accused me of edit-warring after his reversions of my edits, then reported me, then removed any mention of the same warning I had placed on his talk page. The Admin who first took notice blocked both of us for a period of 48 hours. I believe this was made in error, as HughD was, and has remained through much of the page's history, the aggressor in any edit-warring. If you review his talk page history, you'll notice he has a habit of removing any warnings or notices placed there by other editors, not just me.
Here are warnings and mentions of misconduct removed by Hugh from his own page:
Diffs of warnings
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know that as per WP:OWNTALK he is allowed to remove anything he wishes from his page, but he is not left looking good when he did so. Its difficult for other users to assume good faith when he so blatantly attempts to mask other editors' disapproval of his edits or any mention of his violation.
In this regard I am humbly requesting that my previous blocks be removed from my record or at least have it noted that my actions were not disruptive to the Wikipedia community. Although I recognize violating 3RR was wrong, I stand by my belief that I attempted to shed light on another user's wrongdoing.
In recent edits this editor has again engaged in edit-wars to revert changes made by other editors. No one has taken notice of this. It is not constructive to the WP Community to let him get away with accusing others of a violation he frequently commits. I cannot reiterate enough that the consensus on the talk page leaves Hugh in the minority opinion.
Conclusion
This user has been severely disrupting the articles for at least two months. Every community consensus opposes their edits yet they continue their behavior. These same edits push a POV and coatrack the page. When other users attempt to challenge this, this user makes it nearly impossible to make any progress. I am confident I am not the only editor who holds this opinion.
I am available to provide additional details and evidence, or answer any questions that any administrators of involved users have. I did not want to resort to this, but as can be seen by Hugh's extensive efforts, there was no other option. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Neatly resolved by Dennis in his typical tactfull manner. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jack DeMattos (talk·contribs) is apparently an author of several populist history books about the Old West. Presumably, he is quite knowledgeable about this subject area and has much to offer to Wikipedia. The problem arises from the fact that he insists on using the same populist style of writing here at Wikipedia, despite several warnings from three different users (myself, btphelps, and bonadea) at both his own talk page and at Talk:Mysterious Dave Mather. DeMattos' writing on Mysterious Dave Mather required an almost complete rewrite (here) after several attempts to have DeMattos address the issue on his own. He has gone on to similarly rewrite articles on Luke Short, Charles E. "Charlie" Bassett, Buckskin Frank Leslie and Billy the Kid. There may well be more problematic articles, but these provide ample evidence of the problem. DeMattos has made minimal comments in the user talk space, and none in the article talk space (except for page moves) to address the comments made regarding his editing style. His problematic editing has kept at least two editors busy trying to clean up after him. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I've just spent the past two hours cleaning up only a portion of his edits of Buckskin Frank Leslie. I left a notice on his talk page asking once again that he take some time to familiarize himself with WP standards, including proper references. Given that he is new to WP, I've tried to be conciliatory and full of praise for his knowledgeable contributions. He has not acknowledged any of my repeated requests to follow WP style. It's becoming problematic. I don't wish to offend DeMattos. I assume as a published writer he is used to following style guides. I'm puzzled that he cannot thus far bother to strive to follow WP's guidelines. I think he may be used to having a professional editor clean up after him and just expects the same here. The lack of communication on his part is frustrating. If he continues to make edits in the same pattern, I'd be concerned that he'll be leaving a wide wake of non-encyclopedic content for other editors to wade through, some of which may not be touched for months, or longer. — btphelps(talk to me) (what I've done) 22:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I've left a calm, detailed and informative post on his page. When dealing with editors who excel in their own world of writing, I think you have to be more understanding and point them towards concrete examples instead of policy pages. You have to be careful to not talk down, but instead walk beside them for a moment and just explain. I pointed him the WP:FA page, which has our finest articles. I think just looking at these articles will give him a solid primer to move forward if he chooses to. Ready all the policies won't be as helpful. Let's see what happens. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The response I received is very promising. This kind of demonstrates why we need to use templates less often, and just strike up an actual discussion with these types of editors. Hopefully, the future will be paved with improvement, but I think we at least have a good start here. This is kind of what WP:WER is about, we WANT skilled people here, we just sometimes have to invest a little time helping them adapt. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:07, 7 July 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.
One week ago they were semi-protected due to IP users, and now this group is back again. I request permanent semi-protection this time.--SilverSamurai 10:48, 11 July 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.
According to these people; First people call themselves Turk in history is iranic. Don't believe me? Check Ashina page.
According to these people; Seljuks were hating Turks and they were actually iranic.
According to these people; Avars are uncertain origined people. It doesn't matter for them how many ref says Avars were Turkic
According to these people; Cumans and Kypchaks are not Turkic
According to these people; Sultanate of Rum actually iranic
According to these people; Azeri Turks are iranic
And after all, they accuse me with being a nationalist. Please tell me which of us is nationalis.
They work as team and keep change pages and I, as an alone user, always facing to involving an edit war.
Enough is enough!BöriShad (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Iran? Sounds more like Australia. (In addition, BöriShad, I gather English isn't your first language, so it's a little hard to determine everything you're complaining about here.) Erpertblah, blah, blah... 23:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow...with rants like that, why hasn't the OP been blocked before? Erpertblah, blah, blah... 01:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
BöriShad, Wikipedia is not Facebook or texting or a playground. Your post lacks credibility because you are not using capitalization (not even in your thread title), are using text-speak abbreviations, and are using thinly veiled vulgarities. If you want us to take you seriously, write like a serious adult. Otherwise, I think you may be in for some sort of a boomerang here. Softlavender (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Based on the evidence posted by Krakkos and Kansas Bear (and we haven't even heard yet from HistoryofIran, who had not been notified of this discussion), and based on BöriShad's rants and his apparent childishly disingenuous denials of sock/meatpuppetry, I think it's pretty clear that BöriShad is a battle-seeking Turkic ethnicity warrior. Ethnicity warriors do not belong on Wikipedia, and virulent cases like this need to be stopped in their tracks. I propose a block for BöriShad, length to be determined by community consensus or closing admin. Softlavender (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Support, as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
(This space is for further discussion about BöriShad, Krakkos, HistoryofIran, or any related users/matters.)
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.
Blocked for inapropriate use of an alternate account. Using an alternate account to participate in internal discussions and to try to seek action against another user is not acceptable. Chillum 15:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
And who are you? -- GBfan 15:12, 11 July 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.
(non-admin closure) There's no way that admins are going to topic ban an editor for displaying a userbox that shows a political stance, simply because one editor who uses it is topic banned. Topic bans are based on behavior, not personal political beliefs or guilt by association. BMK (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In User:TopGun's Userpage, I found this Userbox template.
TopGun is currently facing six months topic ban. Considering the nature of that Userbox, those Users who use them should be topic banned with Kashmir related articles. --112.79.39.150 (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
IP 112.79.39.150 geolocates to India. Mr Potto (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to make any personal attack, It's Potto who started it. --112.79.35.118 (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm from the UK and of Celtic/Anglo-Saxon origin (and my IP is 82.35.107.31 and belongs to Virgin Media UK), and I don't see why someone who is not part of your regional bigotry should not want to see improvements to articles about both Pakistan and India. I also made no personal attacks on you at all, I merely stated the simple fact (which is available to anyone) that your IP is in India. Mr Potto (talk) 17:57, 11 July 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's Talk page was semi-protected (protection which has subsequently expired) by NeilN to protect against harassment by IPs. Additionally, there's some good advice from Blackmane in here about how to handle it if IP harassment of a Talk page becomes a long-term issue... (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredgk2008 and the latest threat there against me from IP 38.95.109.53, and see the archive and the number of socks for the scale of this problem. This is an individual who is very destructive, but seems to be using a wide range of IPs that cannot be range-blocked. Is there any way anything can be done here, other than my happening to spot vandalism and reporting to SPI almost on a daily basis, and then having to accept this kind of harassment in return? (Note that I'm not bothering to inform the IP of this, as it's dynamic and already at least the third one they've used so far today). Mr Potto (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
And now this on my talk page. Also Dick Vitale is the latest vandalism target, if someone else would care to watch it. Mr Potto (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Dick Vitale and your user talk page semi-protected, registered accounts blocked. More admin eyes would be good as this vandal is persistent. --NeilNtalk to me 10:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Some more admins watching this one would indeed be very welcome. But are there any procedures for tackling such long-term vandals other than this "whack a mole" approach? It just seems like a horribly inefficient approach to maintaining a web site. Mr Potto (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Are all the IPs from one ISP? There was a spate of problems with another user, but when the decision to go to their ISP was made, they backed down. Won't mention who per WP:BEANS. Blackmane (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know which ISP the registered accounts have used as checkusers can't reveal that, but at least one was apparently using a proxy. Of the three IPs used today, 38.95.109.53 appears to be with PSINet, and 77.243.189.212 and 185.93.180.67 are with GlobalAXS Communications. Mr Potto (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps indefinite semi protection of your talk page is the way to go. You will want to set up an "IP only" page though. Blackmane (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Blackmane's idea is sound. It shifts the vandalism, which will likely continue, but out of sight. And you don't need a checkuser to tell which ISP an IP uses. For instance: [446]. All that is public record, do a little digging you can find out for most any IP, at least around the western world. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Might do that if it continues there, but vandalism and threats on my talk page are easily reverted and ignored. I'm more concerned about the possibility of significant damage to articles. Mr Potto (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Just ask any admin to set it up if you want to do that, it isn't hard and most know how. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:18, 9 July 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.
This appears resolved: IP user blocked for 1 month for legal threats by Dennis Brown, and BLP DOB is now sourced. Any further concerns with the article should probably be taken up at AfD... (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit summary [447] from User talk:50.92.182.24 includes a legal threat as follows: "If you would like to dispute the right to present an invalid birthdate please feel free to contact TMKO Lawyers". Agtx (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I blocked them for the legal threat, but I suggest checking to make sure that birthdate is actually sourced, otherwise it needs to be removed, via WP:BLP. Even if they are right on the merits, that doesn't override WP:DOLT. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
IMO, the sentence "If you would like to dispute the right to present an invalid birthdate please feel free to contact TMKO Lawyers" does not strictly constute a legal threat. The semantics infer that if we want to take something up, we can initiate action. At best it's an invitation to us to take legal action. Therefore I do not believe this is truly actionable from an admin/WP policy interpretation. Whatever, there is probably no harm done. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd agree that the threat is somewhat veiled, but I decided that it was better to take it seriously than to ignore it. Note that TMKO refers to an actual law firm in Canada specializing in entertainment matters (although called TKO now -- Taylor Klein Oballa), which makes the comment seem somewhat more like a threat. Agtx (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Ultimately what has happened is that the subject is likely, through a proxy, contesting the DOB. Per WP:DOB it's best to leave the DOB stubbed down as it is. Keegan (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The policy says to just stub down to the year, not the day. The year is the most useful and what they contested. Whether motivated by inaccuracy or vanity, I can't say. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
A thinly veiled or poorly worded threat to take legal action has the same chilling effect, the same intimidation factor, which is why I made the block, Kudpung. That is typically my compass, the chill, not the likelihood of it coming to fruition. It isn't an easy line to draw oftentimes, but of course I'm fine with reverting if a consensus feels it was premature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
No worries Dennis, it's just my pedantic perception as a linguist ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has its own definition of what is considered a "legal threat". It's not limited to explicit "I'm going to sue" types of statements. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
That article is a promotional mess that has my deletionist impulses going full tilt. I took out the yearless birthday but left the rest intact. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the NLT block. While it's not a direct legal threat per se, it certainly seems to be implied: essentially, "my edit is right and if you want to dispute it, you can talk to my lawyer". Regardless, it looks like we've found a source for the restoration of the information. If it proves to be a proxy and the person returns to the article, we should semi-protect it. This is not a contentious piece of information and it is now sourced. Swarmwe ♥ our hive 05:39, 11 July 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.
King's tactics in discussion, attacking people's motives, accusing people of meat and sock puppetry, accusing people of being "conspiracy" minded, and so forth are contrary to the Wikipedia:Good faith. As will be seen a number of times in these histories, King prods other editors of good intent until they (unwisely) strike back, then he calmly lectures them about civility, as though the whole scenario were a deliberate strategy. The long-term, relentless, single-purpose history of reducing carefully constructed articles and attacking other editors suggests WP:LONG and WP:ANTIWP. Reluctantly, I am requesting a block on King's account. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC) (updated Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC))
Sfarney is being aggressive and assumptive about all that. That particular talk page and now this [448] have gotten very intense. If I am at fault somehow I apologize. As far as I know my editing skills stress reliable sources.
My goal on Wikipedia is grunt worker with interests but keeping my own interests, not noticeable. The Zeitgeist article is an intense spot partly because of the call from the group organizers to come to Wikipedia to edit [449] There more calls on various related sites that specifically point out myself as a gatekeeper which to me does not make a lot of sense. I hope I am not a single purpose editor. It might seem like that because once this article is on your watch list it seems to require a lot of attention if one is willing to give it attention. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I find no consensus for a topic ban for Earl King Jr., but (see lower), there is consensus for community general sanctions for the topic. Several people agree that there is a problem, but many commented that the problem is not limited to EKJ, hence wider administrative action seems fairer and more likely to help resolve tensions. The amount and tone of the overall discussion amply shows that such a long-running content dispute might not be solved by simply removing one person from the equation. ArbCom's decline of the case tells me that they likely believe the problems don't yet rise above a level that can be handled by the community. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The last AN discussion was [450] where Earl just wore everyone down. He is an SPA that causes more problems than benefit. I'm tired of the constant friction, so it seems the logical choice is to just act and be done with this instead of droning on about it for weeks and everyone gets tired and he gets his way. If we are here to prevent disruption, let's prevent disruption using the tools we have:
Earl King Jr. is topic banned from all subjects related to the Zeitgeist movie, movement or any persons related to this topic (construed broadly), on article, talk pages, or any other page on Wikipedia. This is for an indefinite period of time and may be appealed at WP:AN after a period of one year.
Support as proposer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Support per Dennis Brown. Thomas.W talk 10:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I have been editing on the Zeitgeist page for about two weeks (drawn by RFC), during that period I have agreed with EKJr on almost nothing. However my experience of his behaviour has been that he 'backs off' when reasonable arguments are presented calmly. In contrast, other editors on talk don't simply 'lose their cool' occasionally, but appear to prefer a 'gladitorial' approach, of which this ANI and the recent BLP are manifestations. I invite others to examine the recent talk page and come to their own judgements as to whether banning EKJr, would achieve anything.Pincrete (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
An editor has pointed out to me that my invovement at the time of this post was actually 3 weeks and ! day, not 'about two weeks'.Pincrete (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmmmm The original complaint here is that EKJ is "dedicated for the last year (almost) exclusively to reducing Zeitgeist (film series) and related articles (Peter Joseph, Zeitgeist Movement, etc. to a single article. Well, as for the Zeitgeist Movement, looking at the last version, pretty much 90% of the content and sources were actually about the movies. So in that case, EKJ appears to be correct. And that article, since its redirection, has seen nothing but sockpuppets trying to restore it. Meanwhile, looking at Peter Joseph, he looks a bit marginal in notability terms as well. Black Kite (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2015
Perhaps it is not correct to accuse people of sockpuppetry until you open a sockpuppet investigation. Some of us are just trying to create a respectable Encyclopedia. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Support (response to Pincrete's oppose) Two weeks isn't nearly enough, I think. I've been watching this topic for years and EKJ really stands out with his relentless efforts to make these articles as negative and crappy as possible, and argues over damn near everything he possibly can. Look at his edit analysis and top edited pages to see the extent of this. From what I've seen, he interprets policy to fit his own agenda (i.e. he's not being truly neutral), and his own improvements to the articles have often been sloppy/poorly written. The Zeitgeist talk pages are full of angry arguments every single day and this has been going on for ages now, literally years. I think the rest of us really deserve a vacation from him. There have been plenty of other editors active on these pages who are neutral (I mean, not-pro-Zeitgeist) who are perfectly capable of keeping these articles in line with policy and dealing with the occasional pro-Zeitgeist SPAs that show up every now and then. EKJs participation isn't necessary and frankly I think he's the one who has wasted the most of our collective time (and nerves). The topic itself isn't worth it. These movies are relatively old by now. Why is it such a big deal? I don't know. A forced topic ban seems like the best way to deal with this. Pincrete, I completely understand why you see that "the level of abuse AGAINST this editor has exceeded any that he has initiated" -- it's happening now because we've finally had enough of him and we feel the need to make it very obvious. — Jeraphine Gryphon(talk) 14:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Yes, I forgot about King inventing WP rules to support his edits, e.g., alleging that WP does not mention paid events,[451]. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Update: Upon reviewing King's serial copyright violations on other pages, I think a General Ban is in order. Such editors are a liability to the Wikipedia project, and not just a topic. (updated Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC))
Support I think EKJ deserves credit for combating zealous pro-Zeitgeist SPAs screwing with the page, especially when it was at the height of its popularity, but his contributions outside of that have been mired in consistently pushing sloppy anti-Zeitgeist content to such extreme lengths. It is a polarizing article/topic and emotions run high, but when it gets to where you'd use capitalization as a weapon, it's time to find another article to work on. He has demonstrated he is capable of spotting poor/weak content when it fits his agenda, so I believe he'd be an asset to any collaboration on a mainstream article. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. EKJ has a long history of using Zietgeist-related talk pages as a soapbox for venting his own personal opinions, routinely characterises contributors who disagree with him as 'SPAs' or claims thet they have been canvassed to edit, and as a matter of habit assesses sources not on their reliability and significance, but instead on whether they conform with his personal perspective - see for example his recent attempt to use a conspiracy-theorists forum in support of arguments, [452] (see the first link - to here [453]), and his attempt (in the same post) to cite a source [454] as evidence that TZM is 'right wing', when the source actually writes "in the case of Zeitgeist the labels “left” and “right” are pretty useless descriptors." AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Send to ArbCom - The community has been unable to deal with disruptive editing by multiple editors on this subject in the recent past. It is true that EKJ has engaged in tendentious editing on Zeitgeist. At the same time, User:AndyTheGrump has engaged in over-the-top personal attacks on EKJ. A previous WP:AN thread was archived without action. Singling out any one editor for sanctions would oversimplify the scope of the problem. A full evidentiary case is needed to identify multiple problematic editing patterns. While some of the topics of Zeitgeist are already within the scope of discretionary sanctions under either September 11 conspiracy theories, American politics since 1933, or biographies of living persons, imposing discretionary sanctions on all aspects of Zeitgeist would be helpful also. A full evidentiary hearing should be requested to identify multiple patterns of disruptive editing. (My own involvement is that I attempted to mediate at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Mediation resulted in three RFCs and was unpleasant due to battleground editing.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I will readily admit that my behaviour over this issue hasn't always been ideal - I would however prefer it if Robert McClenon didn't single me out , and then go on to imply that I was engaging in 'battleground editing' in a DRN discussion I took no part in whatsoever - it should be noted that I wasn't involved at all in the 'unpleasant' DRN discussion. As for taking this to ArbCom, I personally don't think it would be necessary if EKJ is topic banned, and will reiterate what I said in the last ANI discussion - that if EKJ is topic banned, I am happy to stay away from the topic myself. I had voluntarily stayed away from the topic for a long period, and only returned to it as a result of seeing the way EKJ's behaviour was affecting encyclopaedic coverage in a clearly unacceptable manner - the fact that few people apparently like the movies, the movement, or Peter Joseph isn't in my opinion a legitimate reason to cherry-pick sources in an entirely partisan manner. Either the subject is notable, in which case it deserves balanced treatment, or it isn't, in which case it doesn't merit coverage at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Reluctant support - Earl King Jr has in the past made groundless accusations towards other editors, made up policy as he goes along (for example 'Wikipedia doesn't mention paid events'), been unable to recognise his own bias, treated articles as if owned them and used policy as a threat. He seems to play a tactic of mirroring arguments made by other editors, for example, if accused of a personal attack, he will say he is being attacked; or if BLP violation is raised then he find his own BLP issue.
All that said I believe his behaviour towards other editors has improved. Also, he has and can make good contributions to Wikipedia. Therefore, I would recommend a temporary topic ban of six months. This would make him consider his behaviour without being too punitive. It could also lead to a broadening of his Wikipedia edits.
Additionally, AndyTheGrump should also be topic banned for six months for making personal attacks against Earl King Jr. This made it harder to keep on track discussing the controversial issue of Zeitgeist, as an experienced editor he should have known this isn't helpful. As AndyTheGrump has volunteered to stay away from the topic if Earl King Jr is banned this could be a mute point.Jonpatterns (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment - I don't understand how an editor can be topic-banned from personal attacks. Personal attacks have been forbidden since 2002. AndyTheGrump has been banned from personal attacks since August 2010, when he began editing. He can be warned about personal attacks, but a ban on them that expires would exempt him from a policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I meant AndyTheGrump should be topic banned for six months, because his edits there have included personal attacks that have not helped the situation. Not that he should be topic-banned from personal attacks banned for six months.Jonpatterns (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Send to ArbCom. The Zeitgeist area has, from the beginning, attracted problematic pov-pushing which has defied attempts at resolution through the usual wikipedia mechanisms. When I last worked on that area, EKJ was mostly a force for good, although I was worn down by the constant battles (and extensive sockpuppetry and quotemining by people trying to make Zeitgeist articles look really positive) so I haven't looked closely for some time. If the battles continue, then I think Arbcom is the best option. bobrayner (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Earl King Jr. knows how to be covert and subtle and for over 3 years, with great success, he had been able to dominate and overrun well meaning people looking to simply put truthful, neutral and honest data on Zeitgeist related pages. Many talk about how there are "fluff" forces from the Zeitgeist Club. This is what he started as a theme if you look at his history. Anyone who is not negative must be a "pro zeitgeist cult member" in his own words. He started in 2012 and since then has been a single purpose editor focused entirely on making sure nothing balanced is ever put on Z pages. I am amazed at how biased and intolerant Earl King Jr is and how obsessive his interest to flame and pollute has been. He should be removed from ever editing anything Zeitgeist related if there is any expectation to see neutrality.JWilson0923 (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Support as proposer. Obviously Earl King has no intention of being neutral about anything Zeitgeist Film or Movement related. He/she is exactly what makes people not trust Wikipedia Sanjit45 (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. The ArbCom filing finally convinced me to look at this thread and into his edits. An edit-warring, disruptive SPA bent solely on non-neutrally and unilaterally wiping out content from Wikipedia? Has my vote for a complete topic ban. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. If Earl can benefit the encyclopedia, it isn't on this or related topics. He is far too biased and disruptive to be of any use here. OnlyInYourMindT 08:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Support per Dennis Brown. GregJackPBoomer! 16:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Support per proposer. BMK (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose...topic banning Earl King from these articles equals opening up the flood gates for fancruft. I've mentioned before that this "movement" doesn't even exist...almost zero references indicate that it does. The documentary producer is also not notable...that is why these articles were all rolled into one. The movies are notable but not remarkably. There must be a better solution than a topic ban. Why not simply put the article on 1RR and monitor the talk page for policy violations. Earl King surely knows what his boundaries are by now.--MONGO 04:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
MONGO: The first problem with your argument is that it assumes the "movement" or the "director" are relevant to the discussion. This is about EKJ's conduct. But, since you are playing games (and are likely a sock-puppet of EKJ) - the "movement", as per any simple search via Google shows endless notability and secondary press, including the New York Times, Huffington Post, The Marker, the Guardian, the Examiner, Hollywood Today, Russian Today, Ora.tv and beyond. As far as the "director", he not only made globally known, award winning films, (all of which meet Wikipedia standards and have been translated in a dozen languages and beyond), he is professional music video director with credits like Black Sabbath and Lili Haydn. He has also deviated and given talks at the Global Summit, Leaders Causing Leaders, Occupy Wall St. and two TED talks. He also had a recent Huffington Post profile article for his new film InterReflections. Also, all of these articles have been with Wikipedia for 4-6 years. It has only been people like Earl King Jr. that, in the deep minority, have forced their will to create these false claims of a lack of notability. So please...JWilson0923 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
"topic banning Earl King from these articles equals opening up the flood gates for fancruft" -- that's a completely invalid (and inaccurate) argument, and sounds manipulative as well. — Jeraphine Gryphon(talk) 07:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Let me show you manipulative...that's when you remove cited information that is in quotes and is accurate and claim its some BLP violation...as you did [here. Why would you do that? Because you didn't like the information? How is it a BLP violation? Like I said, if Earl is eliminated it allows fancruft to take over.--MONGO 09:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
No single individual stands alone with his finger in the dyke protecting the Encyclopedia from a tide of "fancruft." There has been little vandalism in the last few months and no Zeitgeist "fans" have been identified. An imaginary horrible enemy should not be used to justify very real disruptive editing, personal attacks, and bullying. Evidence of the former is missing, while evidence of the latter abounds and is cited in these ANIs. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
JWilson0923, you are a relatively inexperienced editor, this noticeboard (especially the vote section) is NOT the place for idle speculation of 'puppetry', or other personal attacks. Nor the place for detailed discussion of notability/reliability of sources. Perhaps you would care to strike through some of your 'MONGO' post.Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
We are presented with the contradictory argument that (1) there is no movement, and (2) Wikipedia must be ever vigilant and use extraordinary measures to protect that truthful statement from the "flood" of movement members who would edit the article to say otherwise. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Where are we presented with this argument? It isn't anyway contradictory. I've no idea whether there is a movement, I know there are insufficient sources to say very much about WHAT it is. IPs spamming WP individually or in floods isn't proof of anything.Pincrete (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Follow the thread, Pincrete. That is what it's there for. Mongo made the contradictory arguments that a "flood" of supporters from a non-existent movement must be kept at bay to preserve Wikipedia, and only Earl King Jr. could do the job. Because of the atrocity of those enemies (think Night of the Living Dead) and King's singular ability to hold them off, King's flaws as a Wikipedian should be overlooked. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Sfarney|Grammar, 'opening up the flood gates', is an expression, roughly translated, it means 'inviting or making too easy something undesirable'. Taking one word out of an expression (flood) as if the word had been used literally is simply silly. My main point however was that a handful of 'nothere' editors can do immense damage and waste time, the existence of such a handful proves nothing about the movement. I'm not defending Mongo's claim. Merely pointing out that the 'contradiction' is no such thing.Pincrete (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Sfarney|Grammar, something on which we agree.Pincrete (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, per MONGO. EKJ doesn't seem to be the worst offender. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 05:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. I don't believe SPA is a good reason to ban someone, I imagine many experts wish to edit few articles. That said, EKJ has shown extreme bias, over an extended period, on this article and has lost the ability to be trusted.Rationalbenevolence (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose WP ia not the vehicle for spreading cruft and Earl King Jr. is just following guidelines and policy. This appears to be a content a dispute, not sanctionable behavior. Failing to convince him that he should change his views and failing to establish consensus is not a basis for a topic ban of a single opposing editor. --DHeyward (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Strong support for a topic ban. Without question one of the most disruptive, battleground editors I've come across during my years here. I had followed these articles for a long time and had come across Earl many times. Here are 6 ANI's that have been brought against him: [455] - [456] - [457] - [458] - [459] - [460] ---- If you've had little or no involvement with this editor, take the time and have a look at these past ANI's. The fact that a topic ban hasn't happened yet is, in my opinion, largely due to the small number of editors that have watched these articles over time. At the end of the day the question for me is this: "Does having Earl editing this topic area result in a net benefit to the overall project?" ---- Now, have IP's supportive of the movement sometimes disrupted the page? Of course they have, but it's nothing other editors can't handle. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I believe that it is some time since Somedifferentstuff was involved with this article, (apologies if I'm wrong). I know that he was one of a number of editors canvassed to vote here [461], (all of those selectively contacted on their talk pages have so far voted to support a ban, except bobrayner who supports Arbcom)Pincrete (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I believe it was some time since MONGO was involved with this article too. I wouldn't presume to undermine MONGO's opinion on that basis. Notices were posted on articles and attracted involved/uninvolved individuals. Whether right or wrong, it is unjust to single out one editor from many who joined the discussion and argue for dismissing their participation. It's rude. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
If Mongo was contacted privately to come here, I hope someone will point it out to the ANI.Pincrete (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean "contacted privately"? -- He posted to my talk page as he did with some other editors; and I'm glad he did because I wasn't aware of this ANI, had a lot of experience with the editor in question, and had information to share regarding his behavior. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Somedifferentstuff, ALL the editors privately contacted were ones likely to agree to a ban and/or have expressed similar viewpoints about tZM. NONE of those likely to disagree were contacted, nor even a 'talk page' message left until challenged about canvassing. I think you and I would agree that if contact is made, it should be done according to neutral criteria and done openly. Pincrete (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose (uninvolved non admin) Reading the talk page, its a battleground over content. It doesnt appear they are the only problem here and removing one side of a content dispute is never a good idea. Are there problems? Yes, but it doesnt appear they rise to the level of a topic ban. AlbinoFerret 13:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
As per comments by User:Jonpatterns, Oppose any topic-ban that does not also apply to AndyTheGrump. To single out one disruptive editor would send the message that personal attacks are an appropriate way to deal with tendentious editing. Weak Support for a topic-ban for both. Would still prefer Community General Sanctions or Arbitration, because the problem is complex and not limited to one or two disruptive editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. This feels to me too much like trying to resolve a long-running content dispute by collecting everything a user has done and dumping it all at once in hopes that he'll be removed. His behavior certainly isn't perfect, but I think it's pretty clear that he's not the main source of the problems on that page; there's a longer-running content dispute for which people on all sides have responsibility. I'm also a bit bothered by the number of comments above that say things like "yes, he's improved, but it's just an act" or the like -- the purpose of sanctions is to get users to improve; if he's behaving now, then it doesn't make sense to sanction him. --Aquillion (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't think anyone has said "yes, he's improved, but it's just an act", but rather he doesn't soapbox as often and is getting better at defending tendentious edits civilly. Legitimate improvement or not, it remains disruptive. By comparison a content dispute would be a picnic. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. Earl has too much of a battleground mentality to collaborate on such a controversial article. Other editors will step up to fight against the cruft and POV-pushing from pro-Zeitgeist SPAs. We don't need a anti-Zeitgeist SPA to guard the article against them. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd be more willing to contribute to Zeitgeist talk page conversations if he were removed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - I came to the Peter Joseph article initially and then over to the movie series page. This discussion on the administrator noticeboard shows what type of discussions you will see on the talk pages of all associated articles. In addition, it appears that a similar ANI discussion took place previously [462]. While I do not think Earl should be banned for his opinion, I do think that banning him (and possibly others) from the topic would help the rest of the community reach a consensus on neutral content. At the moment, there are a few that have strong opinions on either side; and, this makes it difficult as Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not opinions. I would see no issues with Earl suggesting edits, but not doing so directly. --TTTommy111 (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you have to go back more than two weeks to get the full picture. He's been under the eye of the last report for the last 4 weeks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Dennis Brown I have only skimmed past discussions and so will not comment, beyond saying that if the purpose of a ban is not to punish, but to effect change, even less is it as an excuse to punish for 'stale' crimes. Could we have the diffs to make our own assesments? My own judgement over the last few weeks is that the level of abuse AGAINST this editor has exceeded any that he has initiated.Pincrete (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The diffs are in the discussion, the archives and the previous ANI that was linked. And the purpose of a topic ban, like a block, isn't to effect change. It is to prevent disruption. Unlike a block, a topic ban lets them contribute elsewhere, and in time, show they can eventually edit in that area again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Dennis Brown, clarification, I didn't mean to affect change to the individual, rather to the 'climate' on the article, so in that sense we agree.Pincrete (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense, it just wasn't in the typical "wikispeak" I'm used to. That said, I know very little about the editor except he is a regular source of controversy. Either the community will support or oppose, but hopefully we will be done bickering either way. Sometimes you have to just put it on the line. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm an IP, so I don't expect my opinion matters much, but in the short time I've been active I've noticed lots of sloppy edits in the article, that, if not originate from EKJ, are/were defended doggedly by him. Like including cherry picked from unrelated sources, blanking synopsis and recommending negative film review take it's place, weird edits that push POV OR that article should stress over the top that films/organization/name are owned by the director 1, 2, edit warring on capitalizing proper noun, and inserting flamebait which probably makes article the source of so much vandalism. That said, I think his greatest contributions have been keeping out FRINGE Zeitgeist supporting primary source content. I don't know if that excuses the sloppy anti-Zeitgeist POV pushing that ends up creating just as much work to wade through and clean up though. I'm pretty sure any of the neutral editors that hang around article would be capable of improving quality of article without fueling as much drama. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
You are an IP, you have as much right to !vote above as anyone else, so feel free to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I have been directly involved in many of the discussions mentioned in the opening statement regarding the Zeitgeist articles and Earl's desire to see them merged together (as such I feel this is a valid exemption as outlined in my conduct noticeboard ban). To respond to what Black Kite is saying, a big part of the reason the article on The Zeitgeist Movement was mostly about the movies is because of Earl's editing. See these twodiscussions I previously had over his edits to minimize material about the movement in favor of material about the movies in the article on the movement. When these articles were merged it was actually because an RfC I initiated over whether the reception section should be about the movement or the movies got hijacked into a merge discussion. My involvement in this has included past discussions of Earl's behavior in this topic area. You can see some evidence I presented in that thread from a few months ago regarding his edits, a link to a past discussion about his conduct where I was involved, and evidence of him engaging in copy-right infringing edits on multiple articles related to Cambodia, which still remains a problem.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 17:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It was The Devil's Advocate who earlier raise this, not me. I've not been involved with the articles in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Just to point out that quite a number of the diffs being offered date back to Dec. 2014, or are not on 'Zeitgeist' pages.Pincrete (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
One of the diffs in the original list dates from Dec. 2014. The rest are this year. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
All of the diffs offered immediately above date from Dec. 2014, and/or not from 'Zeitgeist' pages. I apologise for not making clear WHICH diffs.Pincrete (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Technically, the diffs presented in that previous discussion were all from 2014, but a month later Earl did it again in this edit and in this comment to him I noted several instances in the past month where he has again copied from sources. Mind you, this is just the most recent stuff. I can find several more instances of this happening pretty much since he started editing.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 21:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
IF the old diffs support a long-term and ONGOING pattern of behaviour, they are of course valid. If they don't then this ANI is simply 'settling old scores', a number of supporters of ban above are quite happy to admit that they are 'fed-up' because of past behaviour and aren't too concerned about recent history, An honest position, if not one in WP's finest tradition.Pincrete (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
There is another questionable use of diffs above. In his Support, Sfarney/Grammar cites this as instance of EKJ 'making up' a rule that 'WP does not mention paid events', HOWEVER the text EKJ removed 'Zeitgeist holds two annual events: Z-Day and the Zeitgeist Media Festival' is not supported by EITHER of the sources cited. One source (in 2010), speaks of it holding its 'second annual event' the second quotes the first. EKJ was right to remove or amend the text, even if his edit reason is a bit silly.Pincrete (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Here is the discussion on King's excision and why I recall it.[469] Notice that though the discussion continued for more than 36 hours, King did not participate. We had only his cut-and-run explanation. King may have been correct to "remove or amend" the text, but only on the "amend" alternative, and that was not his choice. King cites a non-existent rule, his edit reason was erroneous, and the edit was wrong. We don't remove a finger because it has a wart, and we don't remove a long-standing statement from an article because part of it is not correctly sourced. If another editor restores the information so that it is correct, he invites edit warring. A newby might make King's mistake, but an experienced editor should work with others. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Nobody in those 36hrs appeared to pick up on the fact that the last RS info about 'Annual events' (and to the best of my knowledge, the last RS info about Zday), is dated circa 2010/11. Shouldn't somebody have actually checked the source before even thinking of restoring it … or making an issue out of it?Pincrete (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
King's edit comment was a misdirector. He wrote he was cutting the material because Wikipedia cannot mention paid events. That did not suggest wrong dates or any other reason. And so far we do not know that he had any other reason or that he was looking at the problems you are now indicating. Let's at least credit him with stating his own reason correctly. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
So, he had a mainly wrong reason for removal, which means he should be banned, others had an equally wrong reason for reinstate which means ????.Pincrete (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean about the "wrong reason." In his own words, he said he removed it because Wikipedia does not mention paid events. We debated that point for more than a day, but he did not clarify his position or correct his reason. I think we should presume he knew what he was doing. Either he was deliberately inventing reasons to remove content, or he was unconsciously inventing reasons. Either way, it's not a good sign. And when content is being restored from a wrongful removal, usually we don't examine every sliver, reference, date, etc. It's not like new content. That is just a fact. And whether King should be banned is a matter for the administrative council to decide. I have already offered my opinions on that, and so have you. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I was citing King's plagiary your post: No. You have copy-pasted substantial sections of material from sources with no quotation marks. This is a clear and unequivocal breach of copyright.[470][471][472][473] 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) -- True, Devil's Advocate provided a longer list of King's Plagiary: See this edit from October ripped from a Reuters article, thesetwo 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 Advocatetlk.cntrb. 01:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC) -- Copyright violations are an absolutely basic issue about which no editor could be naive, and this is a serial offense. On further reflection of King's overall performance as a WP editor, I seriously question that King is an asset to Wikipedia, and I must vote for general ban.Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Grammar'sLittleHelper, I believe procedure is that you propose a general ban in its own section, in order to keep discussion readable.Pincrete (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment, it may be true that EKJ's editing has contributed historically to unreasonably negative content about the films and 'movement'. However the main reason response to the films is negative is because there are almost NO positive reviews. The main reason description of the movement is 'patchy' (at best) is because there are almost no RS articles to say what this 'movement' is. After 2-3 weeks involvement, I am still no clearer in my mind whether the 'movement' actually exists in any more tangible sense than 'the hippy movement' or 'the punk movement' existed. The sources just aren't out there.Pincrete (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The reason for a topic ban is, that over what appears years of, uncivil behaviour, ownership and game playing/incompetence. He exacerbates discussions by bringing up irrelevant or illogical points making it impossible to discuss points properly. A recent example is premature phony closing of RfC diff.
He is not the sole defender of the article against the 'waves' of pro Zeitgeist editors - as the varied response to the recent RfCs show. He could be good for this if his behaviour did change, and it has improved - but not convinced this isn't part of the game. That is why I recommend a short ban.
The Zeitgeist movement is not a movement - as in a social or cultural movement. It is a political advocacy group. It certainly exists, even if not notable. Not sure I follow your argument on 'the hippy movement' and 'the punk movement', see Counterculture of the 1960s and Punk subculture. Anyway, arguments about the movement are off topic. Earl King Jr isn't the only sceptical editor, and isn't the only one working to remove bias from the article.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Jonpatterns. Without going too much off-topic, the 'movement' doesn't appear to be an advocacy group in the general sense (Registered members, structure etc … which also implies opening itself to outside scrutiny). I'm old enough to have used the term 'the hippy movement' approvingly, my meaning today was an amorphous set of loosely shared values, with little definable structure, strategy or purpose. My reason for making the analogy was to say that RSs don't really tell us WHAT it is that makes it more than that, I am unclear therefore whether it actually IS, though I would not oject to its claims being described in 'its' voice.Pincrete (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Removed as off topicPincrete (talk) 10:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Question: If Earl's problems are in the past (perDennis Brown "You have to go back more than two weeks" and diffs that go back to 2014) then what is the benefit of imposing a sanction? All the best: RichFarmbrough, 11:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC).
See my reply to Pincrete above.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree, but your implication that I have "selectively" notified others is incorrect. Those who are on the current talk page (like you) that I knew were watching the page, I did not bother to notify personally: I put a notice on the recent BLP section[474] (non-selective). I have just put a notice on the topic:talk page now.[475] I notified King personally and everyone who had been involved to any extent in recent months (non-selective). If you know of others that I missed, by all means invite them (non-selective). The history of controversy with King is huge and involves many people who have many facts and much evidence to bring to the table. I could not cover it all myself. King has so far said little in his own defense. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Sfarney|Grammar, many of those you contacted privately ARE regular editors, who would have seen a neutral talkpage notice, whilst Arthur Rubin and myself were not contacted (who just happen to be the only refular editors to oppose). As soon as you contact individuals, it's called canvassing and DON"T DO IT.Pincrete (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC) … … ps I had already put a notice on the talk page AS SOON as I (accidentally) became aware of this noticeboard. Your defence compounds the impression of canvassing.Pincrete (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Nope, and your characterization does you no credit. Here is the complete list of those I contacted directly, and even the total is not "many."
18:24, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+544) . . User talk:Bobrayner
18:18, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+545) . . User talk:Somedifferentstuff
18:02, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+544) . . User talk:AndyTheGrump
17:50, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+544) . . User talk:NeilN
17:48, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+538) . . User talk:Betty Logan
17:46, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+544) . . User talk:Willondon
17:45, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+546) . . User talk:Jonpatterns (→sibel edmonds)
17:44, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+548) . . User talk:Robert McClenon (→Earl King Jr.: new section)
17:36, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+18) . . User talk:OnlyInYourMind (current)
As can be seen by that list, none of those above except AndyTheGrump had posted to talk:Zeitgeist pages in the last couple of weeks, and might never have received notifications of this discussion. And AndyTheGrump was inconsistent in his contributions to these talk pages and might never return -- his range of topics is wide. There are two issues here: (1) The people who have been offended by King far outnumber the people who support him -- even if I had notified every single person who encountered King in the last 6 months, the numbers could be portrayed as "canvassing" because of the overwhelming imbalance. (2) Your logic presumes a partisan alignment on these topics, but the reality is more in line with WP:Good faith. The editors are not lined up in voting blocks. They are accomplished and experienced editors who have valuable opinions. The situation is really not as King repeatedly portrays it, that a "FLOOD OF SOCKPUPPETS" would take over the topic pages if King were not standing guard. I haven't see any sockpuppets in my two months in these topics. Incidentally, if you know of any other topic pages associated with Zeitgeist, please add notices of this discussion. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks like you're doing fine spamming talkpages on your own...even article talkpages in fact...why are you posting notices about this discussion on the article talkpages for 9/11 conspiracy theories and elsewhere? I don't think I've ever seen a worse case of spamming.--MONGO 10:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Sfarney|Grammar, contacting ONE editor is canvassing. Your actions will probably have no appreciable effect on outcome but you were caught doing something inappropriate FULL STOP. Piece of friendly advice, own up, back off, don't do it again.
You compound it however by continuing [476], the advise you gave was wrong, JWilson0923 should strike through the remarks, if he wishes, not 'doctor them' as you advise him, otherwise my and Mongo's comments are left in limbo.Pincrete (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC) … ps I have left a short message on JWilson0923's talk page correcting the misinformation, as neutrally as I could.[477]
In case anyone is reading this, the real wp:Canvassing policy says: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
A topic ban would include 9/11 conspiracy as it is frequently crossed into the Zeitgeist discussions by King himself. So those editors should be involved in this discussion. Up to them. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Sfarney|Grammar, I'm happy to let others be the judge of whether your actions showed intent to 'broaden participation' or to 'canvas support'. Especially as you failed to take the obvious step of putting a note on the talk page until after being warned by me to stop canvassing.Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I published the notice immediately on the BLP page, which is where the trigger incident for this ANI occurred. With your helpful advice (I didn't realize it was a warning -- what was the threat?), I added all the talk pages associated with Zeitgiest. But then Mongo complained I was spamming, so I guess you can't please everyone, eh? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Referring to Pincrete's vote statement, Pincrete has been participating in the Zeitgeist discussions for almost a month. He has agreed with EKG on a number of things, most recently on the BLP question, [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive224#Non-factual_smear_on_Zeitgeist_the_film_page] Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Grammar'sLittleHelper, I think my involvement is about three weeks actually, but what is your point exactly? To the best of my memory, the two matters EKJ and I have agreed on are 1) the need to 'cool down' the personal attacks, 'grandstanding' and general battlefield mentality of the talk page (no editor above disputesseveral editors above agree that in that recent period EKJ has mainly been the victim of those personal attacks). … … 2). I agreed with EKJ on the BLP that an attributed quote describing the film negatively, is not 'slander', and is not even a BLP issue, simply a weight issue. But so does everyone else on that noticeboard except you. Grammar'sLittleHelper, what was 'the trigger incident' on BLP? Because EKJ's posts there are calm, courteous and rational IMHO, and the debate had largely 'died', because of no new opinion coming in.
As I've already said, others can judge whether your intent was 'notifying', or 'coaching', 'canvassing' and 'spamming',Pincrete (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
For an answer to your question, please read the original complaint I posted here on July 2. Since then, more serious details have emerged that show King's long-term conduct does not comport with the WP:Five Pillars. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
??(no editor above disputes that in that recent period EKJ has mainly been the victim of those personal attacks)?? I for one dispute that statement most strongly. The trigger incident was King attacking me once again out of the blue with no provocation. Judging from their statements above in favour of banning King, a number of other editors seem not to agree with your broad statement -- but that is just how they seem to me. Maybe you should read them again. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Grammar'sLittleHelper, could you please supply the diffs for EKJ personally attacking you on the BLP? I know only of YOU striking through an edit of his, which (in my judgement) was not at all personal, an extremely provocative act on your part, which he was cool/clever enough to not 'rise to the bait'.
The answer to your question is in the original Jul 2 post to ANI. King's attacks often take the form of ad hominem. That Latin phrase means a characterization of the person rather than an address to the topic. Such was the case here. King often infers or states that the only reason editor X desires an edit on the topic is because editor X is (some variety of a brainwashed groupie) or a "supporter" for the subject. In this post, he twice attributes words to me that I did not write.[478] In the same post, he attributes motives to me that I have not voiced. Then once again (for there are many previous such) he calls anyone who disagrees with him a "supporter" of Zeitgeist. Ad hominem is classed as a logical fallacy. The rhetorical effect is to change the subject from the topic at hand to the person. A Wikipedia editor should not have to defend self and motives repeatedly to get a topic edit done. Ad hominem is a violation of WP:Five Pillars. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The logical blackhole is claiming that 'and there are many supporters of the Zeitgeist movement that are attempting to present ideas according to Zeitgeist instead of according to outside from Zeitgeist sources,' constitutes a personal attack against you or other editors. Is this the 'trigger incident' ?
I'm happy to let the diffs be the judge of whose account of the BLPn is more credible and who was engaging in and initiating personal attacks on that BLP. Pincrete (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The proposal is about Earl King Jr's behaviour over a long term period, not whether the Zeitgeist articles have become a battleground or not. These are two different issues that need to be considered separately. A quick look at the current talk pages will not give an insight into his long term behaviour. For more info see points I previously raised at AN here.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Jonpatterns, I think we all recognise the distinction, however anyone voting inevitably asks themselves whether banning EKJ from the topic would actually be beneficial to the topic, or whether the problem/answer lies elsewhere.Pincrete (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Which is problematic. EKJ has cleaned up sloppy POV pushing, but has illustrated this isn't out of a desire to build an encyclopedia, just to insert at extreme lengths his views through sloppy POV pushing. Apart from the mundane cleaning of vandalism, EKJ's contributions are observably counterproductive. The arguments from his supporters those who oppose that without him the article would get taken over by FRINGE content is absurd misdirection and no excuse for his behavior. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
70.36.233.104, I'm sure no offence was intended, but I think those voting 'oppose', would not like to be characterised as 'his supporters'. Most of us have articulated the view that EKJ is not the root of the problem and banning him not the solution. (no apology needed though). Pincrete (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Just the same, apologies to any who may have been offended. I think the argument that topic banning EKJ won't solve all the problems with the article is [missing] the point in addressing his tendentious editing. His edits to remove vandalism are used to defend him when it appears the rest of his contributions [provoke] that same vandalism. I don't believe Jonpatterns' reminder is unreasonable. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
70.36.233.104, in my case, the argument is that banning EKJ will solve NONE of the problems, the biggest of which is a 'battleground' mentality in which personal abuse, 'us and them', fallacious argumentation, misuse of noticeboards are somehow justified. Fighting 'the ogre' has become an end in itself and much more fun than the mundane, incremental business of checking sources, working towards agreement etc.. Banning EKJ on its own gives the 'green light' to that mentality. That is why I favour general sanctions or Arbcom.Pincrete (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
That is the misconception. EKJ engages in tendentious editing. EKJ's actions/behavior may not be THE problem with the article, but they are still a significant problem in and of themselves. EKJ's tendentious editing make it difficult to collaborate constructively on article, independent of whatever other problems arise. The loss of confidence expressed by those supporting a ban is what follows when one burns through their credibility to launch a public war against article's topic. There are plenty of neutral editors willing to work on the article and no good reason to tolerate the drama EKJ's tendentious editing provokes. Straying from the question of EKJ's tendentious editing to explore how to police article is missing the forest through the trees. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:38, 7 July 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.
In closing of these two sections about community general sanctions, I find consensus to authorize community general sanctions, and that from now on all articles related to the topic of the Zeitgeist Movement, are subject to community-imposed general sanctions. This includes all articles on the films, organization, movement, and individuals connected to these other topics.. Note this specifically excludes the wording "broadly construed", which I find consensus against. A few people have opposed over the process of this but not its spirit, thinking it too heavy-handed. I think the volume and tone of the overall discussions demonstrate there are long-standing content issues that have not proven solvable via regular talk page discussions. Additionally, ArbCom's decline of the case shows that many believe this situation not to have risen beyond a level which the community is able to handle. There are people who opposed GS as too broad and favored a TBAN, and others who opposed a TBAN as too limited or unfair and preferred GS. In the balance of things, the GS seem to be generally more accepted, and also has more chances of helping resolve the issues (and less chance of unduly impacting editors who may or may not have represented the entirety of the problems). The actual paperwork that follows new community GS is kinda monumental though, so it won't be done right away. I promise that before Saturday 5PM EDT I'll have everything filed in its proper place, pages templated, users notified, the whole shebang. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have, above, said that this case should be sent to ArbCom as a matter that the community has been unable to resolve. However, there is one step that the community can take toward resolution. That is to impose community general sanctions, to allow any uninvolved administrator to act against any disruptive editor. If ArbCom takes this case, then in the final decision they can convert the general sanctions to ArbCom sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. Seems reasonable enough at this point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Question what does 'community general sanctions' involve, link to documentation? Jonpatterns (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Here is a link to Wikipedia:General sanctions documentation. It seems 'general sanctions' can mean a number of different measures that effect all editors of an article.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - A pattern of intentional 'battlefield editing' is happening on this article, of which EKJ is not the sole cause. Pincrete (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)My support moved to section below
Support - I'm surprised something like this wasn't enacted back when the article & its prior incarnation were seeing wilder activity. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Support in lieu of the proposed topic ban(s). I'm tired of seeing these pages over and over at RFPP. KrakatoaKatie 20:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. As with many essentially religious topics, this is a battleground of belief against ugly fact. Maintaining the quality and integrity of the project requires that we start the process of separating warring parties from each other and the locus of dispute. Note that the Zeitgeist movies and movement are clearly covered by WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
This is too vague as to be meaningful, thus is not able to be closed or enforced. GS, or community sanctions proposals have to be painstakingly precise and narrowly defined. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Support, if this means real action, but I have been disappointed by recent arbitrations -- all came to nothing, without yes, no, or even a maybe. Just silence. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, [user:Dennis Brown]'s argument, as short as it is, convinced me to change my vote. I believe all editors, with the exception of Earl King Jr., have worked toward collaboration and cooperation. If I am wrong, there will be time enough to impose stricter measures. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Support No value in singling out one editor when others add fuel to problems and neutral presentation is the actual burning presentation, in my view. Let the article go under an extreme microscope and lets get people accountable for future references, ongoing. This is an example of one of my recent edits [479] It seems pretty tame and if anything a little positive toward the subject, but no it is just sourced from a decent content source Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose; Dennis Brown has given an abridged version of my reasons, but that will do for now - hopefully ArbCom will address the proposer on the issue of competence in dispute resolution at the proposer's present request for arbitration. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
@JzG:, @KrakatoaKatie:, @AndyTheGrump: - for the sake of formality and given the mess being generated from this matter being prematurely referred from one request board to another, can you please indicate whether you are supporting this proposal (whatever it is meant to cover) and the one below concurrently, or if not, revise your comment in relation to this one and add a separate comment to the one below? Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Would it would also be helpful if we all strike though our comments if we have moved them to the new proposal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs) [480]
@Pincrete: Yes it would be, (and thank you for doing so). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
To address Dennis Brown's concern that the sanction as proposed is unacceptably vague, I here offer a redraft:
All articles related to the topic of the Zeitgeist Movement, broadly construed, are subject to community-imposed Wikipedia: General Sanctions. This includes all articles on the films, organization, movement, and individuals connected to these other topics. A copy of this sanction shall be posted to the header of all article talk pages that it applies to.
Proposed, but don't mark me down as a supporter, this is for administrative clarity. I have not studied the article problems enough to support it myself. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - Properly drafted, but I oppose because the topic ban above is the better way to deal with it. There isn't a showing of MANY people causing problems, and that is what you need to justify general sanctions. If you just get the topic ban, the problems as presented are over. That fits the admin goal of using the least amount of force to get the job done, and it's a lot less ongoing paperwork and drama. If it is an ongoing problem with many users, then mixing it in with a report on an individual is muddying the waters, and it should have been done as a separate proposal at WP:AN. The thread (plus arb) is already too much to read. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I believe what you're trying to propose is a community discretionary sanctions regime. "General sanctions" refers to various different things, including page revert restrictions, article probation, and discretionary sanctions. See WP:General sanctions for more information. If you want community discretionary sanctions, I suggest you use the likes of WP:GS/GG or WP:GS/SCW&ISIL as templates. RGloucester — ☎ 02:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, agree with Dennis Brown. I don't see how general sanctions would solve the actual problem. — Jeraphine Gryphon(talk) 13:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - Re-thought this. BMK (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I want to make this perfectly clear, since there seems to be some doubt about it: I support both a topic ban for EKJ and Community General Sanctions for the subject area. My "support" vote in the topic ban area should not be discounted simply because I also voted "support" here - the two sanctions are not in any way mutually exclusive. BMK (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
BMK, re your discussion below about 'how to count', bobrayner voted 'send to ArbCom'. Would it be appropriate to 'ping' him to see if he want's to alter his position in the light of the ArbCom rejection? Pincrete (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Given that canvassing has already been an issue, I wouldn't. BMK (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Support as reasonable. The overall level of respect and cooperation needs attention. Battlefield mentality on the article is a problem. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - A pattern of intentional 'battlefield editing' is happening on this article, of which EKJ is not the sole cause. Pincrete (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Support if we trim broadly construed language and list just Zeitgeist related material (there's not that many). Paving with good intentions sometimes has the effect of infecting a bunch of unrelated articles. We don't really want a bunch of uninvolved editors/articles suddenly subject to GS because the topic was mentioned by a Zeitgeist individual or, say, there was a meetup in a city, etc. Suddenly it needs to be mentioned in the off-topic article to justify the talk page template of GS or it's used as a cudgel against an editor when they branch out from Zeitgeist. --DHeyward (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Support as more clearly worded. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment whether Community General Sanctions are need or not is a separate issue to whether Earl King Jr should be topic banned. Let consider the evidence for that issue here. The issue of Community General Sanctions should be raised separately, and arguments for that considered separately.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Very needed for this battleground. AlbinoFerret 13:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Support I'll go along with this, but agree that the topic ban is more important. KrakatoaKatie 15:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose unless accompanied by a topic ban for EKJ. Otherwise, it looks to me too much like postponing any real action over a long-running issue yet again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not my view that imposing Community General Sections on the subject area overrides the general support shown above for a topic ban on EKJ - they are in no way mutally exclusive, and the !vote count in support of a topic ban is currently at 14-4. BMK (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Five people expressly oppose the topic ban. Additionally you have two who support sending it to ArbCom rather than handling it here. That should be considered seven opposes to the topic ban. You also have BK's comment that should probably be viewed as an oppose and Rich's comment in the discussion seems to lean towards opposing a topic ban. Krakatoa previously suggested general sanctions in lieu of topic bans so that could be seen as another oppose. Given that, you have a minimum 15-7 vote and potentially a 15-10 vote. On the general sanctions it appears to be, at present, a 9-5 vote. Obviously, consensus is more than head-counting and a lot of parties voting either way are involved, which should cause their vote to be considered in light of that, but the vote count is not overwhelmingly in favor of one option or another.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 20:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
If I miscounted the opposes, my apologies, it wasn't deliberate. However, the comments concerning sending it to ArbCom shouldn't be counted as opposes, in my opinion, they should be counted as what they are, comments that the problem should be handled in a different venue. Since that's not happening - considering that the arbs appears to be waiting to see what happens here - they're essentially neutral !votes until the editors come back and make a specific vote concerning the topic ban - so I still make it 15-5 for the topic ban, just counting noses without determining strength of argument (which is why admins get the big bucks). BMK (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, also, regarding Black Kite - I assume he's more than capable of writing "oppose" if he is against a topic ban for EKJ. What I see in his comment is him providing more factual information for editors to take into account when they make their determination - so I wouldn't try to read his mind and count his comment as an "oppose" unless he formally makes it one. BMK (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump, it is clear that you oppose this if it is simply a 'fudge'. However, I think it would help if you clarified whether you would still oppose IF it were in addition or if the topic ban failed.Pincrete (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I think my previous comment was clear enough - I think that a topic ban for EKJ would solve any problems that can't be dealt with by normal processes. As for what to do if that fails to work, I'm not going to prejudge the issue, since I don't know what form such 'failure' might take. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Question: Generally mixing the discussion of the behaviour of a particular editor and general behaviour isn't helpful. Would 'general sanctions' help focus talkpage discussion and avoid the walls of text with little useful content? Jonpatterns (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose: This discussion is not being properly defined or conducted. All articles related to the topic of the Zeitgeist Movement, broadly construed, ...but not defined. The survey above asks whether King is to be topic banned from all subjects related to the Zeitgeist movie ... and again not defined. When I posted notices of the ANI for King's ban on the talk:topic pages for talk:Peter Joseph, Talk:Jacque Fresco , Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories, and Talk:Post-scarcity economy (which are all related to Zeitgeist), the announcements were reverted by an editor who is now a part of this discussion (JzG, alias Guy), who explains his actions with wp:Canvassing.[481],[482],[483],[484]. As a result, even though Guy himself is voting and speaking in this investigation, he denies knowledge to editors on those other articles who may not know of this investigation and will not have a voice. In effect, the editors involved in Talk:Zeitgeist (film series) will now be deciding for the editors on those other articles. In my opinion, this is not the way things are supposed to be done. The proper action is to notify those other talk pages of an ANI that may affect an editor interacting in their midst with a subtended ANI that may affect articles they are working on. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The proposal(s) are defined at the head of this ANI (by you, Sfarney|Grammar) as extending to 1) The film series page ... 2) A page which does not exist, (namely the 'movement page) ... 3)The director's page, ... extending to Jacque Fresco or others might be logical if there is the slightest evidence of intent to disrupt. Otherwise you are attempting to unilaterally redefine the terms of this whole ANI.
Your logic also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what a noticeboard IS, which especially values input from 'uninvolved' editors, not simply a 'circus' for those with an interest in the subject/related subjects. Put more simply, why would an editor on a 9/11 topic be more competent to assess behaviour than someone who normally edits on cookery?Pincrete (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I believe you are in error. When I wrote the statement at the head of this ANI, the proposal had not been written. Each proposal, written later, contains its own language and does not refer to my words. Also, you are apparently unfamiliar with the words on WP:Canvassing, which states: "It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users." Since this ban and/or GS affects multiple articles, the editors on all such article discussion pages should be notified. If comments from involved editors were not welcome, you and I should not be having this conversation on this page, nor should you and I be voting. But you have voted in both proposals and posted more than a dozen comments. Therefore, others should be notified as you have been, and they should have their say and their vote, too. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Why those topics? As I have stated numerous times, King himself ties them together -- he insisted for a while that the Zeitgeist article must state the footage was copied from 9/11 conspiracy videos and the article contains that link. Also, King has been quite active on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. It is all of a piece to King. Conspiracy theory = conspiracy theory. The complaints about his conduct on those pages are very similar to the complaints about his conduct on the Zeitgeist page.Now a question for you: If King were conducting himself properly, he should have many supporters willing to come and say so, and the evidence against him should be slim. In such case, you should have no problem with broad publication to every page where King contributes. But King is a single purpose editor and has been for years (except for a few forays into the Cambodia article where he misbehaved in other ways). Everywhere he goes, his offenses outweigh his contributions according to the evidence presented. A good editor is able to show a chest full of ribbons and commendations from his colleagues. If they exist, you should bring those forward and defend him. Where are those ribbons and kudos? As it stands now, the wider the net is thrown among those who know him, the more numerous the complaints and the longer the list of his offenses against Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Grammar'sLittleHelper, your Dennis Brown's definition of the breadth of this ANI at the head is film + movement + director … this section head adds plus persons connected (Fresco?), that is the scope of this ANI, that is what people have expressed their opinions on.
IF you wish to extend the topic ban to other pages, PROPOSE IT. Can you not see how silly (and dishonest) it would be to ask people to 'vote' and then count the votes and then try to change the basis of what they had voted on after they had all gone home.
As for the rest of your text, it is precisely the sort of 'grandstanding' and futile speculation (if a cat isn't a monkey doesn't that prove that an Chinaman needs a toothbrush?) which bedevils this article and which is more the root cause than EKJ.
My comments about procedure, about what is spamming and about what is canvassing were made in good faith. I hope a more senior editor will correct me if I am wrong.Pincrete (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC) … … bolding simply draws attention to the fact that you left NO note here of your 'canvassing' and "spamming' until after several editors challenged you, you took no steps to remove the 'spammed' notifications. amendedPincrete (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
If it is canvassing, a single warning should be sufficient. There is no need to argue and use ethnic slurs. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
70.36.233.104, struck through, I had no idea that the term could be abusive. Pincrete (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Support on condition that broadly construed is dropped.--MONGO 17:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Question - What specific list of articles should be used, for a more specific list vs "broadly construed"? (several have asked, open to any responses) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The 9/11 conspiracy theory articles are already under 9/11 ArbCom sanctions so they should already be covered in Arbitration Enforcement (and if there is a 9/11 complaint against EKj, they should be brought there). My list is Zeitgeist (film series), Peter Joseph, and derivative works by Peter Joseph such as God is Dead? that are beyond the 9/11 scope. Is there any more that are directly related to the Zeitgeist conspiracy theories or the movement by Joseph? --DHeyward (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think as DHeyward states above...there are now just two articles in question I can think of.--MONGO 23:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I would add a Zeitgeist Movement article if it returns to being a separate article. Anything else?
Oh, for the record, I notified MONGO and DHeyward on their talk pages as to this clarification request, as they'd made specific questions or statements to that effect. Responses are however and of course open to any and all. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Not sure why they have a problem with "broadly construed" as that is pretty standard language for these kinds of sanctions. It seems that is the best language to use as certain topics that are broadly related to TZM are battlegrounds for the same parties and not covered by any of the existing discretionary sanctions. Specifically, topics related to Jacque Fresco and The Venus Project.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 01:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
DHeyward, I think your list + 'Fresco' are legitimately within the proposal. 'The Venus Project', (I believe) doesn't exist. Attempting to broaden the scope to any tentatively connected subject would alter the whole ANI and no evidence was offered of the need to do so, we can't collect the votes and then collect the evidence!Pincrete (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Post-scarcity economy is said to be what the Zeitgeist films and/or movement advocate, and is strongly related to this group of articles. As the history of that page shows, in the last few weeks, King clear-cut that page down from 25,000 words to 5,000 words -- little more than a dictionary definition and a template.[485] Prior to that storm of changes, the article was fairly stable at about 20,000 characters under the eyes of many editors. King's vandalism seems to have been arbitrary with no general page tags warnings. Post-scarcity economy should be restored to its former content and sourcing (e.g, March 2015), and carefully edited by consensus. And Jacque Fresco should be included in your list, of course. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Is there anything King was editing other than Cambodia articles that you would not connect in that manner?? ... I am concerned about his nanotechnology and post scarcity related edits as well, but if the solution is that broad then it really needs to be editor specific not article topic area general. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Here is a recent edit on the Peter Joseph page in which King reduced the number of citations in the lede from nine RS to two. Mongo recently claimed (above on this page) that Peter Joseph "is also not notable," presumably for lack of citations to RS, which King had previously removed from the article.
In this part of his edit history, King removed thousands of characters of text and sourcing from Sharing economy and Co-creation without first flagging it or attempting to improve it past the flaws he named. Here, here, and here. Small edits to align the material with WP, such as removing company names or summarizing the quotations, could have improved the Encyclopedia with the enriched information.
In Muddy Waters, King again chopped out large blocks of text. Some paragraphs had old flags requesting sources, the others had apparently not been flagged. King gives no indication he sought citations or found contradictory information, only that the citations were missing.
King deleted 20,000 characters of apparently very good, irreplaceable research from Fender Stratocaster, much of it without maintenance flagging or any effort to find the missing citations.
Yes, but you're arguing for a general problem with all the user's edits, not what the limits would be around Zeitgeist related topics for him. This proposal was about the Zeitgeist problem and I don't see universal support for a general user sanction (vs what I see as pretty good consensus for a Zeitgeist topic restriction). You're fighting a different battle.
Joseph Fresco and the Attention Economy stuff seem too far away from Zeitgeist. I can see there's a slight affinity but they're not related topics. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Georgewilliamherbert, may I ask you to reconsider this view of the Peter Joseph article? Joseph is the sole writer, narrator, and producer of the Zeitgeist films, and apparently holds a trademark on The Zeitgeist Movement, according to King. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Argh. I meant Fresco. Joseph, belongs on the Zeitgeist related topics list. Clearly. My apologies for the confusing thinko. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. This seems like a more appropriate response given the length and depth of the dispute. If EKJ really is a major problem on the article, this will end up either forcing him to shape up or getting him kicked off anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Strong support - I would support admin sanctions with our without a proposal, even against me for my edits if necessary. Look how much back and forth there has been on the page. For some reason the topic seems to be heated with editors taking a strong stance on both sides. This makes it difficult if not impossible to find a consensus. Anything fishy needs to be cleaned, breaded, and fried by anyone with the ability to sanction. Maybe after a few are cooked, editors will pull off their blinders and meet somewhere closer to a consensus. --TTTommy111 (talk) 00:05, 9 July 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 has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have requested arbitration at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Zeitgeist_.28film_series.29. It is possible that if general sanctions are enacted here, the arbitrators may decide not to accept the case, but to let community sanctions run. I would prefer a full evidentiary hearing to determine whose conduct has been problematic. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
That'll be rejected as we have not yet exhausted other options (e.g. community sanctions). Guy (Help!) 07:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Tom Harrison, This is an excellent question. Under WP:ARBGG, The Devil's Advocate is indeed indefinitely prohibited from editing any administrative or conduct noticeboard; this is however, with a caveat, "except for threads regarding situations that he was directly involved in when they were started". Given that the editor's first sentence of their submission here is "I have been directly involved in many of the discussions mentioned ...", this caveat appears to be in effect; and the edits, therefore, in order.
Given the history of engagement that got him banned from noticeboards, he's been "directly involved in many of the discussions" of just about any topic, and with just about every contributor. If that were what arbcom intended by banning him from noticeboards, it wouldn't have been much of a ban. Surely they didn't craft the remedy so he could continue the behavior that lead to it. Tom HarrisonTalk 12:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Tom Harrison, Unfortunately, we're not able to be sure of what ArbCom intended to do, only of what they did do.
What they did do, per WP:ARBGG, is prevent the editor from involving themselves in discussions on matters with which they had not been involved prior to the matter being raised on noticeboards. This is a significant limitation on the editor's involvement in disputes and discussions across the project.
In this instance, the editor asserts that they were involved prior to the matter being raised, and, therefore, the exemption in the caveat to the prohibition applies.
Should editors believe that the prohibition as imposed by WP:ARBGG is not the intended sanction, the appropriate venue to raise the question would be WP:ARCA.
Should editors believe that this editor was not, in fact, involved prior to this matter being raised on this noticeboard, the appropriate venue would be the editor's Talk page, and then WP:AE.
While I appreciate the concerns raised, and understand some of the history, we must accept ArbCom's decision as it is, and work within it. Hope this helps. - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.' 13:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Please review these apparent canvassing attempts. [486][487][488][489]This appears to be coaching a side with "we"[490]. There may be more. This statement appears to be very misleading as there doesn't appear to be any language in the propose topic ban to include all of 9/11 and seems to be an effort to attract attention of editors that may have had disputes with EKJ. --DHeyward (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
DHeyward, please see the thread above (in voting on topic ban). It follows immediately after Rich Farmbrough's emboldened 'Question'. Starting with an admonition from me for Sfarney|Grammar, to stop canvassing.Pincrete (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
DHeyward, the 'we text' ('The last thing we need now is a round of more accusations when Earl's accusatory conduct is under examination.'), was also moved to a less prominent position from [491]to [492], where the exchange became meaningless as it was not a response to anything.(It is restored and I have invited the editor to 'strike through'). The very least that must be said is that 'coaching' a new editor is inappropriate and moving 'embarrassing' text on a noticeboard equally so.Pincrete (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, cool off, Pincrete. "Less prominent" means nothing when editors are as carefully observant as this crowd. I tried to move it to the discussion section before the argument became another magic beanstock. But now I see you have reopened your accusations of canvassing in a separate area AWAY from my responses to your earlier accusations. What's up with that? Are YOU trying to hide the full discussion from examination? The last thing we need now is a another round of accusations when King's conduct is under examination. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I did not open this section DHeyward did. Coaching another (new) editor and then moving his text in the manner you had previously advised that editor to do, is unprecedented in my experience. Pincrete (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that he had also moved the comments. The coaching itself was a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of "us vs them." Moving the comments to avoid scrutiny in the manner described to the editor is battleground and disruptive behavior that appears to be motivated by reason other than building an encyclopedia. This at the very least should be a 1-way iban against User:Sfarney so he isn't allowed to plot and carry out underhanded dealing with EKG. Possibly a complete topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
DHeyward, battleground mentality is precisely the real problem with this article, of which this incident is only the 'tip of the iceberg' (see talk and recent BLP). My only 'horse in this race' is to argue that getting rid of EKJ will be a victory for that mentality, not the solution to it.Pincrete (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
It was definitely no more coaching that any experienced editor would give a less experienced editor. I would like you to consider these points one at a time, because you are seeing them all through a lens of misrepresentation. 1. I counseled JWilson0923 to tone down his remarks and move them(07:11, 4 July 2015 UTC) before ANYone had answered them (08:15, 4 July 2015 UTC). Please check the dates and times and satisfy yourself that this is the truth. 2. I always use "we" when speaking of Wikipedians. The last thing we all need is to turn the administrator page into a battleground of mutual accusations. You don't need it, I don't need it, JWilson0923 doesn't need it, Earl King Jr. doesn't need it, and no honest editor in Wikipedia needs it. 3. Even Pincrete advised the JWilson0923 that his comments were of the wrong color in in the wrong place. 4. I was quite obviously not moving the comments to avoid scrutiny. The only context that would be broken was JWilson0923's comments to Mongo -- When I moved, I kept the whole block together. If you want a long running thread of discussion in the voting area, I did not know. I don't think it is proper. That is why there is a discussion section. 4. Canvassing. I put a general notice on the BLP incident board immediately upon filing this ANI request.[493] I then notified all other editors who had any involvement that I could locate on the talk pages who were not current on the BLP page. Pincrete reminded me I should put a notice of ANI on the talk:topic pages, so that is what I did. Then Mongo accuses me of spamming -- you can't please everyone, I guess. You may not know, but EKJ has often tied 9/11 conspiracy to the Zeitgeist films because the film talks about 9/11. When you look at King's contributions on that talk page, you find he is active there, and the ANI is a discussion of "all subjects related to the Zeitgeist movie." That includes 9/11 and would be a part of the topic ban, so those editors should also be involved. The other talk pages I included for the same reason. Let's handle one thing at a time. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I acknowledge that Sfarney|Grammar's advice to JWilson0923 was before I gave the public advice to strike through on this ANI. I still think that Sfarney|Grammar's actions were WHOLLY inappropriate and his choice of message to JWilson0923 constituted 'conspiritorial coaching'.Pincrete (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC) …
ps Sfarney|Grammar I didn't remind you to put a notice on the talk page (Why would I? I had already done it), you did it only AFTER I had counselled you to stop canvassing. You misquote the message you left on JWilson0923's talk. You 'can't please everyone' when you knowingly act outside guidelines, in order to 'whip up' solicit support. Who elected you to decide which pages are included in the proposed topic ban? If you thought all those additional pages should be included, you should have proposed them. Pincrete (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you did remind me -- perhaps not intentionally, but remind me you did. And I don't think it's appropriate for you to appear to quote me with words I have not said or written. That is not held to be good conduct. As to whipping up support, take a moment to think about what you are saying. If a public notice of this Incident report is broadly known, it should whip up support for King in equal measure to the proposal to ban him. A general notice would whip up support for the ban only if King's adversaries overwhelmingly outnumber his supporters. And that is not improper -- that is what the proposal is intended to determine. How would you alert all involved of this Incident report and proposal? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Sfarney|Grammar, if I have 'appeared to quote you', I will correct, but since you don't say where, I cannot.Pincrete (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC) … … Ah I think I see now, fixed! Pincrete (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I have removed those posts as inappropriate canvassing. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The we can presume you will be posting a notice with more neutral wording so that all the communities within the topic will know of this discussion and provide meaningful participation. All those who know King to be a constructive presence and Wikipedian will have full opportunity to speak in his favor, as well as those who have had other experiences. But public sunlight is always a good thing in these situations. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Grammar'sLittleHelper, clarification, IF those pages were part of the proposed topic ban or IF evidence was being offered of EKJ's disruption on those pages, then such a notice would be appropriate, otherwise it's spamming or canvassing.Pincrete (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Who will know what is a part of the topic ban until it is issued? And when it is issued, it will be too late for King's admirers from those articles to come forward and testify to his contributions. But you and Mongo don't seem to look forward to a flood of admirers. You seem to presume all comments from those editors will be negative -- Why is that?Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Grammar'sLittleHelper, please strike through your speculations about my and MONGO's motives and attitudes, you are not on the talk page now!Pincrete (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC) … psa topic ban is not 'issued' in the manner you imagine, you cannot go to court for shoplifting and be found guilty of murder.
Grammar'sLittleHelper, I invited you to 'strike through', you chose not to. So, I will respond to your speculations about my and MONGO's thinking. An ANI is not a 'Reality TV show' where we vote off 'least popular'. There are websites where they count up 'likes' and 'friends', but not WP, I hoped you would have had the good sense to see that.Pincrete (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Pincrete, This is an investigation into Earl King's Jr.'s value as a Wikipedia editor. Is he more tendentious than valuable? Is he more valuable than tendentious? Those are the comments -- with evidence -- useful to this forum. We even have buttons to push and awards to acknowledge people for their Wikipedia contributions. When I posted a notice to the Zeitgeist-related talk:topic pages where King has edited, other editors were invited to come forward and provide valuable evidence and opinions in answer to those two questions. The invitation was general -- everyone can contribute. So please, if you have experience with Earl's history as a Wikipedia editor and you have more information that answers one of those two questions or both, bring it forward. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Sfarney|Grammar, I did not/do not re-open 'canvassing' or 'spamming', the diffs are there. I DID ask you to 'strike out' (infantile), speculation about the motives of two editors. I have repeatedly said (endorsed by others), that I believe EKJ is not the biggest problem, nor banning him the solution.Pincrete (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
It is not necessary to speculate on your motivations. You have voted against banning King. From that undisputed fact, we must conclude that you hold him to be a constructive editor. Mongo has made even stronger statements. No speculation is required. You both wish the vote to be carried in the direction you have voted. Again, no speculation required. You object to broad notices of this proposal to ban King. You have given no reasons for your objections, but it is no great leap to conclude you believe that involving more editors with more experience with King will not help to carry the vote in the direction you have voted. Once again, no wild speculation there, either. If you have other reasons for objecting to public notices of this discussion, please inform me so that I can cross out the earlier statement as an error in judgment. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Sfarney|Grammar, speculation is precisely what it is, a speculation that belongs in the playground world of 'our gang' and 'his gang'. Which part of 'I believe EKJ is not the biggest problem, nor banning him the solution' is difficult to understand ?Pincrete (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC) ... ps, Grammar'sLittleHelper, you have my permission (if you wish) to strike out everything of both yours and mine from 'And when it is issued, it will be too late', through to here. Making this ANI unreadable benefits no one.Pincrete (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Personally attacking other editors? Bullying? Multiple copyright violations? Eviscerating whole topics? Non-consensual editing? Inventing WP policy de jour? Deleting text in violation of Wikipedia:Citation_needed? Deleting citations? Canvassing support from individuals? Yes, it is difficult to understand how you might think King's multiple and continual violations would not stop if King were stopped. Have you read everything in this ANI and examined the evidence for yourself? Have you studied the messages he puts on personal talk pages? In Pincrete's estimation, what is the "biggest problem" if not King? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Grammar'sLittleHelper, most of the 'sins' you mention seem to have become endemic on the article. I've answered the 'biggest problem' elsewhere, but briefly it is a 'battleground mentality', which, in my estimation has become an end in itself, the article has become an excuse for pursuing personal antagonisms and where denigrating the other point of view is almost a conditioned response. That mentality may not mean to do so, but it gives encouragement to 'nothere fly-in' editors, who may not be a HUGE problem, but who exist/will exist.
You I believe have been as guilty as anyone, more interested in 'slapping down' some editors and 'rallying the troops', than listening to arguments and working around a problem or problematic editor. EKJ probably has a 'siege' mentality, but many others have a 'siegers' mentality. I have been prepared on many occasions to partly agree with you, but partly has never been good enough, therefore consensus for small but significant improvements hasn't happened. For example, ,I MIGHT be willing to 'throw out' Ms Goldberg (I'm not US and don't know 'Tablet'), but I can't throw out Tablet's opinion and accept 'Huff Post' as fact, even less can I throw out 'Tablet' because Ms Goldberg fails an individual editor's 'rationality test'. As Aquillon very sensibly pointed out (Sanctions), any kind of 'monitoring' would apply to everyone, inc. EKJ, so he's either learnt to behave or he'll be the first to 'fall foul' of the sanctions. Topic bans are meant to be remedial, not punitive.
You asked for my opinion, I presume sincerely, (rather than rhetorically in order to 'disprove' it), that's my 2p, but here is not the place to debate it, so you have my permission to strike it through, with your previous, if you wish.Pincrete (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
If Sfarney did something wrong, I'm sure it will come out in the wash from uninvolved editors/admins when this is over. Given that EKJ is active exclusively on a couple pages, it is hard to imagine why Sfarney's posts there would be considered excessive. It also appears it is through those same posts that many of EKJ's supporters those opposing were informed of this discussion. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
70.36.233.104, actually very few have posted here as a result of 'user page' or 'spamming' contact. IF they had, this whole ANI would be thrown out. There are reasons for these policies which I am happy to discuss with you on my/your talk, should you wish. Pincrete (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
If it's of no consequence then there's no reason to argue about it. Sfarney's been warned, he isn't doing it any longer, if you think it is that serious open up a complaint against him. I don't see why this has to go on and on. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Ughhhhhhh when did I last mention them except to offer to explain policies to you ? Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
That is assuming there will be a topic ban which might be assuming too much. There is no actual real body count voting on such things but there is a general consensus which can be gotten at. A general fair consensus is now not possible as an editor has gone out of their way to dig up from multiple pages any number of people that seem to have a grievance or have complained in the past about Earl King (me}. Andy the grump has been adamant about a topic ban. He also has a history of making personal attacks against Earl King that is beyond blatant [494] and [495] and [496] and [497]. Other editors have called for him to be topic banned or blocked from editing for personal attacks. The Devils Advocates recent appearance here is controversial because he has been banned currently from these types of boards. He also has been blocked previously for tendentious editing on the Zeitgeist page though that is in the past. Several editors, Andy, The Devils Advocate, SomeDifferentStuff have filed multiple Ani's none of which were acted on but are quoted that they were filed as evidence of wrong doing by King but filing Ani's is not a guilt by association generator but has been used as such. Other editors recently have called for Andy to be blocked from editing and also Sfarney to be blocked from editing. Grammers Little helper has affected what ever case he had by his alleged spamming or canvassing of anyone who is a peripheral participant in a range of articles who might come here and vote. Lobbying this Mr. Wilson who previously called King a troll editor is probably a perfect example [498]. That kind of behavior on the article is not supposed to be be allowed, calling people trolls. Wilsons talk page indicated that GrammersLittleHelper the filer of this Ani thought it best to call Wilson to the Ani which is spamming or canvassing, see his talk page as others have brought this up [499] I think we have to look at the broader elements of what is going on with people editing the article and that would mean a future of watching the article under the direction given by the Arbitration committee. I suggest this Ani has lost the basis of being valid because its originator Mr. Sfarney has gone too far in lobyying (canvassing). So, lets draw a future line in the sand. Ask the Arbitration committee for a fresh perspective and identify problems without so much drama. I propose we drop the ani now as tainted and start fresh elsewhere namely the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom looks almost certain to reject the case, on the basis that the community is dealing with it here. Accordingly, we should do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Earl King Jr., I took the liberty of sectioning this off from 'Canvassing?', please revert me if I was wrong.Pincrete (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I have never been blocked for my editing of Zeitgeist articles and I have not filed a single ANI request regarding you. Once I proposed a topic ban in a filing someone else made, but that was it. The previous ANI cases were presented mostly for the sake of pointing out how this is a long-standing issue and to show previous evidence of misconduct that was presented in those cases. You have a devoted group of supporters who believe you should be allowed to do whatever you like so long as you keep the Zeitgeist supporters at bay and they have obstructed previous efforts at removing you from the topic.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 18:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
All three ANI proposals were originated by others who knew the process of writing a proposal. None were written by me. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The Devil's Advocate, please name (or strike through) the 'devoted group of supporters' and the other characterisations of those who do not agree with you. Pincrete (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
MONGO and Tom are the two most notable ones who have commented above. They routinely weighed in to defend you at previous ANI discussions as some necessary soldier in the fight against Zeitgeist supporters and have also supported some of your more extreme POV edits in the topic area.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 19:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The Devil's Advocate, I'm not sure who 'you' or 'your' means, it was me Pincrete who left the message, and I don't even know who 'Tom' is. I left the advice to strike through because I thought you were getting dangerously close to personal attacks and characterisations. I repeat the advice. By all means strike through these two messages of mine at the same time. Even though I disagree with you, your posts above are constructive. These are not.Pincrete (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Apologies, I didn't see it was you and not Earl responding to me. I do not consider it a personal attack to say Earl has a devoted group of supporters. Not everyone who disagrees with me is in that group either. The two editors I mentioned are the main ones. Both of them have repeatedly argued against any sanction for Earl, no matter how extensive the evidence of misconduct, on the grounds that they think he is a necessary bulwark against Zeitgeist supporters. On article talk pages and in edits to the article itself they have often supported his position no matter how extreme as in the case with the capitalization edit war noted in my previous comment.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 20:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
As you wish, you've at least clarified who you DIDN'T, mean (inc. me). Pincrete (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
There is little that TDA and I agree, so not surprising we would disagree on what should be done about Earl King. I find TDAs mentioning myself and Tom to be furtherance of his usual conspiracy theorizing...it's not relevant to this matter and is a serious breach of AGF. --MONGO 17:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Saying you two support Earl regardless of his conduct is not a conspiracy theory or a failure to assume good faith. It is an observation about your conduct over the years I have been involved in the dispute.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 01:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Administrative attention seems to be needed on Bill Cosby. There appears to be a single editor, Georgeivs vid, editing against consensus to remove information regarding the sexual assault allegations.
Judging from this recent talk page conversation with NeilN, the RfC regarding the allegations (which so far overwhelmingly supports maintaining mention of the allegations in the lead) was needed because User:Georgeivs vid desired to change established version to remove any mention of the sexual assault allegations.
Meanwhile, multiple editors have worked on talk page to create an improved, neutral and brief mention of the allegations for lede summary, including: Cwobeel, Gaijin42, LavaBaron, AtHomeIn神戸, BlueSalix, Anythingyouwant, and Louieoddie but Georgeivs vid keeps reverting. It seems a warning regarding consensus and also that unfavorable does not equal BLP violation might be helpful. If disruption continues a topic ban should perhaps be considered. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
First of all, Qualudes are Schedule I in the USA, so there is no way to get them legally in the US unless you are a research facility with permission from the DEA, so his removal of "illegal" to describe them is factually wrong. As to the allegations, WP:WELLKNOWN plus the consensus in Archive 2, plus the ongoing RFC seem to make it clear that there is a strong consensus to include this in the lede of the article. I've skimmed BLP and BLPCRIME again, I don't see any policy justification for excluding it and the allegations are difficult to ignore if we truly follow the sources. Care must be taken, but it would seemingly be irresponsible to have nothing about this string of events. Reading though the archives, it appears he is using obstructionist tactics and hollow wikilawyering to get his preferred version, thus whitewashing the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Quaaludes appear to have been widely prescribed in the US until about 1984 as a legal drug. AFAICT, the drug is still available in other countries. Again, AFAICT, Cosby's statements indicate he obtained the drugs by prescription in the 1970s - when the drug was quite legal as such. Collect (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
This neglects to consider the required warning label that accompanies such prescriptions in the U.S. which states: "Federal law prohibits the transfer of this drug to any person other than the patient for whom it was prescribed", so illegal seems an appropriate description for Cosby's admitted use of Quaaludes. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The claim was made that it was per se an "illegal drug" - that a person can illegally dispense a legally acquired drug is true of every single prescription drug in the US - the edit did not refer to Cosby's act as being illegal, but to the drug itself at the time. Collect (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The timetable matters, other countries do not since that is the country where this happened. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
And at the time he appears to have acquired the drug - the statement is that he did o with a prescription for a legal drug. And every scrip drug can be illegally redispensed <g> (including such drugs as Atenolol, Metoprolol, and barf bags [500] ("I once obtained, just for asking, a large plastic measuring cup (of the sort I think you're supposed to pee in). The purpose was because I was driving a friend home who wasn't feeling well, so I asked if we could get a barf bag and that's what they gave me. Even this innocuous-looking plastic item was so labeled.") - the edit alas called it per se an illegal drug. Collect (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
That discussion with NeilN was in May, and this user's conduct does not seem to have improved since. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 14:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
That discussion is a good example of how things went. At that time it was decided that it was undue to include any mention in the intro at all, and my editing was thanked by several people. Georgeivs vid (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
One of the editor's first edits gives an indication about how he feels about the subject. [501] It seems he is equating mentioning the controversy in the lead to Wikipedia saying Cosby is guilty. [502] --NeilNtalk to me 14:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the editor in question has been duly alerted as to this fact, but remember that all of BLP is under DS, so AE or individual admin action are valid paths to resolution here. (PErhaps an alert, followed by a very stern warning that a topic ban or worse is likely to follow if things continue is in order?) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad more people are paying attention to the article. I content still that if there is a mention in the lead or intro of his biography that it HAS to be neutral and abide by BLP policies. Others keep adding material that seems to be in violation of that.
There is a discussion if ANYTHING should be in the lead at all, and another discussion of what that might be. So far I've come the closest with a proposal that is neutral and non-sensationalistic. If Wikipedia wants to be a tabloid instead of an encyclopedia just say so and I'll clear out of here, until then I think Wikipedia should be cautious about asserting how rape-y Cosby is, as there is still no criminal charges or evidence he committed any crime. Georgeivs vid (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Georgeivs vid Per WP:WELLKNOWN the standard is a notable allegation, not "conviction" or "charged". These clearly are notable allegations. And as of yesterday, there is evidence, his own words. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
You can't whitewash things in the article by changing "sexual assault" to "misconduct". [503]DreamFocus 17:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Read the talk page. It wasn't my idea. Let's just throw out all the rules and call him a rapist, that seems to be the goal here without any evidence. Gaijin42, check your facts. Georgeivs vid (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Georgeivs vid, being WP:NPOV does not mean "in the most favorable light to the article topic", it means neutral in respect to what the sources are reporting, presenting a balanced tone. If the sources are mainly saying it was sexual assault or sexual misconduct, and it is highly substantiated, then it is neutral to use those terms. Your attempts to whitewash the lede in particular are sanctionable because they are causing disruption. You have already been formally warned that BLP topics like this fall under discretionary sanctions, meaning any single admin, at their discretion, may sanction you by a topic ban, block or other sanction if you violate the principles here. You need to let that sink in while you argue here, all alone, while everyone disagrees with you. Simply put, if you don't stop and change your methods now, you will be prevented from editing the article using one of many methods. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I've not attempted to whitewash anything. Whatever Wikipedia reports should be from reliable sources and reported neutrally. My editing reflects that. Georgeivs vid (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Apropos of nothing, but this discussion may have interesting implications for the couple of RfC's currently going for whether the specific abuse allegations should be mentioned in the lede at Dennis Hastert (RfC here) and whether it's appropriate or not to include press coverage of whether Ariana Grande is a diva (RfC here). The interesting thing about BLPs is that you'll get plenty of editors strongly on both sides of these questions... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with you, IJBall, I think those other RfC's (one of which I commented on, to be completely transparent) are very well brought up in this discussion, to a point. The issue here (and in those discussions) is two-fold. First, is the "fact" well-documented enough to include in the article. Clearly, in this case, it is (I'll leave those other RfC's for those talk pages). Having established that, is the incident significant enough to warrant inclusion in the lead of the article. Single incidents (unless of a consequential nature), or even periods of bad behavior, in my opinion, do not warrant inclusion in the lead. And in some instances, might not even warrant inclusion in the article. But certain acts do. And I've changed my mind on Mr. Cosby. A month ago, I would have argued against inclusion in the article. However, with recent evidence coming to light, I can see no way to ignore it in the lead. It is a significant event, and will have a lasting affect on Cosby's legacy. Now, regarding this editor's behavior. Clearly not in the spirit of building consensus. Whenever an editor takes it upon themselves to be a defender of an article/concept, ignoring the consensus of other editors, that is an issue, particularly so since Wikipedia is built on consensus. Dennis Brown's observation is perhaps the most concise about this: "being WP:NPOV does not mean "in the most favorable light to the article topic", it means neutral in respect to what the sources are reporting, presenting a balanced tone." Georgeivs vid has misunderstood the concept of NPOV, and then, based on that misunderstanding, acted upon it. I would have hoped that through discussion here, he would now have a better understanding, but his continued arguments do not appear to reflect that. Onel5969TT me 14:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I think knowing the history of the article even going back two months would help see my editing for following consensus and trying to ensure we didn't violate BLP. Consensus was, a month ago, that any mention in the intro was UNDUE. And many of the editors here took part in those discussions and didn't agree. A current RFC was in process to see if there was now support to include something but it hasn't yet ended so editors here took it upon themselves to declare the outcome. So your judgement of my actions is missing a lot of detail including that most of what we currently have is due to my editing it and adding sourcing. Georgeivs vid (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Editors here are judging me a bit harshly when all I have been doing is trying to enforce Wikipedia's own policies. Exactly the point that I have been making for weeks is that any mention in the intro section by default becomes undue. Presently Cosby's biography intro, likely the only thing many readers will bother to absorb is taken up 25% by unproven, unverified, scandalous accusations. Eclipsing his decades of work. I am hardly the only editor who has expressed this concern. Georgeivs vid (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
What they are criticizing isn't your ideas, it is your methods. Reverting back and forth, not listening to others and considering their reasons (WP:IDHT) and an almost hysterical attitude about the edits. Once you see that are you are clearly in the minority, WP:BRD is pretty clear in that you must form a new consensus to make the change. Your actions and reactions almost smack as if you are in his family or in his employ, or simply so starstruck you can't accept that many, many sources have discussed this. NPOV means neutral, but you clearly have an agenda here, to water down the facts, and that dog doesn't hunt here. You've been given the information about how and where to form a consensus, you've been warned of the consequences if you continue to be disruptive. At this point, whatever comes next is pretty much up to you. Debating it here is pointless, this isn't a forum. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Calling my editing hysterical is not in alignment with reality. I have been listening all along even though those who want to include more rape accusations certainly are choosing to ignore the BLP concerns myself and others have raised. Defending my actions is all I have been doing here since I was alerted to join the discussion. I hope other editors have actually have been disruptive will be facing the same consequences. Georgeivs vid (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a follow-up to the first two ANI reports (Report 1, Report 2) concerning the ownership issues exhibited by Gabrielkat(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). The same complain remains from the previous two reports; Gabrielkat is exhibiting owning issues on the updating of episode counts on soap opera pages (primarily The Bold and the Beautiful, though in recent weeks, has extended to other soaps, in other primary: General Hospital) as in correspondence to the WikiProject Soap Operas, which should also be noted they are not apart of (and while they don't need be, it is still alarming as they've not been active in updating soap-related articles in their edit history). Gabrielkat has gone on to revert my edits on several occasions, only to re-instate them as their own seconds later (I have the notifications of being reverted if anyone wishes to see screen-captures). I warned the user about this behavior (Message 1, Message 2) only for said-warnings to be reverted almost immediately, with no discussion or response from Gabrielkat, and for their editing to continue. They've been warning for disruptive editing by other editors, and said-warnings have gone to be ignored or ultimately removed from their talk page. It is my belief Gabriel is on a soft-path of owning the page and only intending to edit for their own personal gain (I cannot state otherwise as user refuses to correspond with me), and given their edit history from their talk page, they seem to be a bit uncivil. Again, I can only go off of their behavior towards me and my attempted correspondence to them. This could also stem from me reverting them with their edit violate the consensus at the Soap Opera Project when they updated the episode count prior to the final airing of the Friday airdate episode, but surely this behavior should not be tolerated for the fear of it boomeranging out of control. On Friday, May 22, 2015, they admit they want to update the episode count by stating "Let me update the weekly episode count". If that isn't an attempt to own the page, I don't know what is. User also received two warnings from Administrators on the website: one from Adjwilley (1) and one from Dennis Brown (2), the latter of which was a "final warning", per Mr. Brown's own words. And following Mr. Brown's final warning, especially where their updates with General Hospital are concerning, they continued their pattern of updating prior to the show's final week episode completion, which again is a clear sign of attempting to "own" the episode count, per their own request (linked earlier in this and previous reports). And today, July 10, 2015, they've done it yet again. The user has also resorted, at one time, to mimicking my edit-summary in reverting my own edits, which I also preceive to be a potential borderline personal attack against an editor, though again, this is unfounded, though highly suspect. It's alarming, to me, that this behavior is still being seen as acceptable to the Wikipedia community; it is counterproductive to what Wikipedia stands for as a collaborative experience. And I hope that justice is finally served on this issue once and for all. I alerted both Mr. Brown and Mr. Adjwilley on their behaviors last week, and no resolution was given, so I am re-opening the complaint, as I was instructed to do. livelikemusicmy talk page! 18:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I updated the weekly episode count for General Hospital fair and square, so you should be thanking me. Gabrielkat (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean when you say "fair and square"? Unusual in this context, I don't want to assume your meaning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
How is it exactly "fair and square" when you've been warned about editing prior to episode ending; the episode was still airing content at 2:57pm. And the incivility in your tone is off-putting. And why, persay, should I be "thanking you"? Again, that would assume personal ownership, and feeds into my claims of a personal attack. The fact of the matter is you've continued your pattern of ownership and have ignored multiple warnings, the final two coming from Administrators and consequences should be taken. livelikemusicmy talk page! 19:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I updated the weekly episode counts for all US soap operas last Friday, and that was after their final episode week completions, so how would that be "ownership"? Gabrielkat (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Not on General Hospital; the episode is still airing at 2:57pm eastern time, therefore, it goes against the week completion and signifies ownership, which (as I pointed out in my filings), you've been warned about prior. And you ignored those warnings. livelikemusicmy talk page! 19:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
A serious question: What is the source that is reporting these numbers? If this has not been published, and is based upon these editors' "viewing experience" and updating the counts manually after the episodes have aired, then isn't it just original research? I see no source provided for these figures presented on the article. Scr★pIronIV 19:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Your interpretation of policy is impeccable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Then, by extension, a source needs to be found (some exist, such as this one[504] which listed 12,776 episodes as of March 29, 2013) and provided, and only be updated once a new published source is found. Am I correct here, as well? Scr★pIronIV 19:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@ScrapIronIV: Per {{Infobox television}} it states: "The number of episodes released", meaning if the episode has aired, it is enough of a qualifying source. And if you notice, on the General Hospital page, it notes that the 13,000th episode aired on February 24, 2014, and episode count has been increased off of said-date, also in-counting pre-empted airings. livelikemusicmy talk page! 19:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, {{Infobox television}} isn't a policy, but WP:V is. One of our most critical ones, I might add. For normal stuff, it isn't a biggie but when it involves contentious edits (and by the point, it is obvious these are contentious) then we hold verification to the highest standard. By any standard, if it is reverted, it is contentious and needs true sourcing, which would solve this problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Then I believe, in order for us to maintain the WP:V policy, the additions should be reverted until an actual source is found. Certainly, this is a very contentious issue, with three ANI discussions on it. And ALL editors (not just these two) should be required to cite an actual source if this field is changed. I am more than willing to perform said reversions, if there is a confirmed policy regarding it. I do not want to add fuel to the fire, but editors need to learn to find and report based on sources. Scr★pIronIV 19:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
But the count number is not what's in question and being reported on; it's one editor's attempt of owning the update increment and not receiving the proper punishment, despite their continued ignorance of warnings from fellow editors and administrators, you being one of those admins. Because, if that's the case, more than a daytime soap opera needs a situation for episode counts, and that would include a mass-update and a potential removal of parameter. And on that note, the template should explain that, as well. As the template leads it to believe a source is not required once an episode has aired; it even states an inline citation is only required to provide sourcing that an episode count is greater produced beyond what has aired. livelikemusicmy talk page! 19:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not taking away from his previous problems, I'm saying that User:ScrapIronIV is completely correct. Since there is so much debate around it, really what is needed is a direct source for that number, and the template being updated to be consistent with policy. No matter how you slice it, policy really dictates that this be verified with a reliable source. I think a primary source would be fine in this case, but a source. And technically, it shouldn't get updated until a new source is found for the new number. Simply put, the template is wrong, and out of step with policy. And policy trumps template every time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Then why not just exclude episode count, then? Because then you'll have to go to all television series, not just daytime soap operas, and cite episode counts. And as it is, the episode count itself is not what's in question; it is one editor's ownership and ignorance of the warnings placed against them. Punishment should be implemented as their editing is against what Wikipedia stands for, which is what Dennis Brown stated in the last filing, as most coverage for soap operas generally do not produce production numbers, unlike primetime television. livelikemusicmy talk page! 19:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
None of us gets to perform original research on any article. The episode count was not an issue until you made it an issue. Now it IS an issue, and it needs to be dealt with, per policy. Nobody said maintaining an encyclopedia was going to be easy. Sources, or it didn't happen. Scr★pIronIV 20:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Then I propose removal of the episode counts from soap operas, as it seems a bit pointed to target soap opera-only articles with the sourcing, unless you propose also going for primetime series, as well? livelikemusicmy talk page! 20:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
That's a difference of scale, though – I can easily go to EpGuides.com or TheFutonCritic.com, etc., and find verification that, say, Person of Interest has aired 90 episodes. Because the daytime soaps air 5 times a week, 200-someodd days a year, for 30 years, finding sourcing for the current episode count is probably going to prove to be a lot more difficult. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The episode count doesn't need to be totally excluded, though. As you say, the fact that GH recently passed 12,776 episodes aired is a fact that can easily be sourced (and included in the article text); that will similarly be true for the other three U.S. daytime soaps when they pass certain airing "milestones". I would agree, though, that removing the episode counts from the Infoboxes of all of the still-airing U.S. daytime soaps would probably be a good idea... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
It should be done, as IP's, anonymous editors and new editors are going to try and bump the count, which is partly why it was agreed to do once-per-week update of the episode count. livelikemusicmy talk page! 20:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm willing to see how that works out, though, I'm cautious about it. I guess time will tell how that will workout. livelikemusicmy talk page! 20:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
One rule to keep in mind: It is better to be verified than perfectly up to date. That is core to everything we do at Wikipedia. A short article that is perfectly sourced is better than a long article full of original research. There is no need to update it every time an episode airs, 1500 vs 1550 means very little in the larger scope of things. It would be much better (and within policy) if that entry said "over 1400" and had a rock solid source. Reliability matters when building an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, I'm willing to see how the sourced edits hold out with some caution. However, I'm hoping also does not excuse the actions of Gabrielkat in the long-run terms of things. Their behavior is very much concerning, and not with the concept of what Wikipedia is meant to be about, and I believe their comments here prove that; they seem more fixated on "winning" and being thanked, than working towards the greater good of the encyclopedia. livelikemusicmy talk page! 20:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
FTR, I agree with you that Gabrielkat's actions through all of this (I've been following your filings on this from the start...) are definitely concerning. One of two things will happen now – 1) now that the soap episode counts have been "locked up" using WP:V and "milestone" numbers, Gabrielkat will drop the stick and their conduct will improve, or 2) Gabrielkat won't drop the stick, in which case WP:ROPE applies. Let's hope Gabrielkat chooses Door #1... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
BTW, if Gabrielkat tries to restore the weekly "update" of episode numbers (even with sourcing), I think WP:RAWDATA can be invoked as a reason to reject that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Someone needs to go through the templates and normalize them with policy as well, so we don't have this problem again. I'm not a template guy, but would attempt if not for waiting for a call to hopefully go out. For a change. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:V and WP:OR are all good, but that's not the problem here. The episode count can easily be verified by visiting the show's home page. [505] clearly shows that episode 7117 aired on Thursday July 9th. It's not controversial information, doesn't need a secondary source, and simple arithmetic is not WP:OR. The problem is a petty (IMO) argument between two editors who want to be the one to update the count each week. User:Gabrielkat, in the past, has reverted User:livelikemusic's updates when the latter got to the page first, leading to warnings about article OWNership. Now Gabrielkat has taken to updating the count a couple minutes before the episode finishes airing. It's a small problem, and we don't need to insist on a big bureaucratic solution like making their Wikiproject use months-old secondary sources. Anyway, I have taken what I believe is the appropriate administrative action, with a punishment I believe fits the crime. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
They do matter, and I said primary sources are fine, but they need to not update until the primary updates. I was hoping that would slow down some of this, as speed is part of the problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
But again, that could just cause a potential boomerang effect on the count; we should leave them as they are, with milestone updates and secondary/third-party sources, as it's likely going to end patterns of behavior and ownership. livelikemusicmy talk page! 21:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Totally agree – the more I think about it, the more I think WP:RAWDATA should be the guiding principle here. It's not just the daytime soaps – a lot of editors follow the TV show articles around just so they can update the episode count on a weekly basis. This seems like a lot of wasted effort. To my thinking, episode counts should probably only be updated at the end of every season (Primetime series) or after certain "milestones" happen (daytime soaps). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
That is unless the series has ended—which was previously mentioned, I cannot recollect from whom, though. livelikemusicmy talk page! 21:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anything in WP:RAWDATA suggesting that once a week is too often to update the episode count for a TV show. One of the things that makes Wikipedia unique as an encyclopedia is that we can stay up to date. If it's a matter of server bunnies or wasted manpower, I think it we could easily kill more bunnies and waste more time trying to enforce seasonal updates than just letting fans continue to update the count once a week. I guess I still see this as a small problem of two editors in a petty disagreement with a solution that requires only a small behavioral change. Gabrielkat needs to wait until the episode ends before updating the count, and livelikemusic needs to stop running to AN/I when Gabrielkat jumps the gun. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Heh. I'm surprised you didn't block for 7,117 seconds... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The block length was set to equal the length of time that they jumped the gun. (See [506]) ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Khojaly Massacre - pro-Armenian trolls continously delete the genocide connection, mindless edit warring despite no arguments, please lock this article temporarily -- 62.46.161.198 (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
You want to post your request at WP:RFPP but at first glance, this seems like a content dispute which you are part of. Use the article's talk page to discuss please. --NeilNtalk to me 19:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
These people delete this connection since a year, just look at the history. People obviously trying to delete uncomfortable aspects of this massacre (including reliabe sources from The Hill - like the current edit war), I do not see any point in discussing this. -- 62.46.161.198 (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion is pretty much mandatory and I see someone from the "other side" has opened one. Given that you are at three reverts, it would be a very good idea to respond. --NeilNtalk to me 19:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I tell you, it is pointless. -- 62.46.161.198 (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Well great, I expected the reliabe source of The Hill not to be deleted. - 62.46.161.198 (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you should join in the discussion at the talk page, then? I see plenty of arguments being presented for why The Hill, or at least a blog there, is not reliable. Regardless, this now seems like a content dispute; with the article fully protected, I hope there's no further administrator action needed here. —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no point to NOT discussing, as you will not get action here without discussion. Read the dispute resolution policy and try a dispute resolution technique. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 13 July 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.
No need for admin action, content issue. Both parties discussing. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recently, a fellow editor removed (from the wiki) a substantial number of some fairly long-standing law enforcement agency articles by converting them into redirects to their constituent cities/counties without moving any of the article content to those same city/county articles. This came to my attention when it affected an agency on my watchlist. I requested that the editor provide an AfD for the article prior to de facto deleting it, which he obligingly did. While the result of the AfD was by no means a snowball keep, it was determined that there was no consensus to delete the article based upon the rationale he provided. Given that many other agency articles were in-effect deleted by his redirects while he was operating under the same justification, might this be seen as sufficient grounds for restoring those articles back to their readable state?
First, the editor is John from Idegon and, even though you did not use their name in your post you should have informed them when you opened this thread. Next, they did not "remove" the articles they redirected them to the city, county etc that the departments serve. Last, I note that you made no attempt to discuss the situation with John from Idegon before posting here which shows a lack of WP:AGFMarnetteD|Talk 18:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Last I looked, WP:BOLD was a valid procedure here. If you think my actions were in error, revert the redirects and we'll hash them out at AfD. This is a pointless filing and I am asking for a quick close. In any case, I will not be adding anything further to this discussion. John from Idegon (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
My apologies. I thought by not mentioning him I was doing him a favor, not breaking protocol. The issue was not meant to be personal, just simply about content. I won't ask again. Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
ANI is not the place for content discussions. It is for the discussion of editor behavior. By coming here you implied there was something wrong with my behavior. Apparently you now understand. Again asking for a close on this as it has been withdrawn by the OP. I have initiated a discussion on his TP to attempt to clear the air. John from Idegon (talk) 20:02, 13 July 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.
Sock hook deployed. Amortias (T)(C) 21:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I got two red notifications, Champion natasha thanked you for your edit on Pond.
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.
Blocked. Amortias (T)(C) 15:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A history of creating articles that are pure copyright violations, removing speedy deletion tags. Some or many of the articles are subsequently saved--judging from their response on an article talk page, this appears to be an editor whose first language is not English. So, I've opened discussion here, rather than handling this as a simple vandalism case. 2601:188:0:ABE6:AC1F:A6:FD78:C358 (talk) 13:23, 13 July 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.
Given Tokyo Assassin's first and only post was to reply to Tokyo Girl here, I have blocked them indefinitely. --NeilNtalk to me 11:40, 13 July 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.
IP blocked. Blackmane (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Articles and category deleted, image on Commons deleted, socks blocked. I'm taking the liberty granted in WP:HOAX to not prolong these shenanigans using WP:COMMONSENSE. Keegan (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I need to pack for my travel to Wikimania, so can't look further, but there is something fishy going on there: lots of new accounts are trying to blank/mark this page for deletion as a fake based on forum threads and got blocked for this; however there's not much evidence of existence either, for example I see no proof of article's claim that she's signed to UMB. I would appreciate more eyeballs on this. Max Semenik (talk) 06:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
It's fake. The album has been pulled by iTunes, there's no listing (as you mention) on the various label websites, the image one of an unnamed model if you do a Google image search, and User:Musiclover john is very, very, very definitely socking with other accounts. Musiclover john and socks have been blocked and I'm in the process of deletion. Keegan (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm the blocking admin. I've unblocked User:Penguin888 I though this was a case of "revert, block, ignore," but a deeper investigation reveals that this is actually more of a sticky matter. My original blocking rationale, WP:NOTHERE, no longer applies, as it appears that the user was trying to get rid of a hoax, but didn't understand Wikipedia's conduct rules (edit warring, etc.) (@MaxSem: Now that I've unblocked Penguin888, can you handle the unblock request on the user's talk page. It didn't feel right declining it myself.) As for the veracity of the article, I'll say what I said on Penguin's talk page:
I now believe that Lucia Cole, and several associated articles, are hoaxes for a variety of reasons. Republic Records' website lists all artist currently signed. There is no mention of Lucia Cole. Further, artists that are signed by major record labels almost always recieve coverage significant enough for a Wikipedia article. This is not the case, it seems. The Dreams Fulfilled article claims that it was produced by Babyface. Sources do not support this. Additionally, all of the references at Lucia Cole seem to be of questionable notability and verifiability. I would like to get more eyes on this, per WP:HOAX#Dealing with hoaxes...
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.
I've just had a threat of violence posted on my talk page. Would appreciate if someone could look into it. Considering the threat I don't really think it appropriate for me to post again on the user's talk page so would appreciate if someone else could post notification of this discussion there rather than myself. Regards - Galloglass 14:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Notified [510]. Diff of threat here [511]Keri (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
As this was clearly meant to have a chilling effect, I've treated this as I would a legal threat and blocked the editor indefinitely or until they can convince another Administrator that this won't happen again. Doug Weller (talk) 16:15, 12 July 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.
Reported at anti-vandalism page, but this bastard is just carrying on. Block please. Thanks. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 18:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Please keep it WP:Civil. Calling anybody, vandal or not, a bastard will not win your case. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 18:53, 12 July 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.
BerkeleyHeights(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) refuses to accept decisions made by consensus to Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, and removed this talk page comment which addressed their disruptive editing. Based on their user name and history of contributions, this appears a single purpose account, and there may be a conflict of interest; this edit inferred a personal knowledge of elected officials in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
It's best to use the other means of appropriately dealing with an editor before bringing them to ANI. I have left some of the appropriate warnings on their talk page. If they persist, take them to WP:AN3. I don't see any COI in the usual sense of the term, since they are adding negative information to the article. Nor does that talk-page post imply any actual knowledge of elected officials; it's more like bizarre bluster. If you feel the username is inappropriate, address that on WP:UFAA. Softlavender (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, since he's a new editor without any guidance, someone needs to post the appropriate guidelines on his talk page: WP:RS (which patch.com is not; he may be pushing an article he himself wrote on that site), WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, WP:BRD, and so on. At the very least, he should be encouraged to do the WP:TWA. He's pretty much operating blindly and has stepped into a minefield without knowing it. I think, despite his bluster, he needs the assumption of good faith, and needs education. He has never even gotten any welcome messages or Teahouse invites. Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE: Well, at this point the editor is blocked for continuing to edit war. His edit summaries and talk-page pronouncements have long since ceased to make sense, so I propose a site ban for incompetence, or trolling disruption in the guise of incompetence, if this sort of behavior continues after the block expires. Softlavender (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
…if you keep making disparaging comments about me in public I "will" take action. Enough of your catty slanderous remarks about me - or this will escalate to a very unpleasant legal situation. Hear me now Psychonaut, Cease and desist with disparaging me and my name… Come out Psychonaut and be prepared to respond to the disparaging remarks you have made about me to a judge in a court of law. — User:Markandrewz
I'd appreciate it if an admin could look into this. For reference, the entirety of my interactions with him can be found at User talk:Markandrewz. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
While it may not technically be a legal threat it is a threat. It is not acceptable for users to make demands of other users under some sort of vague threat. I have blocked the account for a week with a warning that further such behaviour will result in an indefinite block. Chillum 15:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I suppose a strict reading could interpret it as a legal threat, if another admin thinks my block was too short feel free to adjust it. Chillum 15:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I read this as an unambiguous legal threat and recommend that the editor be blocked until the legal threat is withdrawn. Cullen328Let's discuss it 15:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, it does seem to correspond pretty well with the example legal threat given at WP:NLT: "If you continue to do Wikimedia activities, then I will be contacting my lawyer to make trouble for you." Of course, in his version I was "making disparaging comments", though as far as I can tell it was really my "doing Wikimedia activities" (i.e., asking others for reliable sources) that he was objecting to. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is a legal threat. I missed the part about the court of law. I have accordingly adjusted the block to indef and will point out our legal threat policy to the user. Some effort should be made to see if there is anything we should not overlook, I am have breakfast right now myself. Chillum 16:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the issue of who operates the account was already resolved at User talk:Cullen328/Archive 23#Mark Andrew Zwartynski. Mark claims that his friend Jerry Page, a professor, briefly operated the account without his permission. However, all the claims of being an attorney, guitarist, touring manager, vocalist, keyboardist, songwriter, sports executive, business development specialist, author, marketing associate, descendent of royalty, and member of Captain Beyond, whether they were made by Jerry or Mark, unambiguously refer to Zwartynski himself. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:07, 11 July 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.
Apropos of the above, officialcaptainbeyond.com, a website that User:Markandrewz operates [520][521][522], has just posted a nearly exact copy of the "History" section of our Captain Beyond article. Unfortunately, whoever did this has not only failed to comply with the terms of our CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licences, but has actually omitted all mention of the original authors and source, instead adding the copyright notice, "Copyright 2013. CAPTAIN BEYOND. All rights reserved." No doubt this was an unintentional oversight rather than a deliberate act of plagiarism.
It's probably best if I don't directly discuss this with Mr. Zwartynski while I remain under the threat of legal action. However, perhaps some other user could drop him a friendly note informing him of the legal requirements for reusing Wikipedia content? As he is an intellectual property attorney I'm sure understands the importance of copyright compliance. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Boldly closing this (any editor may revert should they decide this hasn't been resolved completely) Curse of Fenric has been indefinitely blocked by User:Nick for not being here to collaborate. Sanctions at this point are largely moot unless they seek an unblock appeal at which point it would be appropriate to revisit this. Blackmane (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Okay I've tried to resolve this in every other way I can, and this is out of control.
GaryColemanFan is completely ignoring the rules of WP:BLP even after being advised thereof by Darkwind that the onus is on him to reliably and independently source information. Despite this, he persistently adds contentious sources for a claim as to who trained current WWE developmental wrestler Buddy Murphy. The latest of which is a podcast which I am having checked for reliability over on the RS Noticeboard. Despite this good faith checking, Gary has now regarded my removal of what stands as an unreliable source per BLP (until RS confirms otherwise) as vandalism and in the process is using bullying tactics against WP:CIVIL to get his way - including indirect personal attacks based on comments I have made about my back up reasons (not core reasons) for my own editing simply being OR and should for that reason be ignored. It is not and never has been my core reason and anyway if there is controversy about a source, BLP places the onus on the claimer (in this case Gary) to back it up. He has not done so with proven reliable sources yet.
His last reversion can't be reverted by me because I'll be in violation of WP:3RR which is very frustrating because now we have an unproven source on the page identifying Carlo Cannon as having trained Buddy Murphy. I make this report because of Gary's conduct throughout this issue and his insistence in effect that WP:IAR be applied over and above WP:BLP and WP:V. Right throughout this I have been acting in good faith, and I believe that Gary is not and is behaving in such a manner that a block should be considered or at the very least a warning. The RS Noticeboard will hopefully carry the solution and Gary should have waited for the ruling there. As it stands, his edit is against WP:BLP as stated. If his source is verified by an admin on the RS Noticeboard that will change matters, but until then my edit should be maintained. Either way, Gary is out of line at present and I ask that action be taken. Curse of Fenric (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't recall ever having seen such a protracted and inflamed argument over something of so little objective importance: this stands out even in the context of lame edit wars over wrestling topics generally. The whole lot of you need slapping with the WP:TROUT. The content should be removed pending consensus on Talk, and the best way to fix that is an RfC. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Well we've been through the BLPN already, and I took the issue to the RSN as well. So I doubt under the current conditions a consensus is even possible until Gary and the IP's treat the BLP rules with more respect. Having said that, if an RS admin can provide a definitive answer to my latest query there that may be the closure that's needed without RfC being needed. I agree in the meantime that the Carlo Cannon reference should be removed. I can't - as mentioned above. Curse of Fenric (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you shouted loudly to all sorts of people about the thing you don't like, but you didn't even try to resolve it in a civilised manner. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Well it's hard to be civil to the standard you're talking about when people have their blinkers on over the rules of BLP - which was a problem from the very beginning. I've tried, believe me, but it has been extremely difficult - especially when I know I'm being bullied and my automatic reaction is to strike back strongly just to show I won't be intimidated. It's very hard to go in another direction (LOL at below). Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Heh. (How long have you been waiting to use that one?!...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Well now. I left a polite warning on GaryColemanFan's talk page about his characterisation of edits he doesn't like as "vandalism" and he removed it with the edit summary stay off my talk page forever. This is now looking like a user who is actively rejecting any attempt to influence him. I do not think this behaviour is at all appropriate. Guy (Help!) 07:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment, looking quickly at GaryColemanFan's talk page, I couldn't see any notification of this ANI. Shouldn't that be first step? (apologies if it was under my nose).Pincrete (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
He removed it at around the same time he gave JzG the above edit summary. He gave me the same chorus by the way. Curse of Fenric (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Calling this edit of yours "vandalism" does not look promising either, though I will note that it looks like the two of you have been in a content dispute for days. My other comment here is that GaryColemanFan looks like an account whose sole interest is professional wrestling articles, and that seems to be one of those areas that's ripe with problematic editing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
You're right, IJBall. It is ripe for problematic editing, and all I was doing was trying to uphold the rules of BLP in perfectly good faith. All Gary wanted to do was fill the seven year gap in Buddy Murphy's training and in effect put WP:IAR ahead of BLP to that end - ie refusing to be influenced as JzG said, even by admins like him and Darkwind. It's stubborn and it doesn't help provide encyclopaedic content, particularly truly reliable sourcing. One of the reasons why I left WP for a long time was the lack of respect for the Australian wrestling scene. This is an example of it although it's a little different to the previous batch in that the definition of "industry professional" is being applied way too freely. As noted below I have bailed on the core dispute simply because I'm tired of arguing with another editor who refused to listen, but it doesn't alter the fact that Gary has been uncivil in his dealings here and he has been a bully in the process. In fact if I remember from my last stint here he was doing it even then, so it would appear a leopard doesn't change their spots. Curse of Fenric (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I removed the edit from JzG because he has a history of incivility toward me, calling me "stupid", "idiot", "dick", and "fuckwit" on my talk page. Regardless of the situation, any communication from him on my talk page will be removed on sight. That has absolutely nothing to do with the situation at hand, though. I'm not rejecting attempts to resolve the Buddy Murphy non-issue. I just don't like JzG. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, anyone find some irony in the user who reported me for supposed incivility making this edit when bowing out of the discussion? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
That is between me and 94, and has nothing to do with this ANI. Deflecting like that is typical behaviour of a bully. Way to provide further proof against you. Curse of Fenric (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Up to a point. Five years ago you were already calling good-faith edits you disagreed with, "vandalism". And yes I called you on it - I had entirely forgotten. So now we have data points showing that you've been doing this for over five years, and that makes it even more of a problem. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Let's take a look at what we've got here: a discussion about my civility initiated by an editor who, just today, told another editor to "fuck off", "screw off", and called his edit "stupid". We've got an administrator who has called me "stupid", "idiot", "dick", and "fuckwit". And my supposed crime is calling the removal of sourced information "vandalism"? Even if you don't agree with me that the edit was vandalism, you can still obviously see that my supposed incivility pales in comparison. JzG - I'm hoping you can now understand why I deleted your edit from my talk page. Keep in mind, though, that no other administrator would have received that reception. It is your history of incivility that has compromised your ability to perform the role of an administrator. If you were to remove yourself from the situation, it would have been over a while ago. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh look at Gary deflect again. Refusing to address what he has done, preferring to have a crack at me and JzG as a clear diversion. This is about more than calling a legit edit 'vandalism'. This is about ignoring WP:BLP and trying to add a source that was not reliable (and has since been ruled as such - I'm talking about the PCW link, not the podcast) and being rude in the edit summaries towards both me and JzG again. Nice to see it pointed out that I'm not the only one who has seen that Gary has a history of incivility through bullying and avoiding his responsibilities. Oh, and he was rejecting attempts to resolve the Buddy Murphy issue - and just as an aside he wasn't the only one but that's not the core issue here. Curse of Fenric (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
So, I have reviewed the ongoing dispute between these two users due to an edit warring report. While I did not intervene, I did notice the obviously-problematic behavior on GaryColemanFan's part and wholeheartedly reiterate to him the warning issued by JzG. His behavior is entirely out of line, and this includes his response to JzG's warning. The very thought that Guy cannot legitimately issue an administrative warning because the two users butted-heads five and a half years beforehand is completely ridiculous. And, not that it really matters, but GCF completely baited Guy to begin with, by templating him, an already long-term administrator, for disruptive editing. Tempers flare. It happens. After five years, it doesn't make a difference, and bringing it up as a defense now is nothing but a distraction. GCF, whether or not you want to listen to the warning about your behavior, it's certainly valid, and fair warning, it's not going to hold much weight in an unblock request. Swarmwe ♥ our hive 05:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
An interaction ban is unlikely to work (it would just be a question of dividing up the articles between the two warring parties, since much of the dispute is edit-warring in mainspace not talk page argy-bargy). I therefore propose: user:Curse of Fenric and user:GaryColemanFan be topic banned from the area of professional wrestling for a period of six months. The implication is that this is broadly construed, though pro wrestling is essentially a walled garden. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Support as proposer. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose It looks like it resolved itself. Appears to have been a misunderstanding regarding BLP & RS. Editors could have been more civil and patient, but it appears issue was settled. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Coleman is one of the most highly active and biggest content builders on the pro wrestling WikiProject, a topic ban would be counter productive. I'd rather they just avoid each other. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 21:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Staying off each others talk page should be enough (which would also go for Guy (Help!) as well). 194.28.127.55 (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose See above note from another admin. Curse of Fenric (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
You keep saying you've been rude "under provocation" as if that's some sort of excuse. Last I checked, there's no exception to WP:CIVIL. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 02:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC) (It appears that Curse edited his !vote explination, see this for the original one of which I was responding to. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 18:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC))
WP:Boomerang, especially the "There is no "immunity" for reporters" section. 81.141.246.36 (talk) 07:17, 11 July 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.
Done, unblocked. Please drop me a note when I can reinstate it or if you're having any issues. Sam Walton (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
, That said even if it was mentioned right up the top it wouldn't made a blind bit of difference unfortunately . –Davey2010Talk 01:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Resolved
--IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Possible sock of Dontbesogullible and Böri, who were both considered 
Likely to each other. There has been no action by administrators yet. Meanwhile you're continuing to promote the agenda of LTA User:Tirgil34,[427][428] illegimately removing high-quality sourced content,[429][430][431] edit warring,[432][433][434][435][436] and leveling baseless accusations of sockpuppetry[437] and racism.[438] There has now been more than a month since the CheckUser exposed BöriShad. Administrative attention is way overdue. Krakkos (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[84]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AnulBanul.jpg){kind=link}
![[110]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Croatia_2014_map_results.PNG){kind=link}
![[117]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dragan_%C4%8Covi%C4%87,_portrait.jpg&diff=156011342&oldid=150897657){kind=link}
![[118]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rafael_Boban.JPG){kind=link}
![[127]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hasan_Brki%C4%87_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
![[186]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ivan_Lovrenovi%C4%87_in_Mostar,_2015_(1).jpg){kind=link}
![[187]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ivan_Lovrenovi%C4%87_in_Mostar,_2015_(2).jpg){kind=link}
![[188]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ivan_Lovrenovi%C4%87_in_Mostar,_2015_(3).jpg){kind=link}
![[189]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ivan_Lovrenovi%C4%87_in_Mostar,_2015_(4).jpg){kind=link}
![[190]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ivan_Lovrenovi%C4%87_in_Mostar,_2015_(5).jpg){kind=link}
![[191]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ivan_Lovrenovi%C4%87_in_Mostar,_2015_(6).jpg){kind=link}
![[192]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Faculty_of_Humanities,_University_of_Mostar_(1).jpg){kind=link}
![[193]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Faculty_of_Humanities,_University_of_Mostar_(2).jpg){kind=link}
![[194]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Faculty_of_Humanities,_University_of_Mostar_(3).jpg){kind=link}
![[195]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Faculty_of_Humanities,_University_of_Mostar_(4).jpg){kind=link}
![[196]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Faculty_of_Humanities,_University_of_Mostar_(5).jpg){kind=link}
![[197]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ivo_Josipovi%C4%87_lecture_in_Mostar_(1).jpg){kind=link}
![[198]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ivo_Josipovi%C4%87_lecture_in_Mostar_(2).jpg){kind=link}
![[199]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ivo_Josipovi%C4%87_lecture_in_Mostar_(3).jpg){kind=link}
![[200]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Faculty_of_Law,_University_of_Mostar.jpg){kind=link}
![[201]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Croatia_2014_map_results.PNG&diff=prev&oldid=146422833){kind=link}
![[202]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Croatia_2015_map_results_runoff.PNG){kind=link}
![[208]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bitka_za_Karva%C4%8Dar.jpg){kind=link}
![[212]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dragan_%C4%8Covi%C4%87,_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
![[249]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ljubi%C4%87_Bo%C5%BEo_2.jpg){kind=link}
![[250]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dragan_%C4%8Covi%C4%87_and_Ivo_Josipovi%C4%87.jpg){kind=link}
![[252]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dragan_%C4%8Covi%C4%87_and_Kolinda_Grabar-Kitarovi%C4%87.jpg){kind=link}
![[267]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:AnulBanul.jpg){kind=link}