Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive848

User:Jmh649 (Doc James) reported by User:Technophant for wikihounding and tendentious editing

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

---

• Note - This complaint was copied from a withdrawn 3RR complaint and may have spurious information

Page: Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Referred itch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Lyme disease (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3] (rm link to free url for content that didn't exist, uncalled for)
4. [4] tendentious

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6] (User has not edited talk page section.)

Comments:
User is removing cleanup tags without proper justification or discussion, tendentious editing, and wikihounding.

I believe user is acting out of bias and anger and is not trying to improve WP. I'm trying to nip this one in the bud before it escalates. - - Technophant (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

User also warned me of copy/paste when the edit clearly did not violate copvio due to its simplicity. He also threatened my editing privileges. Clearly another attempt to hound me. - Technophant (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup when you copy and past text exactly from a source such as you did in this edit [7] with text from the Washington Post [8] you get warnned. And than you return the text without sufficiently paraphrasing it here [9] Gah. Also difs number 121 and 122 are exactly the same edit.

Ah and this edit [10] while you see as I have already explained it was already linked via the pmc= parameter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Previous edit warring notices pertaining to Techno in the last two days

(edit conflict)I took the phrase "The American Medical Association (AMA) takes no position specifically on acupuncture." from the article without paraphrasing. This sentence is too simple to qualify of WP:COPYVIO (try reading it). I then paraphrased it as "While the American Medical Association (AMA) has publicly taken no position specifically on acupuncture, in 1997 they released a statement saying..." and say I didn't "sufficiently paraphrase it"? What??

(edit conflict)I added a link to a free full text of the article which wasn't present. The doi= or pmc= only gives an abstract and paywall. I'm beginning to think that you follow my contributions and seek to revert any and every edit possible. - Technophant (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Go to ref 226 in the notes section of the Lyme disease article [11]. Click on the PMC or the article name and guess where it brings you? And it is not the abstract and paywall. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

1. [12]
2. [13]

I would like to propose a one year topic ban from alt med of Techno widely construed due to his disruptive editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

In this edit they deleted some of my comments [14]. They did the same thing here [15] and here [16] they edit my user page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I see no problems with Doc James's edits. As he said in the edit summary, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyme_disease&oldid=617830342&diff=prev this was not necessary because the PMID ref url automatically gets generated if the ref tag is filled out properly. I think I hear the sound of a WP:BOOMERANG whirring in the distance....also, Support topic ban of Technophant from alt me articles. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, now I see what you mean. PMID links to full free text on NIH. I thought it just linked to an abstract like doi does. I guess I learned something. Being that Doc James has reverted at least a dozen of my edits in the last hour I thought that this was just another attack. Apologies. - Technophant (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

We have another report at 3RR here [17] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That 3RR report was created by by Mrbill3 and contains NOTHING that wasn't covered by previous investigations. Nice try. - Technophant (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Response to 3RR reports:

1. not blocked, not found in violation of 3RR, page protected.
2. not blocked, not found in violation of 3RR, page protected, mutual edit warring.

Please note that Doc James was a participant in both incidents and was tendentious. - Technophant (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The filer of this motion would be advised to read WP:BOOMERANG. I see from your contributions that you seem to be on some sort of tear in trying to get alternative medicine articles to conform to your perspective. jps (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Alt Med Topic Ban for Technophant?

Sometimes editors get a bee in their bonnet. I think this is the case here. This filing follows up a few other WP:FORUMSHOPs: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], and so forth....

jps (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll agree to a voluntary short-term topic ban as long as Doc James gets one as well. - Technophant (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The proposal here isn't for editors to accept voluntary topic bans, but rather community-imposed WP:CBANs. And why would it be appropriate for Doc James to stop editing Alt Med when between the two of you only your behavior is topic ban-worthy. Zad68 14:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question.

(edit conflict) I did this. Why all the case building? I want an answer regarding the wikihounding. Harassing other users should never be acceptable. - Technophant (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think that if you simply stopped editing articles relating to alternative medicine you would find that whatever wikihounding you think you experienced would probably end. jps (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• You have been instructed that the repetition of charges of "wikihounding" and "harassment" are both a personal attack and a gross lack of AGF, yet you dare to repeat it here. That takes audacity and foolishness to a new level. With that attitude you really don't belong here at all. Any "harassment" has been the proper attention paid by other editors who encounter disruptive editing patterns and uncollaborative habits. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban for Technophant on altmed articles - the tendentious editing and dramatics have created a severe time sink and shows no sign of abating. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Techophant editor's behavior has been extensively tendentious, there does not appear to be a genuine interest in improving the encyclopedia. Multiple respected editors have made good faith efforts to the point of exhaustion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban to curb their aggressive tendentious editing, forum-shopping, game-playing, and other disruptive behavior. Note that although a topic ban could be placed under WP:ARBPS, this discussion is regarding a higher level of ban, a community-imposed WP:CBAN that would only be able to be overturned by the community. Zad68 14:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Note that Ohnoitsjamie registered a support vote for a topic ban in the section above. Zad68 14:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Techophant not here to improve things. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of Technophant either indefinitely or for at least six months (jumping straight to an indefinite topic ban if he resumes the problematic behavior after the ban is over). The POV-pushing against mainstream medicine, forum-shopping, long-term edit warring, and gaming of 3RR are unacceptable to begin with, but it's pretty hard to assume good-faith from his nomination to topic ban a mainstream medical doctor from medical articles. Best case scenario, it still indicates Technophant isn't paying attention to why he's in trouble. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: no position on the topic ban, though I would lean toward support. However, I will say that this diff provided above shows a remarkable lack of understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC) EDIT: changing to support due to the below. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support for obvious reasons. Not here to build a high quality encyclopedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Technophant. The retaliatory proposal below combined with the above diffs shows a lack of the maturity necessary for collaborative editing. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Techophant is clearly incapable of contributing usefully in this topic area. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - The retaliatory proposal below seals the deal. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban. We do not need more time sinks in this contentious area. Yobol (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef ALTMED topic ban. Here to POV-push consensus or not. Jim1138 (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ALTMED topic ban, very clearly does not even attempt to abide by consensus. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support The edits by User:Technophant did not improve the CAM related articles. This is the same behaviour as the recently confirmed sock Milliongoldcoinpoint. I think a SPI report will clarify the matter. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Klocek. QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef ALTMED topic ban, user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and cannot follow simple rules. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban. We're also dealing with lack of competence. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose no need to make MEDRS stranglehold on Wikipedia even worse. The Banner talk 20:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Alt Med Topic Ban for Doc James?

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 would like to propose a one week topic ban from alt med of Doc James widely construed due for wikihounding. He may be well respected in the community, however past good deeds do not excuse bad recent ones. Letting him go unpunished sends the wrong message and could cause an editor, like myself, to abandon Wikipedia altogether. I guess it all comes down not to what you do, but who you know. - Technophant (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Hell no to topic ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose bad faith retaliatory proposal. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, maybe someone should SNOW close this. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - though this pointed proposal is a perfect example of why your own ban is merited. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Opppose per GSP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Diffs? Can't support this proposal without a clear reference to a behavior guideline and supporting diffs, otherwise it appears to be just more game-playing/battleground behavior by Technophant. I note that 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." which appears to be what Doc had to do in this case. Zad68 15:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Question What kind of sanctions are typically handed down for wikihounding? - Technophant (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Question What kind of sanctions are typically handed down for tendentious editors not getting that good editors fixing their stubborn screw ups isn't the same as wikihounding? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - It's not wikihounding. Meanwhile, I am curious how the editor Technophant, who until four days ago had shown no interest in this topic, suddenly became an edit warrior on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• No way in hell This should be wp:SNOWBALL closed. A quick scan of T's contribs makes it clear: Technophant has a misconceived mission to right wp:GREATWRONGS in wp's coverage of altmed by balancing reliable sources against new, less-reliable ones. DocJames was just keeping the damage in check. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

The 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.

Sockpuppetry and edit warring.

Resolved

 – Account blocked two weeks and IP block extended to matcH

I first became aware of the New Jersey-based IP 67.83.61.170 after reading an AIV report that complained of them continuing to add and replace contractions (ex: cannot --> can't) to articles in spite of numerous warnings. While looking through their edits, I spotted some of their edits at List of double albums. In these 15 edits the user added content that appeared to be original research and which also struck me as indiscriminate, as I don't understand what value knowing that various double-albums can fit on a single CD has, encyclopedically. I removed the content. The IP reverted my edit with no explanation. I opened a discussion on the talk page, reverted the original research, and directly invited the IP to the talk page discussion. Rx4evr appeared suddenly and reverted me again, stating, "I did the math & CD'S Hold up to 79:57 of music. So back off." I reverted again, so I'm at my limit. The named user has been active since at least 2008, so they should understand the rules. I also noticed that in 2008 they'd been accused of sockpuppetry and geographically linked to New Jersey IPs. So now there appears to be sockpuppetry, an attempt at WP:OWNERSHIP, asserting their worldview without participating in BRD, and my OR objections are now confirmed as OR with the "I did the math" comment. Would appreciate some admin eyes here. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It's blatantly obvious that the IP is User:Rx4evr who is using a mixture of logged-in and out edits to continue edit-warring to insert unsourced material and likely original research into articles. I'd warned RX4evr about this disruptive editing previously and they appear to have ignored my warning completely. I've blocked the account for two weeks and extended the block Daniel Case made on the IP to match.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ponyo! I assume I'm clear to remove the cruft since the contributing user is disruptive, ignores WP:OR and is disinterested in discussion to achieve consensus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It's unsupported and appears to be their own original research and they'd rather revert than join the discussion you started on the talk page; there's more harm in having it in the article than out so I'd say go ahead and remove it. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Danke. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Baba Shah Jamal vandalism

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

---

User talk:117.20.21.230 has been attacking the page Baba Shah Jamal with Soapbox rants and spam links. Is there any way to protect this article from this particular user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biochembob (talk • contribs) 19:47, 21 July 2014‎ (UTC)

I've reported the IP to WP:AIV for persistent spamming after being warned. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

AIV is the right place, but I went ahead and took care of it since I was in the neighborhood. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 full protection

I believe this discussion was prematurely closed and I am reopening it. I believe that @Nyttend misused his powers in fully protecting this article and THEN making massive changes to the article without evidence of consensus for those changes. There was simply far too much cited material deleted in one single edit to say that there was clear consensus for removal with respect to all of that. If one is going to fully protect an article, one should either recuse oneself from editing or at at a minimum restrict oneself to clearly non-controversial editing. After the community objected to one of the elements of the removal, Nyttend put it back, but I object to the idea that we have to muster on the Talk page community consensus to undo, one by one, every element of Nyttend's edit. The Talk page is already difficult to use because editor traffic is being diverted off the article itself by the protection.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Brian fails to observe that I removed it because of agreement at the talk page; I took no actions (aside from housekeeping such as adding a period) at the article without consensus at the talk page. He also takes this restoration as me being forced to do something, ignoring the fact that I removed it simply for space reasons (too many images were present) and that I promised I'd put back if anyone could suggest a good place to put it. Brian's made this baseless accusation here and at the article's talk page; making serious accusations without solid evidence is considered a personal attack. He might also want to start complying with WP:GBU, If a user believes an administrator has acted improperly, he or she should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. Nobody's said anything of the sort at my talk page, and all I've seen of Brian's words are implying or (as here) directly accusing me of involved editing. Nyttend (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This isn't just about you, if it were, I would have titled the section with your name. I also don't agree with the admin who closed the earlier thread on this page about the article without giving the community more of an opportunity to weigh in. If you wanted this dealt with on the article Talk page why didn't you respond to me when I started the "Full protection should not be applied" thread? Why did you put that image back if you were acting on consensus when you removed it? You apparently don't think consensus is required to remove large amounts of material if, in your opinion, the removal is warranted for "space reasons". Well I'm of the opinion it most definitely IS required when so much of what you removed is evidence that incriminates the Kremlin. Are you prepared to go line by line through your editing with me and point out to me, for each line, where you found your supporting consensus? In other words, I'd like to see you back up your claims of consensus in detail because I don't believe they are true.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Anyway, the page is back to semi. [23]. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The 05:11 comment by User RGloucester about "deleting the "whole mess" seemed to tip the balance, but then when Nyttend saw the comment by Isaidnoway at 05:16, he was wholly convinced. There were protests 13 minutes later. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Brian, you complain about the talk page being difficult to use, but now that the same traffic is back to editing the article, IT is difficult to use, so that argument is invalid. So is the argument that people disagreed. People always disagree with full protection because their edits are right and everyone else's edits are wrong, and full protection always gets protests from some. The purpose in using it is not because it is popular, but to prevent abuses. Your claim that he made massive changes is unfounded. All edits made were based on consensus from the talk page from my observation, and the fact that material was added back demonstrates this. I would also note that protection was lifted improperly. As this article falls under WP:ARBEE, I'm wondering if an admin needs to implement 1RR. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"to prevent abuses" like what? Editing against consensus? Because that's exactly what full protection enabled here. How does some of that material getting added back after the community complained about its removal demonstrate that there was consensus for its removal in the first place? It demonstrates the exact opposite: it shouldn't have been removed in the first place, especially by the same party who just went and locked down the article! It is absolutely not true that there was consensus for all of those changes. Show me the consensus to remove "Ukrainian authorities said another recording indicated that the weapons system had arrived from Russia with a Russian crew," just to take an example. Would you care to count all the citations that were removed in that one single post-lockdown edit I linked to?--Brian Dell (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Brian, it means he made an edit according to what he thought the consensus was, people complained, he fixed it. Admin do the best we can, that doesn't mean we don't make errors. If an admin makes an error and WON'T fix it, then complain. The way you describe it, Full Protection is always abuse, so all this discussion seems pointless. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it was not fixed. A 105K article was cut down to 82K in one fell swoop, and you call a 0.6K add back a fix? Do I also think full protection needs a very good reason? Yes, I do, I shouldn't have to apologize for that when Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia anyone can edit.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be a reason, you just disagree that the reasoning met the threshold. The amount of cut isn't the issue, the content is. If mistakes were made, you only had to say so. I was working the page, I would have looked at it, or others who were patrolling. A number of admin were patrolling, so no editor was getting ignored. Keep in mind, most of the time when an article is full protected, admin walk away until a consensus is found, as the protection is over a single issue. In this case (and similar) there has been at least one admin around helping out, doing the best they can. I know because I've been one of those admin for many hours last night and today. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Would the removal of full protection without discussion fall under WP:WHEELWAR? I'll formally notify User:Lowellian as well as pinging him here. --John (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Protection was always intended to be limited in duration, not forever, and there was suggestion on the talk page of specifically 12 hours. I waited 20 hours before unprotecting. Even the admin who protected the page in the first place, User:Nyttend, defended my action further below in this page, writing: "Umm, hello everyone, does anyone remember what I said on the duration of full protection? I said that I protected it indefinitely because I didn't know how long protection was supposed to last, and I asked for another admin to change protection. Lowellian did exactly what I was requesting; you can object to his decision to unprotect at the time he did, but please don't see it as wheel warring, because he did what I was hoping for." Furthermore, there was discussion: extensive opposition to the full protection by many editors raised on the talk page and here on WP:ANI, to whose concerns I was responding. I did not wheel war; I allowed protection, intended to be temporary in the first place, to lapse after a period of time. —Lowellian (reply) 18:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• • It isn't wheel warring, it was just a really bad decision, and frankly, done in an arrogant way as he just waltzed in and unprotected after not working the article previously. We at least had a discussion on protection, even if many disagreed with the conclusion. His solution was just to start blocking people, something we've been trying to avoid. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The really bad decision was full protection in the first place, a decision made quickly with very little discussion, over significant opposition, and one that punishes all editors, most of whom are not disruptive, and which is against the spirit of Wikipedia, which distinguishes itself from other encyclopedias on the principle that its articles are editable. Re: "after not working the article previously": That is precisely why I should have been the one to lift protection: I was uninvolved in the article and thus a neutral administrator, rather than one favoring any specific version of the article. If the unprotecting admin had been heavily involved in editing the article previously, then instead he or she would be getting accused of lifting protection in order to favor some specific version. —Lowellian (reply) 18:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • It seems obvious to me that protection is better than blocking. Surely it is that simple? --John (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      • While that seems obvious to you and I, not every admin agrees with that. Blocks are cheap and easy plus you get to walk away. Protection is hard and requires you are willing to help others. From an editor retention perspective, protection is an obvious choice. People get frustrated, revert too much, human nature and all that. Protection removes the temptation and forces cooperation. But you already knew that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Lowellian didn't just "waltz in". Unlike you, he first participated in the thread I started calling for protection to be lifted. My I point out that POLICY says "persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others"?--Brian Dell (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, waltzed in. Protection review is at WP:RFPP or even at WP:AN, with the whole goal of getting uninterested eyes on it. As an admin, I can assure you it was inappropriate by any measure. That it worked to your advantage is meaningless in regards to admin expectations. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yet you just complained about "uninterested eyes" coming to the article when you counted it as a stroke against Lowellian that he hadn't previously "work[ed] the article," did you not? There was also already a thread here on this AN where editors had objected to the protection before Lowellian lifted it. As a non-admin, I can assure that it was entirely appropriate to lift full protection off an article that the community never wanted fully protected, especially when the party who applied that protection is intentionally or unintentionally making controversial and disputed edits while under protection.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course you agree, that is what you wanted to happen. My point is that a contentious lifting of protection is supposed to happen at a public board where the public can opine. This isn't my opinion, this is policy and why the boards exist. It is flatly improper to do it the way he did for a contentious unprotect. I'm talking about a policy issue, not just about getting your way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"public can opine" Yes, so why weren't opinions solicited before protection was applied? And more importantly for the extensive changes that were made while the article was under protection? Why was the "vote" above, terminated before it even got going? Go over to the article Talk page and announce an opinion call on whether to fully protect and keep that open for 24 hours. If this isn't about "getting your way" then back off and let the community weigh in. Until then, what I quoted to you out of Wikipedia's protection policy should govern.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There was a public discussion Brian. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No, there was not public discussion more extensive that the discussion you dismiss, that being the discussion that preceded and supported Lowellian freeing up the article. This could be settled if you'd give up your admin prerogatives and agree that henceforth the community will be invited to opine on the question (an invitation that remains open for 24 hours) before applying full protection and the admin corps will abide by the verdict. Why is it that throughout this thread the only party that has quoted Wikipedia policy on page protection is myself?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Brian, you are being obtuse and I just don't have time for it now. Even to suggest waiting 24 hours to protect an article just shows you have no clue how policy works here, and there are more productive things I could be doing, so I will. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have "no clue" how policy works around here, yet I can quote it and you can't? I've been editing Wikipedia longer than you have but in your books I just fell off the turnip wagon? If it is such an emergency to slap full protection on this then why aren't you? You've lost a couple precious hours here already! As near as I can tell, you aren't doing so because ultimately you know that there is a legitimate disagreement here, unlike most cases of page protection. As such, the community has a role here.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• @John: If you are taking fifty different editors which will make a few edits each, that adds up to a lot. When you fully protect the article because of two editors, you severely impede improvements. You might not be able to see that as well because you are a sysop, but it is true. Dustin (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Anything but full protection for this article right now is just bone-headed. Not only does the enormous amount of traffic make it basically impossible to edit properly, but it also causes problems when editors edit-conflict and then in the course of solving it delete other information. In addition, these NEWS magnets attract all kinds of...well...unencyclopedic information. I understand that regular editors don't like having to place edit requests and have autocratic, God-like administrators make decisions, but when it comes to these current events, it's the best thing to do--I speak from experience, and I have about as much as John. But what bothers me most (since the article and the talk page have attracted a number of experienced and trustworthy editors) is the cavalier attitude of Lowellian, who comes in, unprotects, leaves a note or two, and then apparently walks away. I support full protection for a couple of days. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm a regular editor and I don't like having to place edit requests and have autocratic, God-like administrators make decisions. BUT, I like even LESS having to police the article and deal with a horde of clueless IPs, SPA accounts, battleground warriors, sleeper sock accounts and other disruptive nonsense. Which is what has happened with EVERY article related to the Ukrainian conflict, what has already happened to this article and given that this topic is getting a lot more international/media attention (for obvious reasons) the reasonable expectation is that it will be even worse here. Hence, agree with Drmies that full protection is the best of a set of bad alternatives.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Full protection is what is bone-headed, and not just bone-headed, but heavy-handed: it is a lazy response that punishes all editors for the actions of a disruptive few. And re: "Who comes in, unprotects, leaves a note or two, and then apparently walks away..." Again, as I wrote earlier, that I was not heavily involved in the article is precisely why I should have been the one to lift protection: I was uninvolved in the article and thus a neutral administrator, rather than one favoring any specific version of the article. If the unprotecting admin had been heavily involved in editing the article previously, or thereafter became heavily involved in editing the article, then instead he or she would be getting accused of lifting protection in order to favor some specific version. —Lowellian (reply) 18:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• As a comment, I have seen articles on past big events (specifically the boston marathon bombing and the Sandy Hook school shooting) developed just fine at the onset of the event with semi-prot. The rate of info can be an edit conflict problem but it's normal and not disruptive. I realize that this article is a much larger incident that is already attracting its fair-share of fringe theories, but the combination of semi-prot and firm editing cautions to remove users that are specifically there to be disruptive should be good. Full protection should not be used to making editing easier (due to fewer E/Cs), that's a bad way to use the tool. --MASEM (t) 00:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No, but it's a nice fringe benefit. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • No, it's a lazy use of protection where it is not needed. It's a lot more work, but we are truer to "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" by keeping it open. Only if it was the case that a lot of misinformation was being added by established editors would full protection be required. As RG says below, this is where pending changes would be better. --MASEM (t) 01:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There's in fact an interesting discussion to be had about this "fringe benefit". But it's a discussion that has to be had before it becomes policy. In my view, the need for admin intervention is lower the more editor eyeballs there are on an article. In this case, we've got enough editors that the "good guys" shouldn't need help against the bad guys. This isn't a case of local neglect where there isn't enough of the community involved to express and enforce the community view. If bad actors, outside the consensus, are dominating then by a pro-wiki definition they are probably actually good guys because the fringe shouldn't be able to dominate a highly trafficked article.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• I must say, as I did before, that this is the perfect place to use pending changes level 2 protection. RGloucester — ☎ 01:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I think not. Pending changes ends up being a confusing mess when rapid editing by multiple users is involved. I think there is a place for PC2, but this isn't it in my opinion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Umm, hello everyone, does anyone remember what I said on the duration of full protection? I said that I protected it indefinitely because I didn't know how long protection was supposed to last, and I asked for another admin to change protection. Lowellian did exactly what I was requesting; you can object to his decision to unprotect at the time he did, but please don't see it as wheel warring, because he did what I was hoping for. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Nyttend: IMO while not technically wrong, indef is not the best duration for an article. If you don't know how long a page needs to be protected surely you could make that assessment within 3 hours, or 12 and update accordingly. While it's not wheel warring in this case (because the intent was to seek someone else to reduce the time), it's harder to avoid stepping on your toes if someone realizes you've misjudged the time than if you protected the page for a short amount of time. For a quickly evolving event (which sees a huge percentage of our positive new editor interactions) and has a lot of long term editors watching, that reassessment needs to come quickly. It's a recipe for wheel warring. Protonk (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  It would be appreciated if you would educate yourself on the situation, because then you'd realise that I asked for this to happen. I asked for a reduction in time, telling people that they should reduce it because I didn't know, and still don't know, how long we normally do this. Nobody's yet told me how long we normally protect such pages. Please observe that wheel warring consists of a combative situation, not one in which the first admin says "Please reverse me when you think it's appropriate". Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  I understand the situation and I noted that you asked for this to happen. My point is that there's no way you could look at indef full protection of an article and say "this never needs to change." If you hadn't asked for review or you had gone to work or something then rather than wait for the protection to expire (over what should've been a short period) they have to divine your intent and reverse your decision. If this is your first time protecting these high traffic, time sensitive articles then maybe what you should do is consider my comment as a suggestion of best practices. Next time you protect an article like this (or really any article), think about making admin actions where a review from an admin who agrees with your intervention has to do nothing. Protonk (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thought I know that this is probably not going to be a popular idea, but perhaps it's time to read one of the Eastern Europe Riot acts (WP:EEML, WP:ARBEE, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes) of the page and talk page to arm the discretionary sanctions trigger. I observe that there are several editors with ties to the cases involved, in addition to being Eastern Europe, in addition to the active conflict area (vis-a-vis Russia/Ukraine). While I know brandishing such a tool will only stifle the improvement of the article, I feel that the rapid fire and heated changes are not improvements to the talk page/article. Hasteur (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • EE needs templates, something I'm not adept at. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: According to my research fu, it appears the Eastern Europe omnibus case code is e-e. The Discretionary Sanctions template family can be reached from {{Ds}}. Hasteur (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur, I'm not sure what you're talking about. EE discretionary sanctions apply to the article by default. The only concern is that some users may not be aware of them, in which case they need to be notified, as soon as their behavior becomes potentially problematic. There's no "trigger" to be "armed". Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek The sanctions can't be actively enforced until the notice has been given. The act of giving the notice (especially at pages that are patently within the scope of the sanctions) has the prophylactic effect of encouraging all users to straighten up and behave lest a wandering admin proscribe a sanction. Hasteur (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Full protection is a poor choice for preventing edit wars because it also blocks legitimate editors. More can be done about an edit war than just slapping a lock on it. DS applies here, and so do ordinary blocks and warnings for edit warring. 2 editors should not hold an entire article hostage, especially with a quickly developing story like this. KonveyorBelt 00:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Want to report User: HammerFilmFan

I wan't to report User:HammerFilmFan for removing my posts in debates [24]. This have happened several times i the last week. He's obviously following me around (stalking). I will not tolerate this.--Ezzex (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I have notified HammerFilmFan of this discussion. You would do well to provide some diffs of the conduct of which you complain. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are a log of his edits in debates [25].--Ezzex (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless you're saying that every single one of those edits is evidence of your claim, you should pick specific diffs. Even if you are claiming that every single one of those edits is inappropriate, you should pick a few example ones to illustrate what you're complaining of and what administrators should be looking for. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

See this discussion earlier this week, where User:Go Phightins! wrote " Cognizant of the fact that you have been previously warned on this topic (very recently, according to your talk page), I am going to strongly urge you to make sure that all of your edits on that topic are dedicated to the improvement of the article rather than promulgating or refuting an ideology. If you are incapable of this, my suggestion would be that you disengage from the topic area so as to avoid being blocked, which will likely happen very quickly in an area with discretionary sanctions in place." An example edit is[26] "{{pov|It looks like its written by IDF. Much jewish crap. Should not use operation-titles}}" - when this edit was cited to Ezzex his reply was "which it is". Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It still is.--Ezzex (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

So it should balanced with Hamas crap? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I started the discussion earlier this week about Ezzek and ended it with asking him to just "tone it down" a bit, that was all. this is not toning it down and I would ask that he not readd this. It is completely off topic and a personal attack. English is a 2nd language, but if he can't "tone it down" to where he isn't attacking other editors and using the talk page as a forum, then he should be warned and then blocked as needed. --Malerooster (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it really OK to use expressions like "Jewish crap" on WP and refuse to withdraw it? I don't think it ought to be OK.Smeat75 (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

So you think it's ok for this creep to remove other users post and replies??--Ezzex (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, when those users are Hamas lapdog creeps. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello. As has been stated, the user was previously warned about racist remarks, agenda, staying on topic, etc. My edit summary when I removed the totally off-topic and intentionally provocative remark will be my comment here. Hopefully he will be constructive in the future. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ezzex has been around for about seven years, and early on established himself as an Israel-hater, so don't look for reform anytime soon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Strong accusations from a flag waving idiot.--Ezzex (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Look who's talking. Some of your first edits, seven years ago, were anti-Israel. This, for example. How you've stayed under the radar this long is hard to figure. But you've drawn a little too much attention to your activities now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

So anything that may be considered to be anti-israel is forbidden?--Ezzex (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I've reported you for making personal attacks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you keep track of your own personal attack.--Ezzex (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What personal attack? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Bugs, please do not feed the diva. --Malerooster (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the claim of "jewish crap" has not drawn a stiff sanction. Presuming (without looking) that what was removed was unbalanced pro-Israel POV, or even pro-Jewish POV, that sort of edit summary is plainly inappropriate anywhere. At best, it's inflammatory. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Il Divo vandalism

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

---

Could an admin look at the page history, then sanction [27] this IP editor. thanks. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A block is in order; pageblanking and blatant vandalism. WP:AIV is probably a better place to go for this in the future. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Done and thanks for raising it. As above, WP:AIV is the usual place for vandalism reports, and offers a pretty swift response. Euryalus (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll remember WP:AIV in future. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Repeated copyright violations by User:Strorm

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 Strorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly ripping copyrighted images from the web, uploading them as own work to Commons, and then adding them to articles here on en-WP, in spite of multiple warnings on their user talk page (both here and on Commons) not to do so (in one case the same image has been uploaded three four times, added to the same article here three four times, and then deleted three four times as a copyvio on Commons; so he obviously doesn't learn anything from it...). I know that copyright violations on Commons aren't blockable here, but leaving to others to clean up after them, removing dead image links time after time, is clearly disruptive. Thomas.W ^talk 13:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

While uploading copyvios to Commons isn't generally blockable here, adding images that are known copyvios to enwiki articles certainly is. The majority of Strorm's edits here have been the addition of copyvio images (which had been uploaded by Strorm to Commons using completely inaccurate licensing and creator information). As far as I can tell, he's never made a non-copyvio contribution to Commons, and he's never made a non-trivial contribution to enwiki that wasn't related to his copyvio images.

I have blocked Strorm indefinitely for repeated copyright violations over the last four months. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Bizzenboom1234 vandalism

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

---

Requesting indefinite block of Bizzenboom1234 (talk · contribs) for persistent vandalism. I didn't take this to AIV due to the user having some limited productive contributions to articles. However, the user also has a long history of blatant vandalism (the most recent being here), which certainly outweigh the positive contributions. See user's talk page for history of warnings. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Enough is enough – I've blocked the account indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Melaleuca, Inc

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 some others review Melaleuca, Inc and the editing by CombatThisss (talk · contribs)].

The article was deleted many years ago as it showed no notability outside of the founder. The new article does not overcome that fundamental issues that resulted in it being turned into a redirect. I have repeatedly requested that they establish that consensus has changes, as well as recommending the use of Draft name-space to develop the article.

Instead, the user has assumed bad-faith by twice making false accusations of me editing with a COI [28][29]; as well as disputing my admin abilities and threatening desysoping should I continue with my so-called "disruption" of reverting his edits.[30]

Granted, the original AfD is several years old, so it's quite possible that consensus has changed. This can always go through AfD again to establish if consensus has changed - although it would have been better to clear these issues up first via talk page discussion at Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot and/or a draft space article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72 hours for disruptive editing across multiple pages, including edit warring and personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

[hm, edit conflict with Bbb23] I think it shouldn't be subjected to the AFD's conclusions; as you say, that was several years ago, and anyway this guy seems to be promoting a perspective of "the founder's an evil Republican, and the company oppresses its workers" (see how he criticised "your COI in support of Melaleuca"), making it very far from the pro-company ad that was deleted at AFD. With that in mind, we need to address the guy's anti-company and anti-founder POV and his response to you. Let me talk to him, semi-sternly, and we'll see what reaction I get. Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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

"slander" claim on Resin Server article

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

Resin Server, an article about a software product, has over the past few years been the target of spamming and censorship campaigns via a variety of sockpuppets and IP edits with obvious COI problems, and hence is currently in pretty poor shape. (Though some historical edits do appear to have been made by regular Wikipedia editors who are simply enthusiasts for the product.)

In recent days I've made edits with the intention of trying to get a bit more encyclopedic content back into the article, expecting to follow the normal channels, but in the comment on a recent edit one of the IP addresses appears to have violated WP:NLT by claiming that publishing quotes from the software vendor's own marketing materials from a few years ago constitutes slander. The NLT policy page says to report legal threats here at ANI. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 10:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked per NLT. --John (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't a legal threat at all Kosh Vorlon    16:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Very bad block, wasn't a legal threat. Its chilling to do so unless it comes across as clearly a legal threat. I've commented on edits that have used the terms "libelous or slanderous" for reasons of highlighting the most severe offenses or when we actually have a situation underway. The use of the term here was incorrect, but it was a bad choice of words - not a legal threat and the editor doesn't seem to be acting on behalf or as part of the Resin Server company. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that was a super great block. When I remove something in an article which violates BLP, sometimes I explain that one purpose of BLP is to avoid the threat of defamation. That someone could defame a subject or libel a subject on wikipedia is not outside the realm of possibility. Discussing it (and not threatening with the intent to chill speech) is not a legal threat. Moreover, non experts sometimes invoke terms of art like slander or libel to attach a sense of gravity to an error or a position, without formulating what any reasonable observer would call a legal threat. We have new editors cry "vandalism" all the time for what are content or editorial issues. We try to educate people about what Wikipedians mean when they say vandalism, but we don't generally drop the hammer down for misuse of a trope to dramatic effect. Our zero tolerance for legal threats shouldn't require we blow up every new editor who barges into content like this. Revert the edit, explain to the editor what NLT means and why terms of art like 'libel' are problems, but don't actually indef for legal threats in absence of a legal threat. Protonk (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• I hear what you're saying. I thought "The incorrect citation of the no longer supported version gives a false impression that can be interpreted as slander." was quite clearly a legal threat or an implication of one and I have no apologies to make about the block. Nevertheless I have now unblocked, in the light of the anonymous editor's assurance that he does not intend to sue. --John (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Scott

Someone edited the Hillary Scoot page in the personal section with an inappropriate paragraph about Aaron Ridgers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.91.196 (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Already reverted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editor Allen750

Allen750 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've been following Allen750 for several weeks and have seen him repeatedly post personal opinions on talk pages (ex. 1, ex. 2), argue with other editors over established Wikipedia policy (note foul language in edit notes), edit war and revert changes without discussion or with insults (see above), and repeatedly and insistently confuse 'First Amendment rights' with the ability to post whatever he wants on Wikipedia, a private website.

Editors User:Drmies and User:Ansh666 can elaborate on his activity on the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 talk page, which I have not looked deeply into but understand has been equally disruptive. (Is there a template with which I may notify them and solicit their opinions here?)

This user has and most likely will react rudely and counter-productively to any attempt at discussion, warning, or sanction. Not sure how to proceed here (I'm a very new editor), hence this report. FekketCantenel (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I've posted the ANI-notice template on Drmies's and Ansh666's user talk pages to notify them of this report. I apologize in advance if this was an inappropriate use of the template FekketCantenel (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the multiple edits, but I just remembered to add that I and the two editors mentioned above already attempted some gentle (and maybe not so gentle) reproof on his talk page. Here is his talk page as of this morning, before he wiped our responses and prompted my report here. FekketCantenel (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Peculiar editing history, started 4 years ago but mostly dormant until just recently. At the very least, Allen750 needs to be told that there is no constitutional right to edit Wikipedia, and that the first amendment does not apply here. Also, the various F.U.'s compel putting him on ice for a while (if not permanently). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You might want to point him to this while you're at it. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha, it's funny you say that; User:Ansh666 already did, on his user talk page before he wiped it (link also added above). - Preceding unsigned comment added by FekketCantenel (talk · contribs) at 18:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There's also no constitutional requirement to have a sense of humor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I posted on their page in the context of the Malaysia Airline article, basically to say that those forum posts are disruptive and might lead to a block. I wasn't aware that they had a history of such posts in other places. I don't see the need for action right now, especially not after the flurry of contributions made to their talk page, but more of those posts on the Malaysia article talk page will likely lead to a block, and I suppose the same goes for other forum posts. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I hate to ask, and disregard if you're busy, but would you (or User:Ansh666) elaborate on (or link to instances of) his behavior on the Malaysia Airline article/talk page? I took a look, but since it's a current event on which I'm not well-read, I couldn't tell bad behavior from good-faith edits. FekketCantenel (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this points at some sort of conspiracy, so is this (besides the BS thing about the First Amendment in the edit summary), this here is opinionated nonsense (with a possible racial slur), and this is about tin foil hats, I believe. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I actually can't add anything here. I only saw the edit summary about the First Amendment getting someone banned and remembered the XKCD strip. Of course, it helps that Drmies explained as well. Ansh666 02:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

He's on the move again. "Wikipedia needs to change. Ban me for my 1st Amendment usage." Considering how many times he's been linked to the relevant XKCD comic and otherwise had it explained to him that the First Amendment is irrelevant here, I now suspect that this user is either completely ignoring all other editors, or actively trolling. FekketCantenel (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. While the edit this time was legitimate, the user needs to stop using irrelevant and provocative edit summaries as a polemic (unfortunately WP:POLEMIC only applies to user space). Ansh666 03:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Should McCann be described as being 'age 11' in the infobox?

Would an admin review Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Should McCann be described as being 'age 11' in the infobox?, a close request for Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Should McCann be described as being 'age 11' in the infobox?? The close requester wrote: "I'm hoping we can keep the RfC brief, for obvious reasons. Would an uninvolved editor take a look and decide whether it can be closed yet?"

I agree that this is a sensitive issue. If an admin or uninvolved editor agrees that this can be closed now, please close the discussion. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• I would leave it open for a short time further; people are still commenting (and no doubt more will see it because of this notice). Black Kite (talk) 09:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for block on user St quadri

As clearly seen in his talk page , the User has failed to pay heed even to final warning against Advertising and promotions in his user page. The page has now been notified of a Speedy Deletion. Request the user to be blocked Indefinitely Sahil 07:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The User Also Keeps removing the Speedy Deletion Template without contesting Sahil 07:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like a determined spammer and WP:NOTHERE. Indef block as spam only account would look right to me. Peridon (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• They've now attempted to move it into article space: Rabit Search (A Complete Business Encyclopedia). Needless to say it has been speedily deleted as blatant advertising, although it was also blatant copyvio pasted verbatim from here. Voceditenore (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked by Shirt58, although St quadri has already attempted to remove the block notice from his talk page. (I've restored it). Shirt, the block log says "indefinitely" but the block notice says "temporary". Should that be changed? Voceditenore (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

He's removed it again, but recent consensus is that editors can remove block notices but not declined unblock requests. However, he probably should be told it was indefinite not temporary.

Hi Shirt58 and others , Have now notified 'Indefinite Block' in the user Talk Page -- Sahil 12:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Only having had the admin bit for a little while (erm... actually over year now) I'm still trying to get a grip on how the various block templates' code works; I'm more than happy to have people more smarterer that me fix things up. And on a lighter note, when I said "Woo-hoo-hoo! There's been a been a new species of spider identified in Tasmania. I can start a Wikipedia article about it!" at work today, all my colleagues... quietly moved well away from the crazy person. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

IP disruption of talk page

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

Severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and unfounded (and honestly, ignorant) accusations of bad faith at Talk:Robert Garside. Two sections followed by [31]. When placing a warning on the IP's talk page I noticed a sockpuppetry warning leading to User:Dromeaz. As it's the same article, quack, quack? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Still at it (badly). Switched IP's to yesterday's.

135.196.170.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Now this same user is disrupting another talk page [32] CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Incidently this user is User:Dromeaz or User:TheLongestRoadToIndiaGate and was banned because of edits on Robert Garside and Jesper_Olsen_(runner). CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I've now taken to reverting their edits on sight as per WP:3RRNO #3. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Three "final" warnings, editor still adding OR

Joshuaj102003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After edits like these [33], [34], [35], [36], [37] and several final warnings [38], [39], [40] Joshuaj102003 is still injecting personal analysis into articles. [41], [42] Inventive but not wanted here. Request block until editor states they understand and will abide by WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Temporarily blocked for disruption, and left another talkpage message outlining the problem. Perhaps over-assuming good faith, but it may be the issue is competency rather than malice. Euryalus (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Euryalus, thanks. I completely agree the edits are not made out of malice but rather are of an enthusiastic fan. However it's not a good sign the editor has absolutely no talk page posts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, yep. Will keep an eye on whether things change after the block, but the number of past ignored warnings doesn't fill me with confidence. Euryalus (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing uncivility

Hi we have an editor who is disruptive. He has an open SPI as well. Here [[43]]. Hes being abusive here [[44]] and earlier here [[45]] and here [[46]] I have put a be civil link on the page earlier and reminded him again now and will put a subst:ANI-notice on his talk page. Hes got an agenda I suspect. We are pretty much ignoring him for now and I dont believe he will listen to WP protocol from me. Thank you. SaintAviator talk 07:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've notified them since you didn't seem to have gotten around to it. I'd like to point out that all the links you've provided above are diffs of your own edits. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, as far as I can tell, the OP is referring to Billgannett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (SaintAviator fails to mention that they started the SPI). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Re the links I provided. I put them there because on the left hand pane are the sections Billgannett wrote showing uncivility. In the instructions here it said put links in. You can also see them of course by his contributions. Yes I did start the SPI, thats obvious once you click on it. He was notified of the SPI by email, he mentions it. He was also notified at the time of the SPI here [47] on his sock 1 talk page. His first editing account. I also notified him of this page on sock 2 talk page which was the account he started to use most. SaintAviator talk 22:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've replied at the SPI. No checkuser is needed, as the content of the edits makes it clear that the accounts are used by the same person, unless I've completely misunderstood them. I've informed the new and confused user, on both their talkpages, that they mustn't use more than one account and have asked them to pick one account and stick with it. I've also told them that the personal attacks here are inappropriate — I actually find those more worrying than the sockpuppetry, which seems to stem from innocent confusion. When/if I get a response from them, I'll leave the chosen account to hopefully find its feet here, and block the other one. Thank you very much for the report, User:SaintAviator. I'll try to keep an eye on Talk:Francis Brabazon, but please let me know if I should miss any further problems with the new user. Bishonen | talk 23:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC).

Thank you very much. Yes Im more worried about the personal attacks also, because of the pattern. Lets see how he takes it all. Thanks also for the ongoing support. SaintAviator talk 00:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Ring Cinema and The Godfather

I've been working the page The Godfather for about a week now and expanding sections that were either really weak or poorly cited. About two days about Ring Cinema began to revert several of my edits and replace it with the information - which was for the most part unsourced - that was there before I began working on the page and I'll admit that I reverted a couple of times for edits that I thought were especially unreasonable. My edits are constantly being reverted and deleted (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) because Ring feels they are poorly written (1, 2, 3), bloat the article (1, 2, 3, 4), or trivial (1, 2). He later stated that his versions are better than mine (1). The final thing that pushed me over the edge to come here was this edit (here) that directly attacked me and my reading comprehension over an honest mistake. I have no problem with people editing my writing or rewriting it, but when they constantly revert or erase it and then insult me, I do. I tried talking on Ring's talk page, but Ring continues to assert his writing and choices for the reasons that I have listed above. I sought out the help of another major contributor to the article as a third party opinion on the edits that have taken place recently to see what he thinks should stay or go, but he has failed to respond and has been inactive of late. I wasn't sure where to take this because to me it comes off as WP:OWN or WP:EW, and now coming close to breaching WP:CIVIL. Thanks for your time, Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 16:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This is purely a content dispute and this thread should be closed ASAP. WP:3O, WP:RFC and WP:DRN are the options available to Disc Wheel. MarnetteD|Talk 17:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks man, will do. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 18:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree with MarnetteD on her assessment. Because the article in question is on my watch list, I have been paying attention to Disc Wheel's appropriate content additions and copy edits at the article for the last several days. These are good edits. I've also been watching the discussion between Disc and Ring with interest because Ring has a history of both article ownership issues and edit warring. His article ownership and lack of civility is well known and his block log for edit warring is long (see here:[48]). This report is just a continuation of more of the same kind of complaints already made and reports filed in the past regarding Ring. Disc Wheel filing this report here is appropriate and warranted, in my opinion.

For example: The following revert links are characteristic of Ring's tendency to blanket revert and edit war at articles where he appears to have ownership issues. His most recent block was for edit warring and imposed for one month, starting May 1, 2014. His blanket/catch-all reverts typically have edit summaries containing "doesn't add to the article", "trivia", "not well written", whether true or not. Rather than editing what has been edited to improve upon it, he just reverts all of it. It's also worthy to note that Ring had not once gone to the article talk page over the last few days to discuss with Disc, just revert. In my opinion, this is Ring's status quo edit warring and ownership behavior that's been going on for years. Some will likely disagree with me, but in light of Ring's very recent month-long block for edit warring, I think this latest report should be looked at for what appears to be ownership as well as repeated and continued edit warring behavior. [49]; [50]; [51]; [52]; [53].

-- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It is still a content dispute. If you have a problem with Ring Cinema then WP:RFC/U is your next step. Admins are not going to take action here on either of these complaints. BTW you got my gender wrong. MarnetteD|Talk 18:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take it to the RFC then. Thanks for the help. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 18:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of how Winkelvi feels about Ring's reverts it is still a content dispute and Marnette has correctly outlined the available options. I will also add that you need to start a discussion on the article talk page that addresses the specific edits being disputed. Any external process will want to see a valid attempt by both parties to resolves the issues with the article rather than issues with each other. If there is a discourse on the talk page then other editors who have this article on their watchlist can add their own opinions; if opinion is completely against Ring then he has to respect the consensus, but at the same time we cannot assume Ring's edits are improper simply because another editor has also had an altercation with him at some point. Betty Logan (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If Ring hadn't been exhibiting the same edit warring behavior as all the other times, I'd agree it's only a content dispute. And, sorry about the gender blunder, MarnetteD. The "ette" in your name gave me the impression you are female. Oops! -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Disc Wheel: RFC/U is only for commenting on a user there will be no consideration of or action taken regarding your edits to the films article. You would be better off using the dispute resolution links I gave you earlier in this thread. MarnetteD|Talk 18:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: You are making statements about RC while presenting no evidence to support them. No admin is going to act on your assertions here. RFC/U is still the place to be but you will need to present a stronger case than you have so far. MarnetteD|Talk 18:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. Thanks. I will amend the above to include diffs. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I have posted on the talk page now and in the dispute resolution section. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 18:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The other issue is the multiple reverts made by RC against Disc Wheel and Corvoe in the last day or so. He has been blocked eight times in the past for this, with the last block being for 1 month in May of this year. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

He's constantly reverting my edits for the aforementioned reasons despite when other editors have expressed their satisfaction with my efforts (1, 2). Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 14:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Personally, I see sufficient behavioural issues from Ring Cinema to block. I await their response, and I've advised them of that in 2 places the panda ₯’ 22:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Really DangerousPanda? Would you care to elaborate on how your threat to block would be preventive rather than punitive? Or why you would step in here when there are other behaviors that don't even come close to this. There have been numerous and wide ranging posts on the talk page (and to) the article by multiple editors so far. As yet disagreements are still being worked through. There have been a ton of violations of commenting on contributor over content. In this situation I can see no reason to remove one editor from the discussions. Way too many accusations have been thrown around, with little proof, At the level displayed so far any blocks would be dubious without further elaboration. MarnetteD|Talk 03:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought that we were instructed to resolve this on the talk page. There is a discussion at the talk page about the content that is ongoing. It's important to note that the complaining editor added material that upon review of his new sources has turned out to be incorrect in several cases. My edits are good faith attempts to improve the article, and I think that is self-evident upon review. No one has changed any of my edits with the exception of the issue that has been resolved -- in my favor. Corvoe apologized for his behavior in that case. I have asked repeatedly what material is missing from the article that my edits changed and haven't had anything specific mentioned. Disc Wheel made many changes, and almost without exception I have incorporated the material he added even when I organized it differently. That is just trying to improve the article. If something is significant that has been removed, it hasn't been mentioned or added to the article. This is just the process of editing. Winkelvi habitually makes ad hominem attacks on me and has in the past attempted to conspire with other editors in content disputes with me. He hasn't made any substantive suggestions or improvements in this case. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:16, 23July 2014 (UTC)

BettyLogan on the Godfather talk page: "The problem so far with the mass changes that Disc Wheel has initiated is that while we obviously welcome the addition of sourced content some of Ring's criticisms are not without merit so as a neutral I feel a bit betwixt and between in that each version has its good points and its flaws." --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

There's only three instances I can find where you have called me out for being incorrect. The instance where I misunderstood a word ([54]), where Ring could have simply corrected it to ".... agreed to interplay light and dark scenes" rather than just remove the whole sentence as a whole. The second Ring claimed an edit of mine to be incorrect or inaccurate was this ([55]), where he changed the title of the section from "Coppola Restoration" to "Restoration". I had it as "Coppola Restoration" because that's what the name of the series of DVD's that were made from the restored film, so I thought it wasn't a problem since the section talked of only things related to the "Coppola Restoration." The final one ([56]) where I submitted an edit misinterpreting the source, but instead Ring removed the whole sentence instead of changing it to make it correct. Those were the only edits (based off his edit summaries) that relate to inaccuracies on my part, for which I apologize for making. They were not intentional. I would like to say the last one was brought on by just being in front of the computer for an expanded duration and being tired, but who knows it was days ago. I mentioned some of what I found to be missing or removed completely on the talk page [57], its been up for a few hours. I have more prepared to post if need be. I had also tried to explain why some sections should stay in edit summaries and on his talk page too, but Ring ultimately disregarded them for the reasons that I have, again, stated in my initial post.

As for changing your edits, I have tried to but you constantly revert them and restate the reasons I have mentioned in my initial post. Other editors have done the same too, with you again just reverting them in favor of your edits. I stopped trying to edit the page because I knew nothing good would come of it, so I moved my version to my sandbox to edit it further until this issue is resolved. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 23:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Two more recent edits ([58], [59]) show more harsh comments from Ring. In addition I feel that its worth noting he wants the page to stay with his edits, citing a consensus policy that several authors have informed of being incorrect. I don't believe that that has been mentioned here. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 00:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not accurate. The only time you changed one of my edits was when I had restored the Coppola quotation and you removed it again. Okay, that has been in the article and is the result of a longstanding consensus. One editor like you doesn't get to decide it's out. Sorry.

Should I have corrected the sentence you screwed up about Willis and Coppola? I thought about it, but it's a complicated thing. This discussion should be had on the talk page. I still don't really accept your assertion that you have a source that says that 'interplay' means 'alternating', which was your defense.

Personally, I think that introducing three errors is a lot. The only way to catch them is to go back and read your sources, which is a very big job I've had to do. At first, I assumed that you would get things right but if I can't assume that, it is a lot to just trust that your edits are accurate when you are changing the article. In fact, I don't trust any more that something you've sourced is necessarily accurate. But that is a content issue. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Where's you proof of the consensus? And I personally don't think checking the sources is that time consuming when the pages for the books and magazines are in the citation so that makes for easy access to where the fact in questions should be found and for web pages you can always CTRL + F to find it. The Coppola quote source - a DVD commentary - on the otherhand makes it difficult to verify considering I don't have that edition of the film. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 00:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

A bot just decided that Hitler wasn't an anti-Semite

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

---

Can we please get an adult over at Category_talk:Antisemitism#RFC_on_purging_individuals_and_groups? -- Kendrick7^talk 07:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

There's already an open RfC on this content dispute, which all "adults" are invited to participate in. Nothing to see here as far as AN/I is concerned, really. Doc talk 07:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Request for administrative action (block) against User:Ronz

Based on recent disruptive behavior at the recently closed (as Keep) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates of 2014 and at both List of Playboy Playmates of 2014 & Talk:List of Playboy Playmates of 2014, I unfortunately feel that administrative action is necessary against User:Ronz. Several editors are disturbed by the actions of Ronz both at that AfD and in the above article itself recently. I've very rarely seen the kind of behavior exhibited by Ronz on Wikipedia in my 6 years or so as an editor. I'd like to note that I am not personally a fan of Playboy-related content, and I have not previously heavily edited Playboy-related articles on Wikipedia before recently (as a result of the above-mentioned AfD). This complaint is not about article content...it's about Ronz's disruptive behavior.

Consensus in the above-mentioned AfD developed that Ronz's initial BLP-concern-based nomination had no merit, but that unfortunately did not deter Ronz from repeatedly, intentionally & disruptively blanking the list that was in question (at the above AfD) in order to try & "win" that nomination. See: blanking of sourced article content, during the course of the AfD, at 12:25 on July 21, 2014, blanking of sourced article content, during the AfD, at 15:06 on July 21, 2014, blanking of more sourced article content, during the AfD, at 12:45 on July 22, 2014, and blanking of more sourced article content, during the AfD, at 17:20 on July 22, 2014. Even after the recent conclusion of the above-mentioned AfD, Ronz has attempted to continue to assert non-existent (in the opinion of the community) BLP concerns by re-inserting a tag, at 10:39 on July 23, 2014, that was initially removed by the same editor that recently closed the above-mentioned AfD. This kind of editing warring behavior is unacceptable. I personally have a strict policy against edit warring...I don't engage in it at all.

Ronz's behavior both at the above-mentioned AfD and on the article's talk page has been extremely disruptive...with repeated periods of IDHT, VAGUEWAVE, and BATTLEGROUND behavior. Attempts by several editors to engage Ronz over their "concerns" have been futile, and numerous warnings to Ronz about their behavior (including several at an involved administrator's talk page) have gone unheeded by Ronz.

Ronz has apparently been blocked twice before...once for apparently edit warring in 2007 and once for "Disruptive editing including battleground attitude & ignoring feedback" in 2012. Ronz was also cited for editing warring over tags in 2011, and there apparently have been problems with Ronz's use of bogus "BLP concerns" before in 2010. Taking into account Ronz's recent and past similar patterns of disruptive behavior, I must ask here that Ronz be blocked for a period of a minimum of several weeks (if not longer). I'd like to leave the further specifics of a block proposal (and the ultimate decision on whether to impose one) to this body's collective judgment here. Thank you in advance. Guy1890 (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm disappointed, but not surprised by this.

@Postdlf: posted a request on my Talk page to look into this. I spent a couple of hours while at work looking over what Ronz had been doing & the details of this dispute, & came to the conclusion that while Ronz had acted aggressively in this dispute his actions were done in good faith. So I felt the best solution in this dispute was to suggest to Ronz to break off trying to edit this article & move on. I posted this on Ronz' talk page a couple of hours ago; he responded that he's going to stay away from the article for a month, at least. So unless Ronz breaks his word, there's nothing to be done here.

I didn't think everyone would be happy about this -- I was the Admin who suggested Ronz be blocked indefinitely for his behavior 2 years ago, so I'm glad he looked past that to accept my advice -- but the whole idea is to defuse conflicts & retain valuable contributors, not to ban everyone & let God the ArbCom sort 'em out. -- llywrch (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, users attempting to blank an article while that same article is at an AfD (that they themselves initiated in the first place) are not "good faith" edits. There's established precedent here at AN/I for blocking users that engage in that kind of behavior over & over again, despite warnings to the contrary.

Seriously, I was born on a Monday, but it wasn't this past Monday my friends. Ronz's behavior since the filing of this AN/I complaint is pretty much textbook avoidance behavior. Lay low until the heat dies down, and then go right back to editing as before. Ronz has been given several chances in the past, and I feel strongly that it's time to punish his recent (and really longstanding behavior since at least 2010) disruptive behavior more strongly. Guy1890 (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Ronz goes over the edge every now and then, but I think Llywrch's solution is best for now, and I move to close this thread. Wikipedia doesn't really do punishments, nor is that the reason we are here. Viriditas (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• No action needed. What some call "article blanking", others might regard as "fluff removing". Yes, Ronz was a bit aggressive, but it looks like it's over, and people can resume adding bust measurements. Johnuniq (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

llywrch's analysis is spot on; Guy1890's call for a lengthy punitive block over a settled dispute which all other editors appear to agree was based in good faith disagreements has no grounding whatsoever in policy. It may well be time, however, to examine Guy1890's disruptive pattern of personalizing deletion disputes, as here, and tendentiously trivializing legitimate BLP concerns, especially with regard to the erotica industry. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

IP 98.148.34.92

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.

---

98.148.34.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Has been warned numerous times for various things, typically for adding unsourced content. In this edit they copypasted copyrighted content from here, for example. The user has never participated in a discussion and seems to edit with no consideration for the community. I don't know how to educate them so that they start editing constructively. Based on their history of edits to children's TV article, with some repeat business at Fairly OddParents I think it's likely that this is the same person who has been making these edits from this IP for the last several months as opposed to various users. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked three months. Disruptive editing and copyright violations. This editor hardly ever participates on talk. Last block was for two weeks in 2013. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Neutralhomersimpson

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 just got an email from Neutralhomersimpson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) asking for some hidden revisions] (and here) from Angie Goff. Because they were hidden by User:JamesBWatson as a copyvio and appear to violate BLP I've refused to let them have the material and told them that on their talk page. Just wanted to leave a note in case they try asking someone else for the information.

I've a concern about the name as it could be possible to confuse them with User:Neutralhomer. It's not an obvious block but when I saw the email I did think that it might have been an alternate account of Neutralhomer but it doesn't seem likely. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 03:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutralhomersimpson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is not an alternate account of mine, I don't have any. I have an issue with an IP editor regarding edits to the Angie Goff article. I suspect that Neutralhomersimpson (again, not me) is the user behind the account. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutralhomersimpson has no contributions. As Neutralhomer says, there has been a long history of BLP violations from shifting IP addresses. Neutralhomer is one of several editors who revert the BLP violations, some of which are redacted. The account from which the email was sent, Neutralhomersimpson, may be impersonation. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Based on this conversation, the block seems obvious now (to me anyway), and I've implemented it. As part of the block I disabled e-mail but did not revoke talk page access, at least not yet.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Bbb23, much appreciated. A checkuser might be necessary to see if the BLP vandal has any other sleeper accounts out there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. Neutralhomer, I didn't really think it was you but there was a small possibility, in part because of the return email address. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 08:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Out of process RfC running in parallel with an AfD

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

---

At Talk:Shuja'iyya_Incident_(2014)#Is_this_subject_notable. I hold no animus towards User:Jersey92, but he's created a bit of a mess should the WP:AfD and the WP:RfC end up with different conclusions, and I would suggest that a speedy close of the RfC is in order so editors know to voice their opinions in the most correct place. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Agree - An RFC is the wrong way to determine whether a battle with its own article should be deleted, because AFD is the standard process. Close the RFC as overlapping with the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and boldly non-admin closed the RFC with a note encouraging participants to contribute to the AFD instead. It serves nobody to have both discussions running simultaneously. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• I originally created the RFC and someone then nominated for AfD. I agree - the RFC should be closed. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Mikemikev on Talk:Franz Boas

Banned Mikemikev (talk · contribs) is trolling Talk:Franz Boas again. Given his known connections to political extremist groups, and his known history of IRL harassment, I found this edit summary to be rather problematic. could we get some kind of range block on his IP to avoid having to deal with this on a daily basis? And maybe a semi protection on the talkpage and other talkpages he frequents such as Talk:Race and genetics?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Beyond the above-mentioned 210.92.171.47, it's extremely likely that this IP is also Mikemikev. (Read: certain. IP-starting-with-222 is reacting to a reply made to aforementioned IP-starting-with-210 on the talkpage of Race and genetics—and not even pretending to be a different person, for that matter) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

some sort of mediawiki error is happening

Compare these two diffs, both which are doing mass replacements. (Or there is a very unsubtle sock)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=618309145&oldid=618304844
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=618312937

This appears to be a known issue, but this appears to have been "resolved" quite some time go https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/QINU_fix

Any way to escalate this to someone? If this isn't socking (which based on the bug report seems likely) then this is probably happening all over the wiki currently. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:VPT? the panda ₯’ 19:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for page move, article deletion and warning to user

The article of Iraklis Thessaloniki F.C. was moved to Iraklis 1908 F.C. and then to Iraklis 1908 FC by Alfaweiss without any prior discussion. The move is completely absurd since 1908 is not a part of the club's name. He has also made several moves of the AEL 1964 FC article, with no prior discussion whatsoever. Also the same user created an article about Spyros Papathanasakis without providing any references. Apart from this it's not clear to me why this man reaches WP:N for people. The same user seems to appear almost at the same time with IP 178.59.73.94, an IP that adds unreferenced material (here, here and [60]. I have already added some references to Sebastián Bartolini's article, an article that the aforementioned user and IP added unreferenced material (alleged transfer to Iraklis). I request the article of Iraklis 1908 FC to be moved to its prior name Iraklis Thessaloniki F.C., PAE AEL FC to be moved to AEL 1964 FC, Spyros Papathanasakis to be deleted and to warn user Alfaweiss for his actions.Hansi667 (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You told the editor you would be reporting them but you didn't tell them where you would be reporting them. That's not optional. I have now done so. --NellieBly (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Mea culpa. It won't happen again. Hansi667 (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

IP 178.59.73.94 has changed the club name to Iraklis 1908 FC in the lead of the article. It's pretty obvious that this IP is the one that Alfaweiss uses, since both him/her and the aforementioned IP appeared on 19 July 2014 and they also edit articles about football in Grece, almost exclusively.Hansi667 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Antisemitism in an article about a book about antisemitism (User:Sayerslle)

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.

---

Sayerslle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insolently treats sources and invades private spaces of other users to no end. Now, the title of this section could be misleading a little nevertheless I chose it to emphasize the topic this editorial conflict arose of is antisemitism revolving around the author Eric Blair (George Orwell). Let me also add that this is nothing of a personal affair, just a way to resolve a generic conflict that could go way past 3RR and possibly even for years and contributing literally nothing of value to Wikipedia. Why and for what? Down and Out in Paris and London is a book that has an ambivalent literal structure and is neither fiction nor "non-fiction" but since 2006 the article had it listed under "not fiction." Wikipedia is no arbiter, its only job is to copy facts but the userbase here tends to overstep their boundaries and sometimes overplay or underplay given facts thus shaping the common perception any way they want or in this case twisting it completely. It's not important if it is a work of fiction or is it up to us to decide that but the common consensus should be "non-fiction novel" as Blair (George Orwell) in relations to his own book "Down and Out in Paris & London" refers to it as a novel yet the user in question still defends this book as "non-fiction" and continues, without any explanation, to revert every contribution I make there. I was erroneous about lumping Down and Out in Paris & London under category "Works about antisemitism" but I shortly removed it for how inaccurate that was. Though, "Antisemitic publications" or "Antisemitism in literature" are more than spot on albeit debatable as the antisemitism is not central to the the work just the overall tone of the book's author is troubling and unsettling but I found a more general category that is more sufficient and neutral so I used it in my third edition. He reverted it as he did it with all of my edits while undervaluing the context here while reducing himself to juicy ad hominem in a "you" theme scattering it around my talk page and the article a dozen times. Now instead of attempting to solve the issue the user in question continues bickering on my own user page and harassing me while delivering zero explanation on every aspect of the issue but the content contra a dozen of references I provided for the Article he a) refuses to acknowledge b) diminishes and dismisses their value altogether. This is absolutely unacceptable behavior that he should be reprimanded for and I find user's way of dismissing evidence supporting antisemitic tone of the book or hiding it in the "reviews" section of the article then opening my user page to provide his own sucky arguments which are anything but reliable very troubling. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.", WP:TLDR, this is a wall of text. What do you want done? CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not that long. I read it, and it involves a content dispute, so this report should be closed. ItsAlwaysLupus, you need to use the talk page and file an article RFC to generate more input. This is the wrong noticeboard. You could try WP:DRN or WP:NPOVN, but there is nothing to be done here. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Eshwar.om disrupting

Eshwar.om (talk · contribs) has been engaged with Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) on numerous pages related to Hinduism. Eshwar has been adding multiple images and crowding the articles. These images have, for more than one time, been removed by Redtiger and their reasons for removal have been given in edit summaries as well as dedicated talk page discussions (e.g. Talk:Vishnu#Removal_of_images, Talk:Ganesha#Images_Removed). Previously, Eshwar has also reported 3RR against Redtiger which was decided as no violation. The closing admin also noted how Eshwar was forum shopping. (link here). Post failure to maintain his choice of images on pages, they went on to request semi-protection of various pages [61], [62] like Vishnu, Ganesha, Rakshasa, and Kamsa, hoping that would stop Redtiger from removing the unneeded images. Probably after realizing that semi-protection won’t stop Redtiger or other users from reverting him, they probably have now resorted to removal of images from pages which have been previously been edited by Redtiger. (e.g. [63] at Keshi (demon), [64] at Kali Puja, [65] at Ashta Nayika.
On side note, Eshwar seems to not be getting along well with many users looking at various notices on their talk page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.this is the first rule of this page.But i did'nt get any notification.Second thing is user Redtigerxyz removed file on 15 July 2014‎ which is my edit Vishnu.He said reason is rm copyvio.same day it self i said before remove please check copyrights from flickr.he said Checked copyrights from flickr; plz familiar yourself with wikipedia image policies.then 6 July 2014‎ i added file from wiki commons.he removed even that file too.and said rm img crowding.i said again dont remove images.crowd not a proper explanation.please read WP:IUP.he reverted my edits said the image is broken, attributes missing.then continuous unknown ip users edited that page.user redtiger started to say one img enough like so . he is doing WP:STEWARDSHIP in all Hinduism article plz click here.i informed in his talk page.but he deleted all.no reply from him.after blanking my talk in his he put smily symbol in his talk page Edit summary .plz click here.this is one enough showing how user rediger playing in Wikipedia. and he is doing WP:STEWARDSHIP in all Hinduism article.so i asked semi-protection for vishnu.but

unfortunately it has declined.but now i hope the Admin carefully analyze all the things,and i believe that the admin do the needful.Because more person we believe Wikipedia is reliable.thank you.Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 14:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Dunno why they still have the "on their talk page" clause. You anyways got the notification. Just so you don't have complain, will post on your talk page too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See my reply on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive263#Hi_all. All flickr images were copyvio and deleted. I can remove anything from my talk per WP:OWNTALK. But, Eshwar removed my edits on Talk:Vishnu [66] Forum shopping [67] has not ended. While Eshwar accusing people of being from Karnataka and "rm (remember?) Tamil values" [68][69], Eshwar is creating WP:UNDUE to Tamil Nadu portrayals in images. He is flooding articles with Tamil images, only though Tamil representations already exist in the article (e.g. Talk:Vishnu#Removal_of_images, Talk:Ganesha#Images_Removed). He is adding pictures of broken images of the deities, with incomplete iconography and missing attributes (attribute in English scholarly literature is an object held by a Hindu/Jain/Buddhist divinity). At Rakshasa and Kamsa, the problem is not images, but WP:POV and accuracy of facts. The user repeatedly adding Kamsa is a rakshasa, which is inaccurate (he is described as human or asura), without proving it with RS. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

user Redtigerxyz saying about Administrators noticeboard,but there user Bbb23 said that I just declined a report filed by Eshwar.om against Redtigerxyz. There was only one revert.so problem has solved then there is no need anything further to talk.but Redtigerxyz followed after user bbb23.iam not saying he should not continue there.but no need ,because problem solved in Administrators noticeboard. user mr Redtigerxyz saying that images were copyvio and deleted.that is ok .but my question is why wikicommon files also not accepted by you .i mentioned all here in my previous

talk itself.and your saying you can remove anything from your talk per WP:OWNTALK,ok but when?!as perWP:TALK is for only to discuss.if you remove all those then how we discuss.here your connecting Tamilnadu edit diff which is no need here.user said dont tell like that then i asked sorry for that then the problem of that matter was solved.but i dont know solved matters why you are connecting here .what is your intention really i dont know.but readers can view all.that is my believe.and you are saying i removed all those things from Vishnu article talk page itself.no i moved t files in to article.as per WP:IQUEUE fair-use images should not be moved to talk pages.also policy says if enough text then move images to article page .so i did.also WP:TALK says Article talk pages should not be used ty editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.but you used it for your personal view register.what your saying now you said same over there too.it not applicable by policy.And you are saying i am flooding articles with Tamil images.no your fault.In india tamil nadu also part. Hinduism is common all over India.so tamil nadu also applicable.Even Hindu Bakthi movement started from tamilnadu.(Including the two major part like saiva,vaishnava). and spread all over India Later.that is history.so images available then if it is needed then could be present in Hindusium articles .Also Tamil is native indian Language too.Among all native indian Language tamil is very old.Sangam literature of tamil is very Ancient in india.again what user redtiger saying all are personal attack.taking particularly about community or person will comes under personal attack.he said already.he is telling even now too.in the article kamsa and rakshasa he removed all citations which are all before inserted by me.Every one in india one knows mahabharatha and krishna's uncle kamsa was a demon king.but user redtiger removed all from the article.so he is not following talk page rule,he is not follwing image rule.he is doing personal attack by saying community.above all he is doing WP:STEWARDSHIP in all Hinduism article with out knowing Hinduism and all parts of india .Any way what i mentioned above are all my points to register. admin you have to analyse all from both side and do the needful.Dont forget still we people believe wikipedia is reliable.thank youEshwar.om^{Talk tome} 23:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• As I understand the allegations, Eshwar has been repeatedly image-crowding on various pages. When those images have been removed, he has retaliated, particularly against Redtigerxyz by removing images added by Redtigerxyz for no valid reason, and by filing the report at WP:AN3 against Redtigerxyz, even though the report was clearly baseless. In his defense, Eshwar has provided a lot of rhetoric and accusations (some of them barely intelligible) but very few diffs in support of his arguments. Indeed, one diff in particular is false on its face. Here Eshwar shows that Redtigerxyz removed a post of Eshwaar's from Redtigerxyz's talk page. I don't blame him. For one thing, Eshwar says "Please Stop such a activity.few years back you did like that.again you started.Previously you blocked once.remember that.Dont do such things again." Redtigerxyz has a clean block log.

I also noticed that on July 15, Eshwar left identical posts on eight administrator (also mostly if not all arbitrators but I'd have to go look at the arb list to be sure) talk pages (see here). In each post, Eshwar complained of Redtigerxyz's conduct (see, e.g., here). Newyorkbrad, always the gentleman, replied (I know that at least some of the others did not bother), "I'm sorry, but I don't know enough about the topics the two of you are editing to be of much help here." (see here).

At this point, my view is that Eshwar is being tendentious in his editing and disruptive to the project. My inclination is to block him for his conduct, but I'll await further comments for the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding the block and note in regret I've seen articles in Indian English-language journals I found no more intelligible, so it isn't unique to this editor. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Another side note: After I posted this report at ANI, Eshwar has gone through articles created long back by me and removed indic scripts from them. [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86] and [87]. I don't mind if he removes them but this might be borderline stalking and if it's done in revenge its better noted here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Same here. Images were removed under edit summary "distributing imgs in sections" (images were not distributed but removed) from articles in User:Redtigerxyz/DYK. [88][89][90]. All images from [91] and [92], without any effort to accommodate the images. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23,i already explain all things in my previous explantion.But yes i have to explain further.My kind request is please dont say i am making image crowding.see i adding images at articles like less image articles and no image articles too.likeHinduism in Afghanistan,Hinduism in Pakistan,Hinduism in Sri Lanka,Hinduism in China,Hinduism in Bangladesh.Even in that i got a chance to add a lead img file too. ,Please dont say iam doing img crowding.it is really hurts me lot.And dont say i am doing against for some other user.Really i am not doing that.i dont want to do that.which is no need at healthy wiki Environment.But again i am saying your words wounds me lot.

Hi Dharmadhyaksha,..you said complaint about indic script removal.Also you said stalking.but it has Redirected to WP:HARASS.Acccording to wiki WP:OUTINGit saying (Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia).but i believe i didnt do anything like that.just i removed indic script where i found as per wiki policy.also i believe i didt hurt you.

user redtiger i clearly mentioned in the relevent articles Edit summary regarding my edit contribution.but here i have a duty to point out.the link you mentioned the article looks before my edit diff1.After my edit diff2.so user here saying is really wrong.here i want to point out one thing that is WP:CIVIL.According to this editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect.accoding to WP:CIVILWP:NICE it says Even if you're hurt, be as calm and reasonable as possible in your response. The other editor probably didn't mean to cause you pain or harm..I believe that.so i given all my explantion here.again i am telling admin could consider all,and analyse all things said by all users here.And do the needful.because you are familiar than us with wiki polices.i point out already wikipedia is reliable.thank you.Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 15:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Eshwar.om had edit war with Abecedare on Shiva. I don't know why he adds Wikipedia:Undue stuff. He should create new article but he wouldn't go for it. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

What WP:CIVIL and WP:personal attack are you talking about, Eshwar? Please do not list policies for the sake of it, prove the others didn't follow them. This is how you should give examples with diff. [93][94] You attacked User:LeoFrank, User:Sitush and me in Tamil Nadu edit summary (an article which I have not edited for a long time, that is "you WP:HARASSing Redtigerxyz" example; forget reverting you on that article) and falsely "accused" us of being Karnataka. "user sitush basically from Karnataka .his target is remove tamil based values", "users like sitush,Leo Frank,Redtigerxyz and other two are all basically frm karnataka.they do rm tamil values"; only LeoFrank is from Karnataka, Sitush is possibly not even from India I suppose and I have declared on my user page that I am from Maharashtra. A clear violation of WP:AGF of accusing LeoFrank of being anti-Tamil values, just because he is from Karnataka. Also, All 8 images removed with "no enough text" rationale let's assume that Ashta Nayika had image crowding with 8 images, why didn't you remove alternate images (4 images). Please explain how you could not find space for a single image on an article which is 6KB readable prose.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Redtigerxyz,Please understand,I dont have any intention to wound any body.what you mentioned regarding tamilnadu article for that i already asked sorry WP:SORRY.But your reopening that matter here again.I dont want to discuss about that.But yes your freedom to point out.but it has over.no need to reopen.that is my belief.And it is my personal opinion too .yes according to Ashta Nayika article.i did't say image crowing.i said no enough text for that images .so i moved that into talk page of the article based on wiki image policy.user CutestPenguin also mentioned that same in Nayika article's talk page .he said @Eshwar.om, Redtigerxyz: Both of you are right, I think we should find add more contents to use those removed images. What you think ?. for that you replied it is essential that we have at least 1 depiction of each nayika; as their iconography can be conveyed better by a depiction. They are important motifs in Indian art. I do not have additional content to add to them.then user CutestPenguin said to you If possible have visit at National Museum, New Delhi there you can have lots of information about this.Talk:Ashta Nayika. .Why i am mentioning Talk page of Ashta Nayika because you know the reasons for that.you only accepted you dont have additional content to add to them.but here your putting question on me.i dont know friend Why ?!anyway i answered .yes i have a duty too. i did that.thank you .Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 21:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked Eshwar for one week (the duration generously does not take into account his previous blocks). I was hoping he would show some insight into his behavior, but his long passive-aggressive screeds above are simply a continuation of his earlier comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Move warring by Mjharrison

Mjharrison (talk · contribs) has been move warring over the page Fringe (hairstyle). For some background, a series of move requests earlier this year determined the proper title for the article is Bangs (hair). But the user in question has now moved the page twice in the past two weeks without discussion. At a minimum, the page ought to be moved back and move protected to stop this nuisance. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 17:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Block - There has been enough discussion on the talk page that he knows that he is moving against consensus, and he is sufficiently determined to make the move that he is using an ugly hack. Although move-protect will help, his persistence is such that he seems likely to do something else if he isn't blocked, such as a copy-and-paste move. Recommend a block at least to get his attention. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• I've moved the article back and move protected it for six months. Neutral on what action should be taken against the user. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Judywalton

User's behavior is somewhat problematic. They've been asked twice to avoid submitting unsourced content, then they were asked twice to not submit copyrighted content in the form of TV episode loglines. The two times I warned the user about the copyvio, I added specific instructions on acceptable ways to incorporate the copyrighted content. The user has not replied to any notices and they submitted more copypasta here. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I have written the user a personal note and will watch-list the season 9 article. Please let me know if there's further copy vio from this user and I will block them. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Dianaa - Much obliged, thank you. I saw the {{copyvio plot}} template on the talk page. Is there any value to adding that at the top of the edit page? For example I know if you click edit at List of M.I. High episodes that same warning appears at the top of the page. This is not something a non-admin can perform, else I'd do it meself. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea; I will add it there as well. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Slow-motion edit war to sanitize Mizzou Arena

Seven month's since I last brought this up at AN/I, User:Eodcarl has continued to ignore consensus to remove sourced information related to a past controversy with Mizzou Arena. His edits have devolved from simple assertions contradicted by actual sources, to endless reversion. He has demonstrated that he intends to play the long game to brute force his unsupported opinions into the article. I fully expect this destructive behavior to continue until someone takes administrative action. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The talk page discussion was trending towards putting it in the History section rather than the lede. Yet, the edit warring is either insisting it is in the lede, or deleted entirely. This is a content dispute and is not ANI worthy; the talk page, while contentious, will sort it out. If not use WP:DR. Rgrds. --64.85.214.92 (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure you got a good read of the talk page. There were some concerns about the neutrality of the naming section. Some editors and I reworked it and most people were happy with it judging from the silence. Phil had earlier said that he wasn't "entirely convinced" it needed to be in the lede, but besides that, Eodcarl is the only one pushing this issue. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

But what can an admin do that cannot be handled via WP:DR? If an admin wants to, they can act as a WP:3O or they can respond as if this were WP:DRN, but my point is I read the talk page and you don't need an admin you need WP:DR. Eodcarl has participated in the talk page but discussion petered out in December; he then piped up in February to no response. Use WP:BRD not BRRRANI. Rgrds. --64.85.214.92 (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't see a clear enough consensus such that Eodcarl's reverts should be classified as "against consensus" (and even if so, that administrator intervention would be needed). Mark, you're edit warring as much as anybody else there. Temporary page protection might be appropriate for this case to force discussion, but proper dispute resolution, as 64' above suggests, would be better still. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I dealt with the naming issue back in December by adding cites mentioning the original name and how long it was in use, then disengaged further because I thought the changes had been explained and accepted and also since I'm not from Missouri. Since a certain point all of Edocarl's edits have been nearly devoted to this one issue. I'm not going to engage further but I encourage both parties to find an equal way to represent each other; as I said in the talk in December, I've brought good cites and anyone is free to blend them appropriately in. Nate • (chatter) 02:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, I get a bad feeling about the photo as far as copyright is concerned. It looks like there's been some photoshopping (solid color, unnatural sky; certain aspects unnaturally bright); it looks like a promotional photo, and the exif makes it look like it's a photo that was for web publication. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I can replace it. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Request escalating sanctions on User:Ihardlythinkso for continued violation of Interaction Ban

User:Ihardlythinkso and I are subject to an interaction ban. Recently almost every edit he has made has clearly referred to me and my edits, though without naming me, e.g. [95], [96]. I gave a clear warning on User:Fluffernutter's talk page that this is unacceptable and if it continued I would open an ANI thread. She also explained to him that any reference to me or my edits in any capacity is a violation of the IBAN. His edit to his sub-page where he sarcastically recites various wikipedia cliche's is clearly a reference to my "enough is enough" on Fluffernutter's page. He is clearly trying to push the boundaries and see what he can get away with. He has already been blocked twice for violations of the interaction ban and continues to flout it. Clearly he needs a lengthier block before he will get the message. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If, as it sounds like, only a select few would even know these are references to you, why are you giving him the satisfaction of showing he's annoyed you, which (it sounds like) is his goal? EEng (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Because he appears to be obsessed with me, and has continuously referenced my edits even after the interaction ban was imposed on him, and even after he was blocked twice for violating it. I am utterly fed up, I feel stalked and harassed, and I don't appreciate people making light of the situtation. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It's you who's been stalking. User Talks, my subpages. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice the distinction. I write "I feel stalked and harassed". That's not an accusation, it's an expression of how I feel. Your response, however, is a direct accusation of stalking. Now that that's sorted out, get the fuck out of my wikilife forever. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of an IBAN is to prevent aggravation to the participants, and is nothing to do with how many of the audience might or might not understand what's happening — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of an IBAN is to prevent aggravation to the participants. Um, how can you say that, when the first sentence at WP:IBAN states: "The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others."?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Like Max said, I've had extensive conversation with Ihardlythinkso on my talk page over the past day or so about what an i-ban means. The upshot is that s/he appears to have an idiosyncratic understanding of what's covered by an interaction ban, believing that commenting on the other person's edits is ok as long as it's about the content of the edits and not the editor's name, since WP:IBAN says "referencing the editor" and not "referencing the editor or their edits". I tried to make it as clear as I could to IHTS that even if they, personally, don't think the policy should/does apply to referencing edits, the policy still exists and is applied in that manner regularly, and they still have to follow it. I'm not really sure they understood either the policy or my attempt to clarify it; instead they're bogged down in the minutiae of what they can still say about Max and his edits, and further explanation of "no, don't do that, seriously" doesn't seem likely to help.

Those things said, though, I'm not sure "enough is enough" is, er, enough of a clear-cut violation to be acting on. It's a common enough phrase that many people use it daily. So I'd say my preferred closure here would be for IHTS to understand that they may not refer, whether directly or indirectly, to MaxBrowne or his edits in any way, and that they are expected to err on the side of safety if they're not sure if something they want to do is covered under that and not do it. If there is any further pushing of the boundaries after all this explanation, I think a block is the only option left to stop the behavior. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd support Fluffernutter's solution here. Make the boundary explicit (even if we felt it was implied strongly enough before) and act on that if it is breached. Protonk (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Protonk, yes, I think that's logical. That boudary (listing an edit w/ commentary) was not clear to me. But I've asked too, about another boundary, explained below, which Max feels is not a violation (but Blackmane does, and I think Drmies too). To me the two are branches off the same tree, but if that isn't consensus, okay. The guidance at WP:IBAN says "Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way", and I am unclear, if Max's edit to the Talk:Chess discussion linked below, was "avoiding me" or not. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I note that this has been clearly explained to IHTS already. The diffs MaxBrowne pointed to already came after clear warnings. Indeed, exactly the same behavior is continuing now: "And, if I am restricted from commenting on the quailty of a copyedit authored by user Y, then I defintely accept your view, which restricts user Y from in-[my]-face commentary at discussion threads, which he/she has already proved he/she is prone to do, with impunity, and drove a semi-contrary admin away in the process." [97]. --Amble (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The addition of a diff to MaxBrowne's edit could have been an accident. It might have been a subtle jab dancing next to the edge of the rules.

The re-use of the wording "enough is enough" may have just been a coincidence. It might have been a subtle jab dancing next to the edge of the rules.

I think future observation will make it clear if these are innocent things or an attempt to game the system to subtly provoke MaxBrowne.

I currently am assuming good faith until such a time that it becomes unreasonable to do so. And time that is getting close. It I do become convinced he is gaming the system then I think a block would most certainly be in order as we have a long precident of not putting up with gaming or wikilawyering. Chillum 20:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no doubt whatsoever that the reuse of "enough is enough" on what is really a WP:POLEMIC page within his user space was a deliberate provocation, coming as it did right after I posted to Fluffernutter's page. However those less familiar with this user and his constant gaming of the system, his manipulations, his maintenance of "plausible deniability" etc will continue to "assume good faith". MaxBrowne (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

In response to Fluffernutter's suggested wording "they may not refer, whether directly or indirectly, to MaxBrowne or his edits in any way", this is substantially the same as the wording at Wikipedia:IBAN#Interaction_ban which says "if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly"

"directly or indirectly" is about the same thing a "in any way". Recording and commenting on edits of a user is indirect interaction. I don't think we need special wording, I think the issue is with Ihardlythinkso's interpretation of this. Chillum 20:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's my point. IHTS's interpretation of the policy is that because it doesn't say "...or the content of their edits," that it doesn't apply to the content of the edits as well. I think we all agree that's an incorrect interpretation; my point is that it should be made clear one last time to IHTS, with finality, that no matter how s/he would prefer the policy be applied, admins will be enforcing the usual interpretation that includes edit contents, and IHTS's behavior needs to conform to that interpretation. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Fluffernutter, yes, that's right, I just didn't know. (I relied on my read of WP:IBAN, and didn't draw that conclusion. Admin Sjakkalle's revert, accuse, and block threat, without any discussion, came as a complete surprise.) But please see my note to Protonk above. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

IHTS has now been told my many people that his interpretation is wrong. Just like someone who insists they were not edit warring due to a lack of understanding of policy after it has been explained to them then you should treat him as informed. I see no need to impose an alternate wording when the current wording suffices.

Making special wording for him will probably result in him saying he is singled out by an "enchanced IBAN". It will give credence to the claim that he is being picked on. Let us hold him to the exact same standards as others as those standard suffice to deal with this behavior.

If he refuses to beleive that everyone elses interpretation is wrong then he can still be blocked because he has been well informed by the community. Chillum 20:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You've completely misrepresented me. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll pipe up here too as I've been in conversation this afternoon with them. Irrespective of their dispute with MaxBrowne, I've thrown my good faith into the ring and attempted to draw them into a conversation where by an acceptable middle ground could be reached. In my view, and one I iterated on IHTS's talk page, the IBAN policy should be viewed as strictly as possible and not as gagging order in any sort of way, but simply as a way to move on to healthier pastures. However, IHTS feels that this strict interpretation is hamstrings them as MaxBrowne does not share this view. Although I sympathise with their view, I disagree and interpret it as a barrier from the source of the grief. What keeps me away from the source of my frustration, even if it is enforced by others, will make me happier in the long term.

Having seen many IBAN's come and go, my understanding of IBAN is, imo, as intuitive as most other regulars at ANI or AN. However, that intuitive view can blind us to, what we would consider, unorthodox views of the policy. Rather than be exasperated or frustrated by such unorthodox views, I believe it would be beneficial to step back and think about whether their view actually reveals an interpretive hole in the policy. If the answer is yes, then I see no reason not to lay it out explicitly for the aggrieved party so that there is clarity. Of course the flip side could be argued that this is a wikilawyering view that seeks to skirt the edges of the IBAN and I have certainly seen many cases of that in the past, but I don't think this is the case here, AGF and all that. I recommend an expansion of Fluffernutter's explicit conditions, such that both MaxBrowne and IHTS are

1. indefinitely forbidden from discussing, directly refering to, indirectly refering to each other in any way (using placeholders instead of directly naming), shape or form on any space, with the exception of required notifications for administrator noticeboards or Arbcom, though they can request other editors make the required notifcations.
2. indefinitely forbidden from discussing, reverting (by any means), copy editing, keeping a log of (in user, talk or any other space) or refering to each other's edits in any space. The sole exception to this would be for the referencing of diffs as required for AN, ANI or Arbcom.

I believe these two conditions, which are really just IBAN but explicitly spelled out, should cover everything. Although if anyone has noticed I've missed anything from the list, feel free to tack it on. Blackmane (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Or perhaps it would be productive to initiate a discussion toward amending the policy so as to prevent further such incidents of Wikilawyering. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  Exactly. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Anything I write here will be pilloried. There is so much bad-faith and hostility going on. I don't appreciate the false accuse of "wikilawyering" -- it's an insult, it's uncivil, it's untrue, it's crazy-making. And I don't appreciate accuses that I've "skated intentionally on the edge" on edge of IBAN. (Again untrue, bad-faith, and uncivil.) I am to speak in this hostile, attacking thread? I've already had 1.5 days of my life vanished, as a result of trying to get clarification on the IBAN after receiving an unexpected claim that I violated, and threat to block, by admin Sjakkalle. The reason it was a surprise, is because I gave WP:IBAN good-faith reading, and felt sure I was in compliance when I posted a single copyedit by MaxBrowne on my subpage list. (Again, bad-faith attacks all around about my intentions of doing so.)

One or more editors are saying here that I "disagree with the IBAN policy", suggesting that because I disagree with it, I can violate it. That's not right, and it's more bad-faith, twisting what I wrote and then accusing me of something I didn't do. People are eager to blame and accuse here, and sanction. How about trying to understand what is really the case?

There are two simple things: 1) the edit I posted on my subpage by MaxBrowne, and 2) commentary in discussion threads where I'm present or established, and MaxBrowne comes along and makes contrarian comments immediately after and adjacent to mine.

OK, what about the first thing. I did it in complete innocence (professionalism), and I don't like being accused that I didn't (bad-faith ghosts & gobblins). I confirmed I was clear to post the edit, by reading WP:IBAN in good faith and not seeing anything there preventing it. (Now that is where people are accusing me of wikilayering -- "finding a loophole". That's wrong. The list of edits on my subpage was not made for the purpose of irritating MaxBrowne, and that is what I've been accused of.) If adding that edit to my subpage list is violation of IBAN, I'm happy to accept that, but that was not clear to me at all after reading WP:IBAN. (I suggested to Blackmain and I think Fluffnutter too, that WP:IBAN s/b made more specific, commenting on the quality of [content] an edit is considered "indirect interaction with a user". Or even just posting the edit without commentary?) Apparently there is consensus that that is the case (though, even after two ANs, I saw no discussion, or opinions from admin weighed as consensus.

OK, what about the second thing. It's a bit odd to me, I have not seen any opinion at all at the two ANs where I asked for clarification, and there are no opinions here either (if I'm not mistaken). So I still don't know. (Blackmane has expressed to me on my Talk, it's an IBAN violation. Fluffnutter express on her Talk, it isn't a violation. When I asked Drmies about it, he didn't say whether a violation or not, but he went to MaxBrowe's user Talk and asked Max to please stop posting to the discussion thread where I was. MaxBrowne strongly opposed that view, saying he had every right to post his commentary anywhere on the Wikipedia, and that doing so was not prohibited at WP:IBAN.

So which is it? (Violation, or not?) Because MaxBrowne has done it with impunity, not only at the Talk:Chess thread, but at another thread as well (a shogi project page).

Personally, I agree with MaxBrowne. (That his comments are fine.) But see, and here's the deal, I didn't also see my comments about the quality of his copyedit that I posted on my subpage list, to really be any different. (I.e. both are comments on content, not comments on a user, as stipulated at WP:IBAN.)

One of the reasons I feel it is unhealthy for IBAN to restrict commentary regarding content, is that it shuts down idea-exchange, and that is not good for producing the best articles. But my opinion is really irrelevant here. I am not trying "fight" IBAN or "do as [I] please". I have only been interested to be in compliance, and my interests also are about content (edits and discussion threads), and accusing me of "trying to game the system" is again bad-faith and untrue.

• Here is the thread at Talk:Chess [98].
• Here is MaxBrowne's reply to Drmies [99].
• Here is my subpage list of edits & some commentary [100]
• Here is the offending edit in the subpage list which started everything (I can't link to it since it was removed from WP space when I deleted/recreated the subpage in order to rename it):

  * Kasparov versus the World, July 3, 2014: [101] Unnecessary and potentially ambiguous ("Try to write so the text cannot be misunderstood"—MOS) elimination of possessive pronoun "it". (The only pronoun to appropriately and successfully reference "team".)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Too long to read. Can this be summarized? If not, the length of your post is likely to annoy the community and to change an interaction ban into a community ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

All those words still bring us back to one question, Ihardlythinkso: are you willing to commit to not discussing Max or his edits, either directly or by referencing them, anywhere on Wikipedia? That means if you're in doubt about whether something would violate your ban or not, you don't say it. Right now, we're not interested in if you think it's fair, or if he should do it too, or if he said something you think contradicts something else, or what anyone else said about anything. We're interested in if you will follow the policy as it has now been explained to you. If you will, say "yes" - just "yes", not a long paragraph about why - and we can all move on. If you can't or won't, say "no" so the community knows that and can act accordingly. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

are you willing to commit to not discussing Max or his edits, either directly or by referencing them, anywhere on Wikipedia? Absolutely, yes. (But Fluff, I never anywhere said anything wasn't "fair", only that it wasn't clear [from WP:IBAN]. I thought Sjakkalle was misinterpreting IBAN.) But I have also asked for clarification on Max's entering discussion threads where I am, as explained above. (Why are we failing to address that? The IBAN was a mutual IBAN. You feel WP:IBAN doesn't prohibit the Talk commentary I linked above, Blackmane disagrees with you, and I think Drmies disagrees, too.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

In any ANI, the OP's behavior is subject to scrutiny as well. So my Q about Max posting contrary commentary in discussion threads, and whether that is against IBAN, isn't inappropriate. (But my motivation to ask if it's a violation, is not some tit-for-tat to try and punish Max, but to gain clarification about the IBAN, like I tried to do in two ANs but there was no discussion or answer on the point. [Both Blackmane and Fluffernutter provided answers in Talk discussions with them later, but their answers were opposite one another.]) As everyone knows I see comments on the quality of a copyedit, and comments in article discussion threads essentially the same (two branches on the content tree), but is just my opinion, and I haven't insisted on it, I've only asked for clarification. (And if Max's discussion contributions like the one I linked above is disallowed, then here is the time & place to inform Max. [And if that's the way it goes, I'm not sure he would be happy based on his remarks to Drmies, and I don't blame him, either. Because as already explained I'd prefer liberal where content commentary is at play, for the sake of articles. But there's no doubt too, Max's posts in two discussion threads, were designed to confront and challenge, and that kind of deliberate posting is certainly "interaction" covered by IBAN, which Blackmane sees, and Drmies too since he asked Max to stop it.] I would "trade" with Max the ability of him to make contrarian discussion comments anywhere, with my ability to comment on any edit of his that I objectively think disimproves an article on my watchlist, at my user subpage, however I'm not proposing "deal-making" at ANI, I'm just saying it to convey there needs to be equitable balance in the IBAN rules for both of us.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

No one should accuse another of "stalking" without good reason. Max had done so to me (again) in this ANI. And what is the basis? (I have no idea what basis he's using to make that charge. I would like to see him explain.) He left "enough is enough" in front my nose at Fluffernutter's Talk, that was him following my edits, not vice versa. And the accusation that I updated my parody paragraph in my subpage to irritate him, is absurd. (When I created that parody paragraph, I thought hard what were all the WP templated memes I've seen used again and again in WP spaces to railroad users to bans. "Enough is enough" is one I've seen a lot and particularly dislike, because it's meaningless tautology on par w/ Popeye's "I am what I am and that's all what I am" and "That's all's I can standz, 'cause I can't standz no more!". So when I saw Max use it I thought: "Shit! How could I forget one of my most hated memes?!" and updated my parody paragraph to incorporate what I should have the first time. So now Max had interpreted this to be a personal jab at him, and that just doesn't/didn't exist, but meanwhile he has "no doubt whatsoever" it was an jab designed intentionally for him. Clearly he should doubt more. And the accusations of being "obsessed" about him also are unfounded and I think it's clear the reverse is true. I have not stalked Max's edits at any time, but he is clearly stalking mine, every word I write, seeing ghosts, then accusing and claiming persecution. I did not open this ANI and I did not make irresponsible claims and charges. It isn't the first or worst time he's done this. Meanwhile, my highest guilt is using "user Y" in user Talk discussions when trying to get clarifications on my IBAN Qs.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed block of Ihardlythinkso for interaction

I just noticed the diff Amble posted where Ihardlythinks said: "And, if I am restricted from commenting on the quailty of a copyedit authored by user Y, then I defintely accept your view, which restricts user Y from in-[my]-face commentary at discussion threads, which he/she has already proved he/she is prone to do, with impunity, and drove a semi-contrary admin away in the process.".

Note that "user y" comes from the IBAN policy wording and refers to the person "user x" is in an IBAN in.

Calling the user in an interaction back "user Y" does not get around the fact that he is commenting on him when he says "restricts user Y from in-[my]-face commentary at discussion threads, which he/she has already proved he/she is prone to do, with impunity, and drove a semi-contrary admin away in the process"[102]

This is interaction plain and simple, he is commenting on the user he is in an IBAN with. Using "user Y" instead of the name is nothing but gaming the system. He has been dancing on the edge of the rules and has now clearly stepped on the wrong side of them. Given his block log shows he has already been blocked twice for violating the interaction ban I suggest a 1 week block. What you other people think? Chillum 20:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't say if that's a correct block length. If it's a first offense, I think shorter would be better. But I have to say this: If editor A is in an interaction ban with editor B, then editor A should make an active, conscious effort to avoid editor B at all costs. Stay away from the editor, stay away from the editor's edits, take anything connected with that editor off the watch list. Avoid temptation, and avoid the possibility of future blocks. Draw a bright line between oneself and the other editor. No problems after that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not a first offense, it is the 3rd. His first block was for 24 hours (Disruptive editing: Violating WP:IBAN per this discussion.) and his second block was 72 hours (repeated breaches of interaction ban and personal attacks). I figured a week was the correct next step. A fourth step I think would be indef until such a time as he could convince the community to unblock. Chillum 23:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to anyone, that after being frustrated by two ANs where I tried to get clarification on two things about IBAN, but there was no discussion and I didn't perceive any answers that addressed consistency with what's at WP:IBAN, that I responded to both Fluffernutter and Blackmain when they initiated a Q or Talk thread with me, in further effort to get to answers while someone was willing to help me after Drmies told me to "fuck off"? And when they made reference to who I was in IBAN with, that I followed suit when necessary in the discussion in order to get to answers? This is being characterized as "gaming the system" by Chillum, and that's just bad-faith mischaracterization and totally wrong. I did not know whether making reference was or wasn't IBAN violation in those discussions, because, those discussions stemmed from the ANs, and I guessed that admin would see them as joint with those ANs, and I was also sensitive if Fluffernutter or Blackmane had warned me in those discussions not to make said reference, which they were also making, but they didn't. If WP:IBAN had been clear, if "tailoring" which Blackmane said is usual when IBANs are issued had been done, if Drmies had helped me understand my confusions, if I had gotten discussion to answers at the ANs, then there wouldn't have been the Talk discussions when Fluffernutter and Blackmane reached out to me to help. (So, tell me again how I've "gamed the system"??? That's completely malicious.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose For the purposes of getting through this once and for all, the above explicit conditions and a final warning to the two of them should suffice. Blackmane (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Support. IHTS is perfectly aware of what is required of him. He has two threads still on the current page of WP:AN on this very topic, in which the same answer has been given: WP:AN#Clarification on IBAN (or, perhaps more timely, please get admin Sjakkalle off my back) and WP:AN#Clarification on IBAN (or, stop admin Sjakkalle from hounding me). This discussion seems to be converting an IBAN into a logical game along the lines of What the Tortoise Said to Achilles. --Amble (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Right. And you're the editor who called MaxBrowne's "classic narcissist" slur against me OK, because it was "in context". Nice. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not at all an accurate restatement of anything I wrote. It's also irrelevant to the current discussion. --Amble (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support one week, two weeks, whatever. The length of this thread (and the many attendant conversations all over the place) are indicative of the extent to which Ihardlythinkso manages to wikilawyer every little bit all over the project. At some point it needs to stop. An alternate solution might be to impose an edit limit (size matters). For instance, say they wish to post a note somewhere. A typical note from them takes up about 8,000 words, in one single paragraph. A suitable restriction would be to limit them to 1% of their post. I urge the WMF to make this technically feasible, inventing a Preview-Edit Restriction Portal along the way. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  I went to Drmies' Talk in good faith to ask Qs that would help me clarify my IBAN, since I was confused, because I saw him active in that area. Instead of just helping with answers this is how I was treated [103]. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure you've gone anywhere in good faith recently: you certainly didn't come to my talk page in good faith. I don't know what you're doing here anyway--I thought you didn't believe in ANI? Drmies (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Not true, Drmies.

Yeah, there was certainly no good faith displayed on Dennis Brown's talk page. I agree with Drmies on this.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Dennis was out-of-line. I responded. Ihardlythinkso (talk)

• Your post on Drmies' page was itself a violation of the interaction ban. What were you hoping to achieve by it anyway, some kind of petty point scoring exercise? If you had a problem with my post on Talk:Chess (which did not make reference to you or your edits), you should have raised it on AN or ANI, instead of shopping around for a sympathetic admin, hijacking someone else's thread on an unrelated IBAN discussion on an admin's talk page and picking at the scabs a month and a half after the event. Whether or not the opinion I expressed on Talk:Chess concurred with your own is basically irrelevant; the only issue is whether in replying to the original poster Beneficii, I was violating the IBAN. As a member of Wikiproject Chess, the Chess article is naturally on my watchlist so Beneficii's Chess talk page discussion naturally came up. I didn't think I was violating the IBAN but I can see now that to be on the safe side it was probably better not to reply to it, just to avoid the perception of violating the IBAN (which was basically Drmies's point). Drmies's post to my talk page was more of a mild request than a warning, so my reply was probably a little more... assertive than it needed to be. I was pissed off about the circumstances in which the issue had been raised.
  
  The other edit of mine that you constantly complain about in the Shogi wikiproject proposal (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Council%2FProposals%2FShogi&diff=606403803&oldid=595260529) is 100% legitimate, you were not even involved in the discussion at the time. I am not topic banned from "board games other than chess". My participation in that discussion appears to have been the catalyst for a round of drama between you and Marchjuly. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'll only reply about the shogi subpage, and only briefly. It's baloney what you're saying. You were aggressive on that subpage, same as at Talk:Chess, and you have never been a variants editor before, let alone shogi. My established edits with Marchjuly and at article Shogi were well established. It was your way to be contrarian towards my view, you even tried to refashion Marchjuly's subproject member signup page into a voting referendum with a 2-to-1 !vote to defeat my view once and for all, absurd, and when I pointed out the aggressive and inappropriate changes to Marchjuly, he restored the page to it's original purpose. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Your post on Drmies' page was itself a violation of the interaction ban. That's rich. (Is that why Drmies intervened with you, but didn't mention anything to me about being in violation?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• No, what you are saying is "baloney". Here's what my post said:
  
  "I don't think WikiProject Chess is much concerned with Shogi overall. It has a common ancestor with chess but it developed in a very different direction and the two games have a completely different character. Apart from the Shogi article itself, which is ranked low importance, there shouldn't really be any Shogi-related articles within the scope of WikiProject Chess. WikiProject Board and table games are the people you need to talk to. "
  
  Nobody had edited that page for a month, you had never edited it at all, yet somehow this post is "aggressive" and targeted at you? Marchjuly certainly didn't think so, he thanked me for my contribution to the discussion. The only "aggression" on that page was displayed by you, most of it directed towards Marchjuly. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC) addendum: Whether or not a topic is in my editing history or not is irrelevant. You seem to be under the impression that I am under some kind of topic ban for board games other than chess. I am not. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• The page does not bare that out. No matter what you say. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Overdue. BMK (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Weak support: probably should get one final warning, but a one week block would definitely drive the point home. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Weak support. I say "weak" for two reasons: 1) because I sincerely doubt that a block is going to make IHTS any more likely to buy into the interpretation of policy he's disbelieved thus far, or that it will stop him referencing the other user in his current discussions on his own talk page. I imagine we'll soon find ourselves either letting his block wear off with nothing changed, or having to double-down by extending it or removing talk access. 2) IHTS hasn't participated in this thread, nor has he edited substantially today since I notified him of the existence of this thread (he may or may not have noticed it being referenced earlier - I don't think he did, but it's hard to tell from the super-long monographs he's written on his talk - but no one appears to have said "hey we're discussing you over here" until I did a few hours ago). I would be much more comfortable with an immediate sanction if the behavior was actually still happening while we knew he knew of the existence of this thread. On the other hand, nothing he's done thus far indicates he intends to change his approach to i-bans whether this thread exists or not, so...yeah. Weak support. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Edited to strike outdated stuff 14:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Gonna agree with Bugs here, but feel it is time for a block. One week or preferably 48 to 72 hours, but no more than one week.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. At least one week per BMK and Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support a one week block for endless wikilawyering about what should be crystal clear, which constitutes a wasteful time sink on the work of otherwise productive editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Block should be indef, per WP:NOTHERE. Ihardlythinkso is clearly more interested in stirring up drama than building an encyclopedia. 199.47.72.58 (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support There is a truly prodigious amount of wikilawyering in the assembled threads around this problem. Which is often a bad sign for these types of interaction bands, as they require effort to not poke the boundaries from the parties. Protonk (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  The wiklawyering is by MaxBrowe, not me. He discovered an interest of mine via the Talk:Chess re use of "chess variant" and it's application to shogi, xiangqi, etc. He not only "interacted" with me at that thread (look at the timestamps of that linked dialogue), but thereafter researched that specific topic sufficiently to end up contributing to Marchjuly's project page, in order to aggressively post contrarian opinions further on the topic. Yet he claims innocence, yet he has no history or background with shogi. He was there to oppose my view as followup to his oppose at the Talk:Chess thread. His hiding the fact it is motivated by an aggressive pursuit to refute my comments, and not indirect interaction per IBAN, is the wikilawyering. Meanwhile, he is "certain" I have been stalking him, without any reasonable basis, just his imagining. If people cannot see this after reviewing those threads, I'd say that's pretty clueless.

  The fact that WP:IBAN is unclear, is not my fault. Notice how no one has responded to my query above, "violation or not". (Just Blackmane, Fluffernutter [although when I asked her if she actually read the thread and noted the timestamps, she was non-responsive], and Drimes [who found it fitting to ask Max to stop what he was doing; why did Drmies fold when Max told him stiff "No"? -- I do not know].)

  Here's a thought for you all to show the arbitrariness of all of this. Let's say in future I have a Q about this IBAN. So I go to an admin w/ my Q, and say "Can you help me w/ a Q I have about IBAN?" Is that a breach of IBAN? No? OK ... If instead I asked the admin "Can you help me w/ a Q I have about an IBAN I'm in with someone?" Oh my gosh! As sensitive as Max is, the pronoun "someone" clearly refers to him and no one else. Therefore it is a reference to the user, and a blockable offense! I could see Max even trying to make a case of violation in the first sentence, since "IBAN" was said, and clearly that is related to an IBAN I'm currenty in, and that must be an indirect reference to him again, and therefore a violation. This is the kind of wikilawyering that is really going on here, based on over-sensitivity, and not by me. And again, why has no one other than Blackmane and Drmies concluded that interaction exists at the Talk:Chess thread linked above, but others are unwilling to respond w/ their view? I'm the editor facing Max's pursuits and in-your-face contrarian commentary, the timestamps are important to see that it is confrontation and interaction. Yet there is no clarification here for Max for his behavior for future. Why?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  The interaction ban is not canon law or the federalist papers. Interaction bans are simple. They do not require a tenth of the interpretation you've wrung out of them across multiple noticeboards. Interaction bans (and ideally, any rule in a place like wikipedia) are not exhaustive, interlocking and potentially contradictory stipulations. They're a simple admonition to not interact with another editor. Does that ban apply if you're both on different pages in different conversations? Probably. Often you'll be expected to use your best judgment to avoid violating an interaction ban. So discussing specific edits of an editor while assiduously avoiding discussing the editor might be one of those cases where someone might have said "maybe this violates the spirit of the ban". If even the request for clarification on the scope of the ban fills you with concern that it may be a violation on it's own, maybe the answer to that request is "no, do not go do that thing." Protonk (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  I honestly didn't view posting Max's edit and critique of it as "interacting with a user", and there was nothing personal or "gaming" since my orientation and interest is/was w/ content (not to poke someone). The fact that I was harshly reverted, accused, and threatened by Sjakkalle, was unreasonable and bad-faith, but he described it as that he was more "lenient" towards me that I deserved. Pure grudge, and pure "canon law and federalist papers". So please don't accuse me of being the wikilawyer, when I'm not the one. If he would have discussed first rather than acted harshly and gotten snarky, maybe there could have been better understanding rather than my need to open ANs in view that his view was a misinterpretation behind a need to exercise a grudge. I'm fine with stupulations to use common sense and be reasonable, but that was not done to me, the same expectation should be exercised by others. I thought I was in genuine compliance with WP:IBAN after a good-faith reading. My comments re edit quality was because I'm focused on content and was nothing personal. The hyperactivity to claim I was "dancing on fringe", "wikilayering", "gaming the system", is all extreme example of the opposite of behaving reasonably, with common sense and in good faith. Why heap all the reprimand on me, when others demo irresponsible and unreasonable behaviors to the extreme? There is also the grudge factor from Sjakkalle, which is an entirely different thing too, not coverable by any policy. p.s. I would probably never have cause to think a request for clarification on the scope of IBAN is a violation in itself; however, it would now cross my mind that others are apt to jump on it in bad-faith and make such ridiculous claims, all coming out of the hostile and nasty envirnoment of the WP, including grudges to harm someone disliked. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  Ask any outside observer where the wikilawyering in this thread is coming from. You may not like the answer, but you need to hear it. Protonk (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per a nod to 199.47.72.58, and to Fluff. I don't think a short block is going to fix what is wrong, and will likely make things worse. We are at a tipping point, and the only solutions are an epiphany by IHTS or an indef block by the community, and we don't have the power to propose or enforce an epiphany. A one week block seems more akin to poking the bear. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• I do agree it comes off as punative, and feel as well there are elements of bad-faith (accusation of "gaming the system"). It is easier to "kill the messenger" than invest time/effort to explain & repair the vaguenesses at WP:IBAN. But I also know my expectations of others are too high. (So I don't take it personally, Dennis.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• This edit is mildly encouraging. Let's just make it absolutely clear - no linking to a post or thread involving the other party, no skirting the edges, no testing the boundaries, no baiting, no oblique references, no quoting, no "plausible denial", no arguing over semantics, no wikilawyering. Avoid even the perception of referring to the other party. If in doubt, just don't. I'll abide by the same. (btw don't think an IP user should be taken seriously in an ANI thread). MaxBrowne (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• But Max, you are employing "plausible denial" by justifying your aggressive contrarian posts at the Talk:Chess thread, and your research and followup in the same vein at the shogi project page (the fact I hadn't posted there earlier is an escapist argument). I actually have no problem with your in-my-face contrarian posts in discussion threads, and would never claim "IBAN violation" against you because of it, if in exchange you wouldn't get so overly sensitive if I critique the content of an edit of yours that I objectively feel is a disimprovement to an article. (However, that seems impossible now, since even though there is nothing at WP:IBAN prohibiting said critique, it's been made overwhelmingly clear to me now that admins read that in.) Nothing personal. (You have misinterpreted my query attempt with Drmies at his Talk; I was shocked to see him actually delete content discussion posts by another user in an IBAN! [Somehow that seemed very wrong to me and counter everything good about the WP.] So I went to him to try to get an understanding of the basis and what principles he was applying, as his actions seemed quite drastic; you asked what did I hope to achieve w/ Drmies? Simply to get info from his that I could undersand his rationale.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Here's an honest Q for somebody brave: Max initiated the direct dialogue and interaction w/ me here in this ANI, not me. Is anyone sure that IBAN permits this, even in a venue which permits reference to the other user, if the topic is IBAN clarification or violation complaint? (Is there previous precedent w/ this, where users in IBAN engage directly w/ one another? Where is that documented in policy that it is OK?) Just a Q; not a complaint. (My guess is there is lots of undefined and unknown, re the requrements of IBANs. That is rope to victimize someone, and victimization is such a popular sport on the WP.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• It was Sjakkalle, not me, who pulled you up for your IBAN violation in your passive-aggressive "heading to gray goo" subpage, and he was definitely not acting at my instigation, regardless of any speculations/accusations you have made. So please drop the "over-sensitive" crap. I actually think it was an unwise move on his part. The outcome was utterly predictable - massive over-reaction on your part, and several hours of wasted person-hours which could have been spent on productive editing. You were doing some good work and he should have left you to it. I have no taste for wiki-drama, in fact I despise it, and I have little respect for editors who spend more time commenting on the drama boards than they do producing content. This is why I never complained about your link to my post even though it was a clear-cut IBAN violation. I really don't want any more problems with you. I hate drama. Despise it. I hate this board too. But if you keep up with the baiting, the oblique references, the linking to my edits/threads, the "plausible denials", the semantics etc etc then I will have no other recourse. If in doubt just don't. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• But your history of over-sensitivity and imagined persecutions are undeniable in your edit history, Max. (Just sayin'.) I cannot believe Sjakkalle was stalking my edits or browsing my user subpage, on his own. Based on your proven oversensitivity demonstrable by many diffs, and your following my edits as well, it's a reasonable supposition that you tipped-off Sjakkalle, and admin friendly to you and who has clear grudges against me. (I've asked Sjakkalle to explain how he came to be aware of that edit post of yours more than once; no reply.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

"Based on your proven oversensitivity demonstrable by many diffs, and your following my edits as well, it's a reasonable supposition that you tipped-off Sjakkalle". I have stated very clearly, a number of times, that I had nothing to do with Sjakkalle's pulling you up on your IBAN violation. Are you calling me a liar? Put up or shut up, motherfucker. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that a long term or indef block could be seen as justifiable and that yes, perhaps in their current state, the editor would become worse after a short, one week block. I agree that a longer block may be needed but have to wonder if a longer block right now would be seen too much. I will say I do understand what Dennis is saying, I just wonder if we should try to take this one step at a time. But...frankly I would not be even slightly disappointed if the editor was indeffed. The standard offer would apply.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1 week block - editor does not get it, they've been given more than enough chances. Next time (and I hope there isn't a next time) should be indef. GiantSnowman 15:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1 week block, but strongly suggest indef, based on continued WP:NPA, as demonstrated above. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. Ihardlythinkso believes either that I am stalking him or that MaxBrowne solicited my help. Neither is the case. I cannot quite remember how I came across the page, it was probably via a "what links here" link where a "grey goo" title will picque interest. If I had been actively stalking Ihardlythinkso, I would have discovered the entry much sooner, not 17 days after. By then it was so old that any blocking would be merely punitive, but it was nevertheless a standing breach of the IBAN. I only issued a warning for what is a clear-cut breach of the IBAN and removed the offending entry, I didn't seek out any blocking of Ihardlythinkso over this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support 1 week block for continued and multiple violations of the interaction ban over the past two days. The smart thing to do would have been to either accept that he had crossed the line or make a polite request if something was unclear. Instead his first response was to make an absurd accusation ("Apparently you are stalking my edits with a bias against me, actively looking for a way to strike at me, and that itself is not only aggressive and biased but then unbecoming of admin."), and proceeding to open to AN threads calling for me to be sanctioned. The counterproposal by him I have already responded to below. The limits of an IBAN are nowhere near as difficult to comprehend as suggested, and the claim that he thought that putting MaxBrowne's edit on his "grey goo" list was compliant with the IBAN is implausible. The diff provided in Chillum's proposal is further gratuitous and prohibited interaction. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support, though frankly, given the relentless IDHT behaviour exhibited by Ihardlythinkso - including in the 'radical proposal' below - I have to suggest that a longer block might be justified, in order to ensure the message sinks in once and for all. Just how difficult is it for someone to understand plain and simple instructions to stay away from another editor? Not to nitpick over exactly what 'staying away' means, but to stay the %*@# away, without commenting further. At all. Ever. Even if you think the IBAN was unjustified. Even if you think the IBAN is resulting in the sky falling in... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  I have very little doubt that an indef block is heading towards IHTS if he doesn't radically change his behavior in several respects. My support of a 1 week block is not because I believe it will, by itself, solve the problem, but that it might get through to IHTS how close to the edge he has managed to get. That's probably a forlorn hope, given his block log, but I do think he should be given this last chance before the next step is taken, which is an indef block or, potentially, a community ban. BMK (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I think Dennis is correct, but this is one situation where I don't mind a bit of process for the sake of process. If we're back here in a week, give or take, the indef should be pretty straightforward. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If IHTS agrees to stay away from MaxBrowne, and actually does stay away, there is little more to discuss here. If he continues this behavior after the ANI, then there can be a case for a block. KonveyorBelt 15:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• It is preventative because he is continuing interaction after numerous warnings and prior blocks. Just read this very thread to see him still interacting with MaxBrowne. Chillum 17:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BANEX you are allowed to participate on dispute resolution, which this is.KonveyorBelt 19:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That isn't what Chillum was saying. Do you really think this is a proposed block because of interaction on this thread? Please read further.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support a block of one week to one month. Not only does this editor not understand what an IBAN is, and has continued to test the limits of the community's patience, but then this editor has insulted the community with a counter-proposal to behave properly only if the IBAN is moved and if Max apologizes. In other words, the condescending counter-offer is to behave properly only if he is able to walk away claiming victory. I would support a site ban if there had been a previous warning, which there has not. If, after the block, this editor repeats the limit-testing behavior, an indef block is needed, and the community can then site-ban. I know that Ihardlythinkso has been a constructive editor in the past, but his feud with Max Browne is causing more damage and drama than he is now contributing. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef block - A tough call, given this editor's valued work, but the attitude displayed here and elsewhere appears to be combative, hostile, defensive, and disruptive. A block should indeed be preventative and not punitive, so I call for an indef rather than a week or month, until such time as IHTS displays sincere contrition and agrees to stop the behaviors that have led to blocks. Any further disruption should then be subject to a ban discussion. Jusdafax 02:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for 1 week Given the clear consensus here I have block IHTS for 1 week. I have linked to this discussion and pointed out that the patience of the community is wearing thin. While several people suggested longer or indef block I don't see consensus for that at this point. Chillum 14:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Counter-proposal from IHTS

I have a radical alternative proposal.

1. Remove the IBAN. (Why? I really do hate it, because it's an ugly tool that effectively becomes a roving topic ban of sorts, which to me is destructive to the best content development for articles.)
2. I promise to never offend Max, going out of my way to take extreme precautions not to. (If I have a problem w/ one of is edits, I won't list it as sub-par. I'll gently go to his Talk (or the article or project discussion page) to express my view and why, and nothing more. I don't think I've edit-warred with him, so I wouldn't start that, either.) If Max wants to insult me, I will just let him.
3. I'll throw in the epiphany Dennis wants, too. (I'll never lambast another editor, or even be critical of another editor, anywhere, any reason. I'll also never swear. [That s/ make at least a couple editors I know, happy!] I'll always just be polite, and I promise to work on succinctness & brevity, which I have heretofore only reserved for my edit contributions.) If I have a legitimate grievance w/ an editor (and right now I have only two: The Bushranger's block of me which I feel was unjustified; and some of his and Panda's comments which I feel were unbecoming of admin), I will address those, if I do at all, with again, politeness and brevity, in a proper venue.
4. If I fail in any of this, then impose the block, make it longer if you want, and reinstate the IBAN immediately.
5. I only ask one thing if this is acceptable alternative proposal: that Max apologize to me here, for the nasty "classic narccisst" comments he made at an earlier ANI, to get things started on a right footing.

(I'll be out of town and unable to respond further for a few days. Thx for the consideration.) Sincerely submitted, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• No BMK (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• I would like to assume good faith on what you are suggesting, but in it I see too much evidence of the contrary.
  1. Attaching a condition that Max apologize to you would on its own invalidates the entire proposal. Everybody is required to follow the Civility and No Personal Attacks policies, they are not bargaining chips that we negotiate with. Sanctions are lifted when there has been a significant improvement in behavior, one that demonstrates that it is safe to lift the restrictions. They are not lifted because the sanctionee doesn't like them, or demonstrated that they are unable to abide by them. There is no chance that I will support lifting the interaction ban as of now. It is too late for mere promises.
  2. Over the past months you have been engaged in personal attacks, swearing [104], and constant accusations, such as the one calling me an abusive and stalking admin [105]. I have no real grudge against you. I notice only that you suddenly decided to take on an extremely hostile tone against me on January 23, and over the next weeks and months told a whole slew of editors to "fuck off" while denying that there was anything wrong with your conduct. Now suddenly, with a block staring you in the face, you claim that you can just have an epiphany? That you can just throw a switch and change your conduct suggests that your postings were not written out of real anger, but a deliberate attempt to cause grief to members of the community. An epiphany is not something you can just "throw in".
  3. Your latest statement seems carefully worded at first glance, but in reality it reeks of continued arrogance. You are demanding an apology from Max, yet there is no hint of an apology to the countless users that you have told to "fuck off" in one way or another. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• No. Per the short and brief answer from BMK...which I agree with and the longer response from Sjakkalle which is spot on.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• No, but drop #1 and #5 and we could be on the right path. --Amble (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

If you continue the I-Ban (#1) then #2 is not relevant as they would not be allowed to interact. But even if we were to drop the interaction ban, I don't see #2 as a real promise. The actual promise suggests that IHTS would still do things that would be...a bad idea, and that is to: "gently go to his Talk... to express my view and why". See...I myself see that as a problem. If the editor had said they would NOT go to the other editors talk page and stay on the article talk page I might see something worth supporting. #4 isn't even a proposal but just telling the community they can do something they already are able to do...and are doing it now. I see this as stalling only because I don't see this as sincere at the moment. #3 is the closest to a real proposal but they still define a "legitimate grievance" as issues with admin for blocks or comments which leaves a huge gap between what they are proposing and what they are actually saying.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• No per Sjakkalle. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• No This user's wikilawyering must stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I would strongly oppose any move to lift the interaction ban. If the other party to this ban were to go through at least two years of editing with no drama, no violations of WP:IBAN, no violations of WP:NPA or WP:CIV against any other editor etc etc, I may consider a request to lift the IBAN. Otherwise forget it. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The terms of the IBAN are not negotiable by either you or IHTS. The IBAN was necessarily enacted, and it quite obviously will remain in place. The "conditions" you suggest are almost as unrealistic as his. Both of you: avoid each other at all costs. Enough of this stupid drama already. Doc talk 05:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    • MacBrowne, if you'll accept some constructive criticism, let me say to you: Shut the fuck up. I think you'll find that this will be the best action on your part. BMK (talk) 11:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• No, no, no - This counter-proposal is insulting the community, in asking to have the IBAN lifted and an apology in exchange for what always should have been good behavior. In other words, "I will stop harassing the other editor if I can claim victory, but, because the IBAN will be lifted, you won't be able to ensure that I don't harass the other editor." No, no, no. As noted above, this insulting response almost warrants a Site Ban. The counter-proposal is so arrogant and condescending, when discussion is required, that it warrants an immediate block. I would prefer a month over a week. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed4u circumventing one week block

I post this on WP:AIV last night but there has been no traction on it. Fixed4u is using 85.246.179.195 to avoid the one week block placed on their account. They are doing the exact same edits which got them blocked in the first place. Helpsome (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not Fixed4u. Are you Murry1975? 85.246.179.195 (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

So even though you make the same edits to the same articles and even though Fixed4u was caught evading the block with 85.240.138.247 you aren't Fixed4u? Helpsome (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, both of you have exceeded WP:3RR by a long shot, so one or both of you are going to be blocked for sure. Helpsome, can you provide some evidence that this IP is Fixed4u? Please provide diffs of some edits that were made by Fixed4u, and the same edits made by this IP. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 14:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It isn't edit warring to remove edits from a block evading sock. Here are the diffs: Fixed4u's edit and IP's edit You can see the article talk page where the IP took up where Fixed4u left off arguing the exact same thing. Helpsome (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 31 hours, as he/she was continuing to make mass reversions, even after this ANI complaint was started. If it can be shown that the IP is a banned user, then the IP should be blocked for a longer period of time, as should the main account. You're right that it isn't edit warring to revert a sock, but you have to show that it was a sock to prevent yourself from being blocked. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 14:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand that. I really felt that looking over the edits it was plainly obvious. An IP shows up out of nowhere and reverts selected articles back to the version made by a blocked editor and continues the same arguments on the same talk pages picking right up as if nothing happened. Helpsome (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

He's back. Alltimeintheworld is the new sock. Helpsome (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks clear enough to me. I will extend the block of the IP and Fixed4u. Alltimeintheworld is indef blocked. If he continues to make new accounts, then all of his accounts will be indef blocked. 14:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Considering how easy it seems to be for this person to jump IPs and create new names you will probably be playing whack a mole for a while. Helpsome (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Report any other accounts here and they should be dealt with quickly. If he continues to evade the block by using multiple accounts, then his main account should be blocked indefinitely. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 14:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, in the future, please go to WP:SPI to report socks. It has a much more streamlined interface for doing so. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, SPI is a waste of time. Checkusers won't do any more than they feel like doing, which is typically nothing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I've all but stopped using it. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"Checkusers won't do any more than they feel like doing" -- darn right. Nor will any of the volunteers on this project. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bugs: You're a smart guy, so let me ask you: if we accept, for the sake of argument, that CheckUsers are less than energetic and diligent in their activities (which I generally have not found to be the case), do you really think that the best way to get them to do better is making those kinds of statements on the noticeboards, which you've done several times lately? It might perhaps make you feel better, but it seems to me unlikely to have anything but an adverse effect on CU morale, which will only makes things worse. I'd suggest that you give some thought to changing your strategy. BMK (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It's irksome when an admin tries to palm off potential action to someone else. Whoever they're advising to file an SPI needs to be aware that an SPI has a good chance of going nowhere. Maybe those low-morale CU's you're talking about should concern themselves with user morale. I've been hassled by a troll for five years, and no amount of SPI's have resulted in doing anything about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Long term disruptive editing by SergiSmiler

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

User:SergiSmiler has a long-term pattern of disruptive editing specifically on Miley Cyrus-related articles. The user has received 22 explicit warnings since June 2013, all for the same issues of: disruptive editing in general, addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content and edit warring. He has been blocked 4 times for the same reasons. He has also made 5 requests for unblock (4 of them denied), every time claiming that he is editing in good faith. The user's writing demonstrates he has very limited skills in English, which may be why he doesn't understand Wikipedia's policies. He has shown multiple times that he has no intention of following the wiki guidelines, due to his firm belief that what he is doing is right. He just made another disruptive edit past final warning, so I initially posted to WP:AIV, but an admin there suggested I take the matter here, due to the user's long-term disruptive editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2Flows (talk • contribs)

Hi, I'm SergiSmiler, I can only say the following: All these problems spoken, have occurred in the past, when I was starting to work on Wikipedia, now I have more experience, better understand everything that is said, but I must say that this does not seem right, if you have so many posts is because as a fan of Miley, I want your items to be the most complete! I just want to help, but sometimes, being so heavy she gave me bad results.

Please do not have in mind what is said, actually you is not so serious, gradually my edits have improved, and now accept more and better your opinions, and my strong character, by which I have been blocked on occasion , I'm controlling better. Thanks, I hope you know put in my place.--SergiSmiler (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Anti-semitic conspiracy theorist user not here to build an encyclopedia

Themainman69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started off trying to ask for WP:FRINGE end-times material at Talk:Solomon and Talk:Book of Revelation. WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:CITE have been explained to him, but he continued to request that Solomon receiving 666 talents centuries before Revelation was written be added as "proof" that Israel is the Beast, and has started ranting at Talk:Jews about how Jews were made up a couple of centuries ago. at Talk:Albert Einstein he tries to push for the POV that Albert Einstein stole everything from Germans (in isolation, not that much of an issue, but given his other views, clearly anti-semitic POV-pushing). At Talk:Jews, he intentionally misspells Jew, accuses an editor (by merit of being ethnically Jewish) of keeping Christians "in the dark", and makes bad faith assumptions about other users. When a user tried to explain why our article say what it does, Themainman69 accused him of being a religious fanatic, and told the other user "I see you have no regard for truth nor wikipedias verifiability standard," and calls him a religious nut, and tells the non-religious but ethnically Jewish editor to "Get over your religion before you fly a plane into a building for it". Given his other behavior of this is so blatantly hypocritical given his other behavior I cannot assume both good faith and competence.

This user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. He's either a troll, insane, a neo-Nazi, or some combination thereof, and this site does not need him. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

My money's on "lunatic". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I was waiting to see if I was the only person who thought our friend had overstayed his welcome. I've indef-blocked him. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. And have you considered Skeet shooting? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh wow, why did anyone put up with this guy for so long?--v/r - TP 17:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

3 days? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's four days too long, but I was only aware of his antics at Talk:Solomon and Talk:Book of Revelation until this morning. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually seven, as it turns out he created the account about three days before he started using it. I wonder if he's got some sleeper cells. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Martin S. McFly

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 sure where to report this, but this editor (Martin S. McFly) is spamming youtube links on user talk pages. Frietjes (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

And those links match ones used by a serial vandal I've run into before. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. Monty₈₄₅ 00:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone pull talk-page access, he's adding fan videos to his own talk page in his signature. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 02:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have done so, and also removed email access. If he wants to use the email feature, he can do so with his original account. I also declined his unblock request whilst I was there. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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

He's at it again, as Dos ares num. I've notified the blocking admin. --Drmargi (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:RFP backlog

Looks like it's going back a day and we could use a bit of housecleaning there. Thanks. Nate • (chatter) 01:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for a topic ban on Septate

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.

---

Septate is involved in making biased edits, picks 'Religion in..(country)' articles. Every single time he will come up unsourced information, blatant lie and sometimes he would try to support his statement with some fanpage. User has special hatred for Hinduism. Some examples of his editing;-

• • [106] (Misrepresenting French Philosopher Voltaire, that he called Hinduism to be "brutal religion")
  • [107] (Removed "Hinduism")
  • [108] (Removed Hinduism, and removed again even after reliable source was added[109])
  • [110], even after sources, he removed[111]
  • Same as above > [112], [113]
  • Removing Hinduism from pages - Religion in United Kingdom,[114], Religion in Belgium,[115] and many other countries, [116], [117].
  • Rapidly uses some fansites for invalid points[118].

History of Portal:Hinduism/Did you know shows that this user has edit warred for a dyk that never existed.

All Religion in... (country) article where he has participated, he will try to push POV by inserting the images of mosques and removing the images of other worship places. He tries to hype up Sunni sect without adding any source.[119] These are his minor fixes[120], false edit summaries.[121]

Please see the recent history of these articles.[122], [123]

Except Wikipedia:NOTGETTINGIT, Wikipedia:OR, use of edit summaries for discussion and his gossips, what I hated most that once he will know I am offline for days he will start adding same misleading stuff to articles, he actually reverts to his version.[124] [125] I recommend a topic ban on all religion articles. Septate was blocked for edit warring when he was removing the images of Muhammad from Islam page. He likes to edit war but 2 reverts every 24 hours on many pages and he will never hear anything. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've had dealings with Septate before [126], [127], [128] but a topic ban may be too harsh as he does make good edits and does respond constructively on his talk page [129]. Suggest WP:0RR or WP:1RR (and a 1 week period instead of 24 hours) instead to get him to use the talk pages more. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Most of Bladesmulti's diffs are for edits made between March and May. Maybe it would have been better to have complained about them nearer the time they were made.

I did find one recent diff, but that was for a reversion of one of Septate's edits by another editor. The other editor wrote: "Reverted to revision 615527903 by Bladesmulti: I object to this removal. The editor has not made their case on the talk page and is relying on WP:OR and less reliable sources." Which was rather a strange comment, considering that all Septate had done was to move one sentence to a section that he/she regarded as more appropriate, and delete one cited statement that said much the same thing as another cited sentence in the section that Septate was moving the other comment to. I do not know whether Septate was right or wrong to make the move - but accusing him/her of WP:OR and using less reliable sources seemed uncalled for. If we look at Septate's edits that were being reverted in this case,[130],[131] you will see that he/she refers to discussion on the article talk page in his/her edit summary. The relevant talk page is Talk:Religion and homosexuality#Hinduism. I noticed that the editor who reverted Septate's edit did not seem to have contributed to this talk page. It does not look like Septate did anything bad in that case - quite the opposite.

My experience of Septate is that he/she has improved his/her behaviour, such that things that he/she would have done a few months ago, he/she no longer does. So it probably is not in the interests of the community to block him/her for doubtful edits that he/she committed a long time ago.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all please clarify which of my edits are lies or blatant POV or vandalism. Adding statement that majority of Muslims in beligium are Sunnis is not a blatant POV in any sense. I always provide soure whereever they are needed see Islam in France. Adding images to articles and organizing them in a proper way is not vandalism. I made edits to religion and homosexuality and ayurveda after a week when you stopped responding. I have promised User:NeilN that I will never accuse another user of lying but please tell me, wasn't it a lie when you claimed on talk:religion and homosexuality that we have a concensus on wikipedia that BBC is not a reliable source for religion. I was engaged in edit war on voltaire. I was warned and got the lesson. You just want me to block from editing Hindu related articles because I raise questions when ever Hinduism is mentioned inapropriatly. I always take that matter to talk page and so no reason for ban.Septate (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The dispute regarding Ayurveda and religion and homosexuality was resolved peacefully.Septate (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It should be mentioned here that much of my disputes with other editor have been resolved and I am engaged in peaceful discussions with other editors as evident from my edit history.Septate (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It was not a lie that you should not use BBC as source on religion articles,[132](tagged copyvio) [133], [134], [135] and your gossips had to do nothing with that BBC link too. Another lie that you reverted after 1 week, I had reverted your edit on 4 July[136] and you reverted to your version on 6 July,[137] you don't know how to count or you are still as dishonest like you were before. Toddy1 have you seen [138] ? It is also correct that this user loves to make useless edits after removing or added content so that recent history on watchlist won't show major change in content. He has also abused the minor change option for making some horrible edits.

None of us can reject that if this user makes 100 edits then at least 90 edits have to be reverted because they are blatant lie or original research. Septate removes warnings but still his talk page is still full of it. Who is going to spend every single day in writing these detailed reports and gain nothing? User had been warned more than 20 times about topic ban or any other restrictions. Only a topic ban or restriction on revert(like NeilN said) can do something. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti - the edit you complain about 06:36, 6 July 2014 removing text, was immediately followed by 06:39, 6 July 2014 where Septate moved one of sentences deleted to another part of the article where he/she thought it ought to go - and I can see why he/she would think that was a better place for it. As for the other sentence deleted in the edit, it said much the same thing as the sentence already there in the place where Septate moved the second sentence to. There is nothing to complain about to ANI regarding that edit. It is a content dispute.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Septate claimed that he edited on that page after a week when he did it after 2 days. It is not hard to understand if you see some of his newest editing on Religion in Swaziland. Yes that 2nd edit was clearly useless and Septate made it only for evading the last disruptive edit that he made to favor his naive opinion. There is no content dispute with this user, because he has never really disputed anything but caused unnecessary disruption. If you revert his disruptive edits he will be mad on you.[139] What about his attacks on Peaceworld111? Septate appears to be faking that he has no access to books so that he can get a chance to remove content that he doesn't like. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, there is an auto-correction feature on my phone which sometimes causes a lot of mistakes. That's why I make a lot of minor edits and these edits are not limited to articles, I make a lot them on talk pages too. See the edit history of user talk NielN. So you can't accuse me of covering up my edits. When it comes to Religion in Swaziland, what I have done is inline with wikipedia's civility guidelines. See this [140]. User ludvonga is unable to cooperate with other users calling there edits vandalism. See talk:Religion in Swaziland which shows that his opinion was clearly original research. Now he has provided sources and dispute is resolved. So no need for false accusations.

When it comes to dispute with peaceworld see User talk:NeilN#Please take action which shows that dispute is resolved. Despite friction between me and user peaceworld we are always able to work together without ending up in an edit war, see User talk:Septate#Ramadhan greetings.

You should ask User:NeilN regarding whether I am able to verify book sources or not. I am not lying, that's for sure! We already had a long debate regarding this.Septate (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I am inviting Toddy1, User:NeilN, User:Iryna Harpy and the administrator who is monitoring this to see my contributions anf tell me whether 90% of my edits are lies or POV. That translates to 1500 edits. You are clearly exceeding wikipedia's civility guidelines.Septate (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I also want to question regarding your claim that I always make unsourced edits on religion related articles. Please see Religion in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Religion in Burkina Faso, Religion in the Republic of the Congo, Religion in Sierra Leone etc and tell me if they are unsourced. I infact organized those articles by adding graphs. At least 15 users have thanked me for my edits and it would have been impossible if I was a blatant lier!Septate (talk) 06

45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with Toddy1 that you are any good editor, you have never made a edit which would include at least 100 words because all you can do is flip and switch the words in religion articles. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Septate certainly has been a problem in the past. I had experience of him two or three months ago when he was slow edit-warring to remove images of Muhammad. The noticeable feature of the way he was doing it was by using deceptive edit summaries to cover up the removal (and adding minor edits after the removal). See my additional comments in my report here at AN3 for which he got a 48 hour block in April. I thought that he would get the message with this, but he was doing it again here in June when he tried to remove the same image with a deceptive edit summary. I haven't seen much of him since then. Toddy1 says he's improved recently (maybe he would take on the job of mentoring Septate!) although scanning Septate's talk page, including deleted notices it, doesn't fill me with confidence that that is the case. NeilN says that a topic ban is too severe and 1RR should be tried. Perhaps. Unless Toddy1 is right, Septate seemed to me to be on the inevitable road of being indeffed. DeCausa (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for comment DeCausa. I admit that I was badly wrong when it comes to article Muhammad and that's why I was blocked. I admitted my mistake. You can't use those edits as a reason for accusation.Septate (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I would not endorse a topic ban on Septate. As a newbie, he did start out as being 'overenthusiastic' and was not doing a good job on balancing POV, civility, etc. He has, however, always been prepared to discuss any indiscretions and has become receptive in taking criticisms on board. Had I considered that he was simply a disruptive POV pusher with no subject knowledge, I would have opened an ANI some time ago. The learning curve can be a difficult one for those who are particularly passionate about a subject, but that most certainly doesn't mean that he is irredeemable, and he has certainly been asking for assistance and opinions from other editors.

If he does slip backward into bad editing practices, it will become evident soon enough. A topic ban would be both premature and unnecessarily punitive.

Apologies to all for not providing diffs, but I've only just received this notification and am about to log out for the day. Should supporting diffs be needed to demonstrate Septate's willingness to work collaboratively, I'll be happy to provide them ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, also please explain, what you mean while saying that my talk page discussions are Gossips. Raising a question on talk page about some content that you feel is unnecessary does not make them gossips!Septate (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Gossip and another definition is Wikipedia:Soapboxing. Although many of your edits were worse. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with DeCausa, Septates edits certainly have been a problem in the past (systematic removal of Hinduism, rm of Muhammad pictures, edit warring). Unfortunately many of his more recent edits in June/July continue to be problematic. I will try to give some examples: Instead of removing Hinduism from articles [141] (16:45, 5 June 2014) he started to remove info about ahmadiyya (sourced) without a valid explanation: [142] 24 June 2014; [143] 13:17, 12 June 2014; [144] 12:02, 8 July 2014; [145] 13 July 2014 (ES misleading); [146] 10:52, 14 July 2014 (ES misleading); [147] 07:49, 14 July 2014; [148] 17:17, 16 July 2014; [149] 05:30, 16 July 2014.

Septates addition of images/mosques in several articles seemed to give undue weight to Islam (inappropriate size, position or number) [150] 16:16, 11 June 2014; [151] 09:13, 13 July 2014.

His changes of statistical pie charts try to single out extremely low percentages of muslim populations from "other religions" [152] 04:45, 6 June 2014; [153] 04:59, 6 June 2014 (not in source); [154] 10:14, 24 June 2014; [155] 08:41, 5 July 2014; [156] 15:47, 6 June 2014. These very small percentages are not even visible in the pie charts (UNDUE, POV-pushing?).

Other problematic edits include: unsourced addition of content [157]; changing the numbers in sourced statistical data to increase the percentage of muslims without giving another source, [158] 24 June 2014; unexplained removal of sourced statistical data [159] 17:10, 12 June 2014; [160] 13:33, 4 July 2014 (with misleading ES); [161] 05:00, 13 June 2014 and substituting recent with less recent sources or reliable with less reliable sources [162] 14:01, 21 June 2014 (with misleading ES), [163] 13:43, 30 June 2014 [164] 09:26, 1 July 2014 [165] 11:48, 16 July 2014 (with misleading ES). [166] 17:17, 16 July 2014.

At least one of his talk comments ([167]." 06:20, 21 June 2014) suggests that he might be editing to push his POV and some other comments [168] 09:22, 1 July 2014; [169] 05:59, 16 July 2014; [170] 06:52, 17 July 2014; may be interpreted as incivil or as personal attacks. Yes, Septates edits also include some constructive examples but the pattern looks disruptive to me. He seems to ignore the comments and warnings of his fellow editors (WP:ICANTHEARYOU).

I support a topic ban on Septate, if this is seen as a too harsh, I propose to follow User:NeilN`s suggestion: WP:0RR or WP:1RR and a 1 week period instead of 24 hours. JimRenge (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to [171] 24 June 2014;

[172] 13:17, 12 June 2014; [173] 12:02, 8 July 2014; [174] 13 July 2014 ; [175] 10:52, 14 July 2014 ; [176] 07:49, 14 July 2014; [177] 17:17, , as already mentioned above I made those edits because I was unable to verify those book sources. When it comes Religion in UAE, it was my fault because CIA source mentioned it but I didn't realize it. I it was my mistake and I admit it. Dispute regarding verification of book sources is also resolved, see User talk:NeilN#Please take action. NielN has assured me that he will ask peaceworld to provide quotes from book sources.

You claim regarding 16 July 2014; [178] is baseless because I made that edit after a long talk page discussion. See talk:Religion in Russia#"Islam Outside the Arab World" p418 as a source. I am busy so I will explain your rest of accusations later.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Septate (talk • contribs) 16:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Septate: alternative proposal

Proposal. Why not place Septate under an indefinite revert limitation on all religion-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before he/she makes any content revert (including vandalism), he/she is required to first open a discussion on the article talk page, to provide an explanation of his/her intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion.

Something similar has worked with another editor.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Toddy1's proposal. I'm counting 7 editors posting here. 5 have supported some sort of restriction (me, Toddy1, JimRenge, Bladesmulti, NeilN); one @Iryna Harpy: opposes a topic ban but doesn't say whether she supports any other restriction; the 7th editor posting being Septate himself. Toddy1's proposal seems a reasonable next step to see if Septate will become a net benefit to WP or go the other way. I would also like to see if Toddy1 and Septate would agree to formal mentoring from Toddy1.DeCausa (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support this proposal. I only wanted to get a quick word in on not supporting a topic ban before logging off yesterday. I'd actually like to encourage Septate to try to do some editing in non-religious subject areas of Wikipedia in order to develop a better sense of interacting with other editors/contributors without his (Septate is a he) emotional baggage triggering his WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Restrictions are a useful tool, but learning to edit in an environment where he doesn't feel that he is constantly on the defensive or offensive might be a positive experience. If nothing else, it would give him a chance to develop his understanding of policies and guidelines. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Thanks Toddy1 for your proposal. I am totally in favour of this proposal. But how it will work? Please elaborate it. Please read my user page. I am male, so stop wasting time by writing He/She. Thanks. Septate (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Septate, suppose you make a change and someone reverts you. Before you can change the content back (waiting 48 hours) you need to open a conversation on the article's take page to explain why your edit is better and wait six hours to see if there's any response. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support JimRenge (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Persistent violation will result in a permanent suspension from religion articles. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Given that all who have previously posted here (including Septate himself) seem to support this proposal what is the next step procedurally? Does it need an zdmin to close this? @Toddy1: you based this on a previous experience. What happens next? DeCausa (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

For Septate to be subject to this or any other sanction, an admin needs to make a decision. I explained what the sanction meant on Septate's talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

This is still waiting for an admin to close it.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User:BracketBot is malfunctioning

what is this i don't even Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
BracketBot was malfunctioning. He did it in a battle! Here it is. 1gr8penguin wants to duet! BracketBot used Code Sing! 010010010010000001110111011000010110111001110100001000000111010001101111001000000110001001100101001000000111010001101000011001010010000001110110011001010111001001111001001000000110001001100101011100110111010000101100001000000110110001101001011010110110010100100000011011100110111100100000011011110110111001100101001000000110010101110110011001010111001000100000011101110110000101110011001011100010111000101110001000000101010001101111001000000110001101100001011101000110001101101000001000000111010001101000011001010110110100100000011010010111001100100000011011010111100100100000011100100110010101100001011011000010000001110100011001010111001101110100001011000010000001110100011011110010000001110100011100100110000101101001011011100010000001110100011010000110010101101101001000000110100101110011001000000110110101111001001000000110001101100001011101010111001101100101001011100010111000101110 That was perfect pitch! Ultra effective! 1gr8penguin used Sopranova! I'lltravelacrosstheland,searchingfarandiwde...ThesePokémontounderstand,thepowerthat'sinside... It wasn't that effective because he was singing in Modal Voice! 1gr8penguin used Sing! Pokémon! Gotta catch 'em all! (It's you and me.) Pokémon! Oh, you're my best friend, in a world we must defend... 1gr8penguin's vocal attack power is damaged! 1gr8penguin is dead. 1gr8penguin eats a reviver seed! 1gr8penguin sent out Pavlova! Pavlova used Sing...but it had no effect. Pavlova evolves into Luciano Pavarotti. BracketBot used Whirlwind! BracketBot found a pipe. BracketBot used Pipe Snatch! It's a tenor. BracketBot is malfunctioning! Administrators, press the emergency shutoff button! When you do that, wait 1 minute. After waiting, opt in. When you opt in, Wikipedia's good to go!

Bracketbot's had some distractions lately. EEng (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Gave me a nice laugh, for what it's worth. I guess it goes to show that you gotta catch 'em all! StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. One of my better efforts, if I do say so myself. EEng (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks, edit warring on Kayastha

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.

---

Khufiya Vibhaag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Charming edit summaries: [179], [180], [181], [182]

Warnings: [183], [184], [185], [186], [187]

Someone want to tell them what our code of conduct is? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The personal attacks alone warrant a block here, not even delving into the issue of the content dispute. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 02:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Block. Personal attacks, and edit-warring. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Failure to follow accessibility guidelines

GeorgeLouis is failing to follow where TOC is placed in articles in respect to accessibility guidelines.

• WP:LEADORDER states, Users of screen readers expect the table of contents to follow the introductory text; they will also miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading.
• WP:TOC states, Users of screen readers do not expect any text between the TOC and the first heading, and having no text above the TOC is confusing..
• WP:LEADORDER states An image's caption is part of the article text. If the article has disambiguation links (dablinks), then the introductory image should appear just before the introductory text. Otherwise a screen reader would first read the image's caption, which is part of the article's contents, then "jump" outside the article to read the dablink, and then return to the lead section, which is an illogical sequence.

I first talked with him in February. I have talked on his talk page for the past couple of months. I have shown him a message on my talk page. Page also contains this message.

Last go around on his talk page started because he added the TOC in the wrong spot on several articles. He has done it again or adds TOCs in his own special way.

GeorgeLouis' replies have stated Wikipedia:There are no rules as the reason not to follow MOS. Fine. Once there is consensus to remove WP:There are no rules as a WP:policy I might reconsider. In the meantime, "There are no rules."

GeorgeLouis is not the only one that isn't understanding. The definition of "can" is one reason given for not following TOC placement in this case.

I'm at wits end. At this point I consider it disruptive editing of somesort. I don't know what to do. Bgwhite (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This is silly. I always put the TOC after the first paragraph. What is the big deal? Get off my back, and let me have my enjoyment. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Here the correct solution to get rid of whitespace would be to remove the {{-}}, which is overused IMO. Keep in mind that people use wildly different window sizes, and while the software's placement of the TOC may not be perfect, it's better than trying to hardcode for one window size. --NE2 06:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@GeorgeLouis: Compliance with the accessibility guidelines (and web accessibility standards) is a very big deal. Making things needlessly hard for the blind and vision-impaired isn't particularly virtuous. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@GeorgeLouis:: Your 'enjoyment' is literally of no importance whatever to Wikipedia as a project. The provision of information to as wide a range of users as possible, including those with visual impairments, on the other hand, is very important to it. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(Redacted) I think enjoyment is an important part of the Wikipeida project, without it there would be very few editors. There is of course no reason why GeorgeLouis can not enjoy editing and sill contribute to articles accessible to all. -- PBS (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Please retract the accusation that I am a paid editor. I've been here a decade and never had a farthing from anyone for it. My meaning - which should have been clear - was not that GeorgeLouis shouldn't enjoy himself, but that it is not the object of the project that he should enjoy himself. He was clearly arguing that he should 'have his enjoyment' by being allowed to format articles in a way which violates accessibility rules. Well, the needs of the readers are more important than whether or not GeorgeLouis enjoys himself. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC

I do not think that this refactoring of my comment by G S Palmer was appropriate. I did not accuse you of anything what I wrote was a question "AlexTiefling are you paid to place such comments or do you do it because you enjoy participating in the project?" which you have half answered. I asked it because you opened the door by belittling an editor for enjoying editing Wikipedia, and as GeorgeLouis has given that as a motive for editing belittling his/her contributions to the project -- for example taking the first article linked in this section Charles E. Downs do not all readers benefit from reading this version (2012) after GeorgeLouis edited it or before (s)he did so (c. 2010), whether or not the TOC is in the most appropriate place?-- PBS (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That's disappointing. I thought you had retracted. You introduced the previously unthoughtof suggestion that I might be a paid editor. You expected me to respond to the false dichotomy, that I must either edit the site for my own personal pleasure, or because someone else bribes me to. I reject the dichotomy, and I still dislike that you made the suggestion that I might be a paid editor. I'm here to build an encyclopedia, and to help out at the refdesk. Whether I do that for enjoyment, or out of other motivations, is none of your business, and it's unimportant to the site whether or not I enjoy it. I certainly don't enjoy this sort of discussion. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite notified me of this conversation.

The first point I would make is that the section header is biased "Do you still beat you wife?", it should be changed to something more neutral. The second point is that in my opinion that Bgwhite approaches this issue from a myopic point ofblinkered view because from the two instances I have been involved. Bgwhite seems to follow the old dictum "If the only tool one has is a hammer then everything looks like a nail", that is remove the TOC template so that anything below it becomes part of the lead. In doing this while demanding that others follow the MOS Bgwhite is causing articles to move away from the MOS guidelines, because it places information in the lead which does not belong there, and so is a breach of the very MOS guidelines that Bgwhite insists are followed to the letter.

To go through the two cases I have been involved. In the case of Cromwell's Other House the obvious solution was to add another header to move the TOC up to the end of the lead. In the end someone else did this, but instead of suggesting this as a solution Bgwhite tried to edit war into the article a removal of the TOC template as the one and only solution. Why Bgwhite? Is it because you are using a semi-automated tool called AWB to make the changes and have not added the necessary sophistication into the script to make any other change?

The second article is the one to which Bgwhite has already linked the talk page (List of knights banneret of England) I will not go into the details as presumably if someone has read this far then the link has been read. However to state "GeorgeLouis is not the only one that isn't understanding." without even the qualification of "I think" shows a battlefield mentality, which I think is the root problem here. -- PBS (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"Myopic point of view" may have been a particularly unfortunate choice of words in context. EEng (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You are of course right -- I should have adapted a Lloyd George's observation that "Mr Chamberlain views everything through the wrong end of a municipal drain-pipe" (wikiquote:Neville Chamberlain) -- PBS (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Could have been worse -- you might have referred to someone as tasteless, unfeeling, blind to reality, tone deaf, or emotionally crippled, or to something not passing the smell test, reflecting decisionmaking paralysis, or any number of other things like that. EEng (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

PBS, EEng, AWB does nothing with TOC. AWB doesn't change the TOC. Please don't make assumptions. I did add section headers to fix TOC problems. But after around the 20th undo for "I don't want a section header", I gave up. I'm dammed if I add a header, I'm dammed if I don't. It is plain simple, screen readers do not see text between TOC and first heading. Third pillar states, "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute:" Having a group of people not being able to use the entire article goes against the third pillar. Root of the problem is choosing how an article looks and/or page ownership over having all readers read all of the article. Bgwhite (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite, I don't know much about AWB, but I do know this: I've run into you many times where you've swooped down on an article and made mass changes that messed up the format or otherwise degraded the article. When challenged you point to a MOS "rule" (and I don't mean accessibility) and insist it has to be rigidly followed, despite the evidence right in front of us that doing so makes things worse -- unexpected interaction of certain templates creating extra vertical white space, for example. My impression is that you are working from some giant script that "detects errors" which aren't necessarily errors, but are sometimes potential errors, but that you don't understand this distinction. You seem to think that if these REs find it, it must be wrong. In that sense I do think your use of AWB may be behind this, but I stand ready to be corrected on that. Now then...

It is not "plain and simply, screen readers do not see text between TOC and first heading". Graham makes it clear elsewhere in this thread that what's going on is that users of screen readers are in the habit of skipping from the start of the TOC to the first header. I certainly understand not wanting to listen through the TOC just to see if there's something on the other side, but I'm not hearing that there's no way to skip just the TOC -- I'm hearing that a certain habit might cause post-TOC material to be missed. I'd like to know whether there's a way -- as an alternative to the "hit h" technique Graham87 mentions -- to skip just the TOC, in which case the habit should change to doing that, and we can (yippee!) maybe remove a rule from Wikipedia for once. EEng (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, your story sounded familiar to me. He did the same thing at list of state roads in Florida, where the obvious solution was a new section (frankly, I'm not sure it's necessary; couldn't something be done at the Mediawiki end to make screen readers not skip stuff between the TOC and first heading?). I hope the inclusion of a {{-}} between the TOC and heading is not objectionable to his scriptness. --NE2 10:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing can be done at the MediaWiki end; the problem is that almost all articles have no text between the table of contents and the first heading, so a screen reader user like me who wants to skip the table of contents (which is, frankly, most of the time) will hit "h" to get to the first heading, thus skipping any non-TOC text that happens to be after the table of contents. Putting {{-}} between the TOC and the first heading is fine, because that template doesn't generate any text. Graham87 12:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Not defending GeorgeLouis' dismissive attitude, but isn't there a key you can hit to skip over the TOC (or current caption or current other-thingamajig-clearly-quantized-by-a-box-or-something) instead of to the next heading? And if not, why not? I spent hundreds of hours in college reading texts for the blind so I am not unsympathetic, but we hear a lot that we must do this or that because screen readers and their users "expect" such-and-such, and I wonder if there shouldn't be more give-and-take over the extent to which such expectations should be met unquestioningly versus the screenreader's behavior conforming to what actually is.

A pet peeve of mine along these lines are the requirements that images be "in the section to which they belong" (which isn't always clear anyway) and that a section can't start with an image "because a screen reader will read the caption first before the listener has the context to understand it" (or something link that). I don't get it. Why are these more of a problem for sighted than for unsighted users? The visual layout of an article routinely floats images to far-away sections, and sighted users somehow deal with that. And print articles routinely open with an image-plus-caption before even the lead -- before there's any article text at all (sometimes you even have to turn the page to get to the lead). Again, how do these conditions affect unsighted users differently from sighted users?

Sorry that this is slightly offtopic but I feel I've got the right audience here and if there's a good explanation I'd be happy to hear it. EEng (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

EEng, Graham talks about your screenreader question here... I think. Bgwhite (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really. He just says what he says in this thread, which is that users of screenreaders have a habit of skipping from the TOC to the next section head, which is completely consistent with all I say elsewhere here, and doesn't answer any of my questions. EEng (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The "n" key can be used to skip to the next block of text; it does work in this case ... I don't know about anybody else, but I would never think of using it to move to the first heading of a page, because the "H" key suffices for that in almost all cases. Re: putting images in their appropriate sections, that's good for screen reader users but not *that* big a deal IMO – on a scale of 1 to 10 I'd rate it a three, whereas I'd rate the TOC issue about a nine. I've never heard of any guideline about avoiding images at the start of a section ... that sounds silly to me. Graham87 03:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• I clearly remember someone beating me over the head about putting an image at the start of a section, but I'm not sure I ever saw that in a guideline -- sometimes people make stuff like this up because they have nothing better to do, it seems.
• Now back to the main point... am I understanding that if the reader starts speaking out the TOC, if you hit n will it skip to the end of the TOC, instead of to the start of the next section (as h does)? Now, if there's nothing between the end of the TOC and the start of the next section (as is normally the case) then these are the same thing; but if you're worried about missing the possibility of text after the TOC, isn't the solution to get in the habit of using n instead of h, and not to outlaw text after the TOC?

EEng (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• @EEng: Yes, you're right about the difference between "h" and "n". But use of "h" is far more intuitive for the average screen reader user, because the "n" key is usually used as a last resort when they're aren't any other elements to navigate by. The first time I ever encountered a TOC in a non-standard position in the wiki-markup, I thought the article had been vandalised, because I couldn't find its lead section. Graham87 08:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

(Just to be clear, I think by "lead section" you mean the first section headed by "==" -- you don't mean the article's WP:LEAD. right?) It still sounds like n is the thing that will skip the rest of the TOC when you don't want to hear the rest of the TOC, but for some reason fairly (I think) described as "well, that's our habit", a lot of people use h instead. Assuming that's a fair characterization, in all candor the most logical solution to that is for people to start using n instead of h, instead of having one more rule about how articles should be organized. It's a minor point affecting few article apparently, but (just like angry self-righteous people always say in court) IT'S THE PRINCIPLE OF THE MATTER! What do you think? EEng (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Accessibility (while very important) is not the issue at hand. Just as if this were a dispute over content, it's the source of tension for our problem here. Not our problem. If there is an 'incident' which requires attention from admins or editors that's what we should look at. If the TOC location represents a bright line rule, then let's talk about giving ourselves better tools to avoid situations like these in the future. Otherwise we should just accept the accessibility issues here as best practices we hope editors follow and not beat someone about the head and shoulders with the importance of the guidance. Not saying there isn't disruption, but that should be the focus. Protonk (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I think it's the "beating about the head and shoulders" that I was talking about. I've tried to raised these points before and immediately got labeled insensitive, able-ist, etc etc. But we'll leave these points to another day. EEng (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

201.243.126.28

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.

---

Another sock of a certain user. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 03:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked by PhilKnight. Mike V • Talk 03:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

175.137.139.141

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

---

Could someone please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/175.137.139.141 and stop them? they are doing random transport vandalism almost faster than I can revert. It started with them removing all references to Euston tube (still there last time I looked) but seems to have broadened. I have tried to reason with them in case they have a serious point and are trying to accomplish something real, but they are not listening. Can someone please stop them? Thanks DBaK (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked by Phil Knight, thank you. DBaK (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Requesting urgent administrative actions against users Alessandro57, Bishonen, and Kwamikagami

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.

---

Collapsed for readability

To whom it may concern, The following series of complaints involve an administrator (Bishonen) and two regular users (Alessandro57 and Kwamikagami). --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC) Complaints regarding administrator Bishonen On 24 July 2014, administrator Bishonen blocked me from editing for a period of 48 hours for the following reason: 12:08, 24 July 2014 Bishonen (talk / contribs) blocked Kutsuit (talk / contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Edit warring and disruption at Azerbaijani Language) I felt that his/her decision was unbalanced and unfair, given that he/she only handed out a punishment against me and nobody else, even though the other two users in question (i.e. Alessandro57 and Kwamikagami) were guilty of their own Wikipedia violations that should have warranted an equal punishment, if not harsher, for reasons that I will explain in further detail below. I've been left with no other choice but to consider Bishonen's actions as biased and a misuse of administrative powers and responsibilities. If you would kindly look at the article on the Azerbaijani language, you would notice the following key events: 1. On 9 June 2014‎, I made a contribution to the article that you could see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_language&diff=prev&oldid=612183788 I have made this contribution in order to give a more accurate geographic description regarding the distribution of the Azerbaijani language. Originally, the text said the language was spoken in southwestern Asia, which wasn't the complete truth. The language is, in fact, spoken in the Caucasus region of Eastern Europe in addition to southwestern Asia. 2. This edit was reverted by Kwamikagami on 12 June 2014. 3. On 12 June 2014, I invite Kwamikagami to discuss his dispute with me in the article talk page, which he failed to do. Here you can see that I opened a discussion on 12 June 2014 regarding my edits at that time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijani_language My discussion is under the header "My recent contribution to the article". 4. Kwamikagami disappears for around a month or so, before he emerges again on 10 July 2014, reverting every change that was made by myself and others since his last visit to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_language&diff=616317393&oldid=616150597 5. Once again, I invite him to discuss the issues in the talk page, but he fails to do so. In fact, if you check the talk page of the article, you will not find a single message posted by him at all. He simply refused to discuss the content dispute and insisted that the text goes back to the last version he was happy with, even though the text changed significantly since his edit in June, and even though his action basically led to the reversion of all the contributions made by myself and other users in that one month period. 6. I go to his talk page and demand an explanation. During this time, he has continued to revert the page to his June 2014 version despite calls for him to discuss the issue. Finally, and not after a lot of pain, we agreed (in his user talk page) on how the lede sentence of the article could be written: How about this: "Azerbaijani or Azeri (Azərbaycan dili) is a language belonging to the Turkic language family, spoken primarily in parts of Eastern Europe (the Caucasus) and Western Asia (northern Iran) by the Azerbaijani people..."? Is that okay with you? --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC) Yes, that works for me. The main problem was that when we say just "Eastern Europe", people think of Poland. I don't see what benefit there is to saying "Eastern Europe" and "Western Asia", but at least this way it does no harm. — kwami (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC) An agreement has finally been reached with him and further consensus has been established with the help of another user who decided to join the conversation in the talk page of the Azerbaijani language article: What do you think of these wordings: 1. Azerbaijani or Azeri (Azərbaycan dili) is a language belonging to the Turkic language family, spoken primarily in parts of Eastern Europe (the Caucasus) and Western Asia (northern Iran) by the Azerbaijani people... 2. Azerbaijani or Azeri (Azərbaycan dili) is a language belonging to the Turkic language family, spoken primarily in the Caucasus region, at the crossroads of Eastern Europe and Western Asia, by the Azerbaijani people... ? --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 07:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC) I'm fine with the wording 2. No such user (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC) 7. Then, after finally putting the edit war behind us, user Alessandro57 comes along and changes the lede paragraph of the article back to the version as of 6 June 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_language&diff=618248384&oldid=618243427 This is followed by Alessandro57 reporting me to administrator Bishonen, which led to my 48 hour block. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC) My complaint regarding Bishonen's decision Here's what I don't understand. What I don't understand is why I'm the only one who got blocked? Kwamikagami has also edit-warred and contributed to disruptive editing. In fact, he didn't even discuss anything with me in the article talk page and it wasn't until so many attempts in his user talk page that he finally decided to discuss things with me and lead to a compromise. Didn't Kwamikagami also contribute to edit-warring and disruptive editing? In fact, he was also guilty of removing sourced content. I provided sourced content regarding Azerbaijani's linguistic presence in Eastern Europe, which he had removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_language&diff=617546553&oldid=617546369 So why didn't Bishonen hand out the appropriate punishments to Kwamikagami remains to be a mystery. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

My formal requests

1. Just as I have been blocked for disruptive editing and edit-warring, I kindly request that similar punishments are handed out to Kwamikagami, who was guilty of his very own Wikipedia violations, including edit-warring, disruptive editing, removal of sourced content, refusal to discuss issues in the article talk pages, etc.

2. I also kindly request that Alessandro57 is blocked for not assuming good faith regarding my edits, by falsely accusing me of having an agenda; for repeatedly canvassing, in order to establish consensus in article talk pages; and, finally, for his very own disruptive editing in the Azerbaijani language and Turkish language articles. Here you can find links to where he has canvassed, falsely accused me of harboring an agenda, and contributed to disruptive editing:

2a. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kwamikagami&diff=prev&oldid=617558640 (Not assuming good faith, false allegation and canvassing in the form of campaigning.)

2b. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psychonaut&diff=prev&oldid=617558172 (Canvassing by inviting a member who I was in dispute with in another article, thereby trying to use vote-stacking as a method to gain consensus. Thankfully that member didn't get himself involved as he knew it would be controversial.)

2c. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_language&diff=618248384&oldid=618243427 (Disruptive editing even after the issue was thought to have been agreed upon.)

2d. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_language&diff=prev&oldid=618248642 (In a twist of irony, he has removed sourced content without first discussing it after reverting my version. Later he realized it wasn't right and undid his edit, but this is the kind of disruptive editing he has been guilty of committing in pages that I've tried contributing to, which led to my block in the first place.)

2e. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_language&diff=617556713&oldid=617554791 (Failure to discuss it first in the talk page.)

2f. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_language&diff=617557217&oldid=617557127 (Failure to discuss it first in the talk page.)

3. Last but not last, I kindly request that an action -- any action -- is taken against Bishonen for not being even-handed in his/her administrative duties.

Thank you and please bring justice to what has happened as I feel wronged by what has unraveled in the last two days. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Since the start of June I count eighteen reverts by you in 70 total edits by all users, not only against Kwami but against a number of other editors as well. Such an editing pattern may well be seen as disruptive. In addition you have accused others of "vandalism" for edits that are cleary not. I doubt if this appeal will gain much traction. Black Kite (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Responding to this point-by-point:

1. Blocks are preventive, not punitive. Therefore, even if your accusation against Kwami had merit, the relief requested would be inappropriate.
2. I see no disruptive canvassing, as opposed to neutrally asking for input from experienced editors. Such behavior is to be encouraged (so long as it's not done to the point of annoying those from whom input is requested). All I see wrong here is perhaps a misunderstanding of WP:BRD... Alex shouldn't have reverted a second time. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander: You not only didn't discuss after reverting, you went and reverted yet again.
3. Bishonen's conduct looks impeccable here. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the block you received in light of the sheer number of reverts involved. Perhaps the article could have been full protected instead, but I believe some deference to Bishonen's expertise is in order.

In short, I see nothing here meriting immediate administrator intervention. More eyes on a page are always welcome, but that's not what ANI is for. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• • This is not an appeal. I have already served my block, but others were guilty of their own Wikipedia violations. Furthermore, counting reverts doesn't do justice to what has unraveled in these articles. Some of my reverts, which you're referring to, include these: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_language&diff=614728103&oldid=614715426
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_language&diff=615592701&oldid=615587640
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_language&diff=615449550&oldid=615443204
    These were either grammatical corrections or restoring content to how the linguistic terms were agreed upon. They're not disruptive edits at all. Furthermore, what about removing sourced content? Is that not part of blanking vandalism? The issue here is that the punishment should have been even-handed, not biased. False accusations, personal attacks, edit-warring, disruptive editing, removal of sourced content and canvassing are all Wikipedia violations as far as I know, so decisions must be taken against all parties instead of just one party. I understand if this wont "gain traction", which is why I'm contemplating taking my complaint against the administrator to Jimmy Wales. Thank you. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Once again, blocks are preventive not punitive. You were not being punished when you were blocked, your block was to prevent you from causing further disruption. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Other interesting material more directly relevant to my block of Kutsuit can be seen on her talkpage before she blanked it a couple of hours ago.[188]. Note especially that she chose not to request unblock, even though she calls the block stupid, pathetic, biased and abusive. I really don't understand why she didn't. There are four separate warnings from me about battleground editing, and especially about personalising content conflicts, in her talkpage history, starting on April 19, 2014, after I'd noticed the user on Diannaa's page and had then seen her ignore Diannaa's advice. [189][190][191] (scroll down) [192]. To my mind, the user's pattern of quickly moving advice/warnings from me off to an archive is quite striking. Here, she archived the page, and here, after a single new post, which was a block warning from me, she archived again. That pattern is not against any rules, of course, but neither does it suggest openness to criticism. A lack of such openness can also be seen in her confrontational, indignant style on her own page and elsewhere. As I said here, it's difficult to find a single soft answer anywhere in her talkpage history. She's immediately up in arms whenever contradicted or criticised. It's a wearying style, which she uses on article talkpages as well. Bishonen | talk 17:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC).

• • Two can play this game, Bishonen. You have already previously accused me of blanking my talk page for an "ulterior motive" even though I was simply archiving them and anyone is free to read them. Furthermore, you have also posted condescending messages to me in the past, telling me to "count to 10 and think" before writing another message, etc. Furthermore, another Wiki user, Volunteer Marek, has warned you in the past from threatening new members and you've also been involved in falsely accusing another Wikipedia member of making a sock account: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniellagreen&direction=next&oldid=614824220. Don't worry, the list goes on. After all, you were blocked by Jimmy Wales himself for being offensive, even when you just became an admin. Furthermore, it's funny you mention past events but I'd also like to question why you always harassed my talk page with warning after warning, while not doing the same thing with other users, such as IIIraute. In short Bishonen, you have things to answer to. And if the admins here aren't willing to see your unevenness and misuse of administrative powers, then I certainly wont mind taking it to Jimmy Wales, and again I'm sure he wont be amused. Speaking of soft, I've given many people the benefit of the doubt. Go look at my archives and see how many insults I received by other users, including IPs, but I never had them reported because it's not in my nature. You, on the other hand, have taken a biased decision against me, without handing out similar deserved punishments to the other users, which goes completely against the neutrality that Wikipedia admins should be standing for. And please just remember, I'll take this to the owner of Wikipedia in due time. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Kutsuit, I'd advise you to drop the threatening tone. It's not going to work in your favor. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kutsuit&diff=609529003&oldid=609527907
        and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kutsuit&diff=605535379&oldid=605119971
        Tell me those weren't biased or condescending. The first link shows a clear condescending tone on Bishonen's part. The second link shows threats, while the same threats (or call them warnings, if you will) were not used against the other user who was involved in personally attacking me. I see a bias and it's as clear as daylight. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) If it weren't for the sensitivity regarding accusations of administrator misconduct, I would close this discussion now. Nadia, if nothing else, your rhetoric both here and on your talk page is so inflammatory as to be disruptive in and of itself (e.g., "proposal to grill administrator Bishonen"). Your central complaint is the block was unfair and others should have been blocked. This is not an uncommon complaint, although normally it's made in an unblock request, not after the fact. Administrators have discretion to block one user and not another based on their determination as to who merits a block. The issue is not whether others deserve a block, but whether you deserved a block. Additionally, your idea of canvassing is misguided. Editors are entitled to go to an administrator's talk page and ask for help. That doesn't constitute canvassing. Moreover, administrators don't take action just because an editor thinks action may be warranted. Administrators make independent decisions, and if you believe that Bishonen is anything but independent in her actions, you don't know her very well. I suggest you let go and learn from this rather than go off the deep end as you've done.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Where did I mention canvassing to an admin? Alessandro canvassed when he went to another user and asked him for help after he accused me of having an agenda in the same message. What do you call that? Where's the assumption of good faith in that? Anyway, here's another false accusation by Bishonen: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kutsuit&diff=609526876&oldid=609525904. Falsely accusing me of harboring a grudge after I found something to be funny. Followed by a sneaky threat near the end of the comment too. I'm not here for trouble, you should know that. I just want to stop being targeted by Bishonen, which he/she has done since April/May. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    • So now you've changed what you want. You are just angry at Bishonen and want her to stop "stalking" you. I don't see it as stalking but counseling. I don't know the whole background, but at first glance, her comment (your diff) seems reasonable to me. I think she was just trying to help you, but you're taking offense. I didn't like Alessandro's comment much, either, btw, but in the scheme of things it's not terribly important. Frankly, I think you do a better job of making yourself a target than anyone else could. You should really look more at your own part in all this instead of feeling persecuted by the world.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Er, Nadia, why do you keep posting all those diffs to my posts? Didn't you notice I already posted all of them above, and isn't this long and repetitious enough? It's hardly worth my while getting embroiled in pricking all the cocksure balloons you send up, but I will respond about User:Daniellagreen. Daniella's sock was obvious enough, but I actually got the green light from a checkuser before I blocked it. I see you link to a version of Daniella's page containing only her indignant denial, immediately before the checkuser (Coren) had posted there and pricked that balloon. See also this and this. Whoever provided you with that cherrypicked diff has misled you. And I'll respond about Jimbo's 2009 block of me, too. No, it wasn't "when I just became an admin", who told you that? I was already then an experienced admin, and Jimbo lived to regret it. See the mention of the incident on this page (making a text search for "Bishonen" is the simplest way of finding it). Do feel free to take your complaint to Jimbo's page. I too am sure he won't be amused, though in a different sense. Bishonen | talk 17:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC).

Oh don't worry sweetheart, he won't regret it when he finds out how you've misused your administrative powers. Ta ta. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Bbb23, you can close this discussion now. To be honest, I didn't expect any understanding from the admins around here, but I thought I should give it a try before taking it up to Jimmy Wales. The fact is, I felt wronged to have been the only person penalized, for something that other users were equally guilty of doing. Such complacency on the part of the rest of the administrators, including yourself, could only mean that Wikipedia violations apply only to some users but not to others, in which case it's a disgrace and the shame certainly isn't on me. It's a fact that Bishonen has targeted me for many months now, and given unbalanced warnings to me while not giving similar warnings to other users who were in dispute with me and guilty of their own wrongdoings. She -- and I'm honestly disappointed to find out it's a fellow female -- has given me a hellish time in Wikipedia and is guilty of her own wrongdoings, not just against me but against so many other users too, and other members can testify to that. If you cant see how she was condescending, one-sided and biased, then there's really no use to continue this discussion. And if you cant see that she had falsely accused me of things as well, made threats and harassed me for ages, then, once again, there's no point for having this discussion. Anyway, I'll by lying if I said I didn't know that fellow admins would be quick to take another fellow administrator's side. Anyway, I'm going to make a complaint to Jimmy Wales one day and then call it a day and leave Wikipedia. There's no point in adding sourced content or making articles as encyclopedic, unbiased, informative and as sourced as possible, if they're simply going to be reverted by users who end up escaping administrative sanctions. Thanks for reading my complaint anyway, but please don't tell me that I feel like I'm persecuted by the World. What a joke. Wikipedia is not my World and should never be anyone's. Do I feel wronged? Of course. But am I going to feel sorry for myself? No, and my nature in real life is contrary to any feelings of persecution ROFL. I'm going to fight this in due time and make sure that justice is served. Take care. ;-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Nonfree image placed in heavily used, apparently protected, template

This nonfree image File:Seattle Sounders FC.svg currently displays in nearly 300 pages, only three of which are even in articlespace. It appears to have been added to a component of a WikiProject Football template, my best guess is this one -- Template:WikiProject Football -- but that's protected, and the template is complex enough (and heavily used enough) that a nonexpert like me shouldn't mess around with it. I can't even figure out when/where the edit was made that messed things up. Could somebody with the appropriate skills fix this (and, if appropriate, warn the "perp")? It should be easy for somebody who, unlike me, understands template syntax and can edit a protected template. Thanks. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Aha, found it: [193]

How to fish: add {{WikiProject Football|Seattle=yes}} to a preview, look at "Templates used in this preview" for anything portal-related. --NE2 19:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I just removed it from the Portal images list, which the WikiProject Football template was calling upon.[194] I imagine it will continue to display until the cache clears. There should be a way to have NFC automatically excluded from such uses, considering how they are all clearly tagged as such by machine-readable file licensing templates. postdlf (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

User recreating an article

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.

---

Vanste (talk · contribs) keeps trying to create his own list of animal genera. The list has been speedy deleted 3 times under the name List of Animal Genera and 2 more times under the name List of animal genera (by van waters). He was temp blocked with final warning before being blocked indefinitely for recreating the article. Now he just created LIst of van's animal genera with more or less the same content. The user seems unable to understand why this is inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. 2Flows (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• I get the feeling he really thinks he is doing something good, so while I don't have time before I leave, I recommend someone just have an actual discussion and determine competence and such. It isn't vandalism, but it doesn't belong. The two redlinks you show are 3 weeks old, so I don't think WP:salt is the answer, just a real discussion, which doesn't take an admin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: (or any admin really): See newly created LIst of Van J. Waters animal genera. Rgrds. --64.85.216.201 (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Ban for Vanste

He is not here to build the encyclopedia. There are two intentions, but it doesn't matter which is his intent. Either he thinks that he is doing something useful, in which case he is incompetent, or his edits are vandalism, probably blatant hoaxes. A real list of animal genera is not feasible anyway, because there are tens of thousands of them. Salting won't help, since he keeps changing the name. He has already been given a final warning that he is likely to be indeffed, so I propose that that be formalized with a Site Ban.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Nah, a regular ol' indef will work. The article was supposed to be a list of all animals he's seen, and it included one extinct genus. I suspect this is either a youngster or an individual who doesn't fit in, so just block and move on. Rgrds. --64.85.216.201 (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at the editor's talk page, and despite all the posts there he/she has never responded, never posted to any talk page. So I doubt that a real discussion is possible so indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. An agreement to engage in discussion in the future if there are problems and not to create any more similar articles can get get him/her unblocked. Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose wikipedia has too many nasty people. This creates hate and vandalism. A ban is like a life sentence. No, there should always be discussion and the admin must never be harsh or nasty. Then blocks for a limited period of a few months should be considered. Wikipedia is too keen on killing people for life.Stephanie Bowman (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

In what respect is a block from editing for an indefinite time period like killing someone? The block can be lifted at any time - the dead person cannot be brought back to life. This is a private website, not life, and the copmparison you're making is utterly absurd. BMK (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I oppose blocking the above user. It's already blocked. Blocking a user creates acrimony for the project in general. The contribution list of this user doesn't show any intention to damage per se just a mere ignorance. The reasons given above do not justify an indefinite block. --PeterCRames (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Your opininion is that creating hoaxes or incompetent articles doesn't damage the reputation and functionality of an encyclopedia? BMK (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

So we have two editors, with 185 and 42 edits, respectively, coming more-or-less straight to this board to plead someone's case -- and the latter, only a week old, has already done so twice (see below). This looks. shall we say, suspicious. --Calton | Talk 04:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Calton avoid personal attacks please. "So we have two editors, with 185 and 42 edits, respectively" no minimum edit count is prescribed as the eligibility criteria. "coming more-or-less straight to this board" Well, I couldn't find an insinuating course. "to plead someone's case" - I'm an uninvolved editor, my opinion may be useful to the admin. "and the latter, only a week old, has already done so twice (see below)" - I'll do more. Just voicing my opinion. If admin asks me not to, I'll stop. "This looks. shall we say, suspicious." You can say whatever you want. You have the right to speech. --PeterCRames (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Calton avoid personal attacks please. Since I have made no personal attacks whatsoever, your fallacious-and-yet-somehow-condescending advice will receive the consideration it deserves. Which is, of course, none whatsoever.

Also, the non-denial denial technique of deflection isn't as clever as you have been no doubt lead to believe. In fact, it prompts the question, "What was your previous account on Wikipedia?" --Calton | Talk 16:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

"Support indefinite, at least until some sort of explanation is forthcoming. --Calton | Talk 04:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• We do not leap to a site ban in a minor case like this. Where is the evidence for a site ban? The extensive history of abuse? This proposal should be shelved. Doc talk 09:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
• Holy cow, I've been and still tied up with less than fun real world stuff, but NO we do not site ban someone for this, Robert. You really need to pull back on the ban trigger. We shouldn't be banning someone unless they have over a year or two of serious abuse that is so bas (almost always including socking), there is no possible hope and the ban is needed for expedited handling of their diffs. CIR or basic stuff like this, no way whatsoever. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Point made. Sometimes incompetent 13-year-olds become marginally competent 14-year-olds. Point made. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, hogwash, indefinite blocks to get the attention of editors refusing to respond to (very real) concerns of disurption and/or to stop the disruption is done ALL THE TIME. Remember "indefinite =/= infinite", which gets invoked all the time? --Calton | Talk 16:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Someone removing archive.is URL en masse

Hello! First, I just want to say I don't know the whole story behind the archive.is debate. That said, someone is creating multiple accounts to mass-remove links to archive.is, most recently as User:Archive Urlz, and previously as User:Archive Jihad (now blocked). Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the latest sock and mass-reverted. Whatever the background, this is bad-faith sockpuppetry. Favonian (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. They're back as User:Archive Urlz2, however. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, is there an admin who'd be willing to watch the new user's contributions page for a while to deal with the socks? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Can't we do an account-creation block on their IP? I forget if we can. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

If they are using a smart phone with quickly rotating IPs, that is pointless. Obviously their IP is changing rapidly now, or they couldn't be recreating these due to the 24 hour autoblock. You would need a CU to look at a rangeblock, an admin won't have access to the IPs being used. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

We'll just have to deal with it like normal, then. They'll get tired of it soon enough. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

What we need is someone to make a filter to note these accounts. I've already blocked one on my own. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

That's already been done. :) Mike V • Talk 21:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

They first started removing the links few weeks ago, so filter 620 was created and seemed to work. [195] But then how are they able to remove the links again? Maybe the filter needs to be updated? 2Flows (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It had been turned off after the previous issues (because it can cause a lot of FPs). It's been turned on again now. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

User:JajaDSeries

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. Can someone please check the contributions made by JajaDSeries (talk · contribs). That's a clear disruptive/vandalic pattern, with the addition of unverifiable (and unlikely) content, among other things. I've reverted all their edits, templated them at their talk page and reported the user at WP:AIV (no response there yet), but disruptions continue ([196]). Let me add that the recent protection of Air Botswana responds to similar edit patterns made by the user and also the IP 121.54.54.XXX range. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

And this is just ridiculous.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please stop this madness? The user is well aware of this discussion as s(he) blanked their talk page.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

More diffs: [197], [198]. JajaDSeries has also violated WP:3RR already. Anyone?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

He was blocked 3 minutes before your last post. What else do you need? the panda ₯’ 23:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

IP was blocked, JajaDSeries (talk · contribs) was only just blocked a few minutes ago. Amortias (T)(C) 23:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyman G. Bennett

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 hope you can help with something. On July 18th I nominated an article for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyman G. Bennett. There was one comment to "keep", by the article's creator, and one comment by me about why it should be deleted. Following that, User:Davey2010 relisted the debate, and then closed the debate, with the result being "keep". I wrote User:Davey on their talk page to ask: 1) why the closure was marked "keep". 2) where was the relisting, and 3) why was the AfD tag removed from the article if it was being relisted? User:Davey2010's response was not helpful. My feeling is that this was not a "clear keep", and should not have been a non-admin closure. Thanks for your help! Magnolia677 (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review is better suited for this task. It is used when an editor disagrees with the AfD closer's interpretation of the consensus. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

With all respect you should know all this which is why I didn't bother answering and pointed you to a page that could help better than me!, DRV is the place to go. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by 76.14.18.226

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.

---

76.14.18.226 (talk · contribs) Stated deleted information that jeopardizes current FAMs. The person re-entering the information is currently being investigated. Please do not re-add the information. If you are affiliated, you too will be investigated. here Jim1138 (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I was the person threatened with legal action. --I dream of horses (T) @ 06:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week. --Rschen7754 06:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This seems a less of a threat, more like a promise. (post on the IPs talk page)--Auric talk 11:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Or a bluff. At least one of sourced items he keeps removing is a publicly-available US government document. So, what are the "investigators" going to do? Arrest the Department of Homeland Security? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to wait and see. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. --Auric talk 14:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Whois reports the IP being of Wave Broadband in Redwood City, CA. About 15 miles (24 km) from SFO Jim1138 (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Just an empty threat by someone used to waving authority around. Nobody is going to get in trouble for reporting public information. If it disrupts their safety over freedom campaign I will not lose sleep over it. Chillum 15:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Uncivil behavior from an IP

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

---

71.37.13.27 was very rude to me when he left an insulting message on my talk page. I wondered how such wandering IPs could the disturb the peaceful atmosphere of wikipedia. Mhhossein (talk) 06:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm unfortunately unaware of any areas of Wikipedia where we have a "peaceful atmosphere", however, I have briefly blocked for the multiple personal attacks 09:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DangerousPanda (talk • contribs)

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 50.242.210.195 at Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409

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.

---

50.242.210.195 (talk · contribs) has been pushing their preferred version of the article despite an ongoing discussion at the article's talk. I reverted their edits twice ([199], [200]) S(he) reverted these edits and after the second reversion s(he) started a discusssion at the article's talk. Another reversion came from 68.119.73.36 (talk · contribs) ([201]). Discussion continued at talk up until another reversion of them ([202]), with no clear intentions of continuing the discussion ([203]). Another reversion of mine followed, I reported the IP at WP:AIV and reverted myself, waiting for a response there. I removed the WP:AIV and decided to report the IP here as their conduct cannot be labelled as blatant vandalism. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a whole paragraph written that has NO sources, also some of the references provided are not reliable (I.e. YouTube). This is apparently original research, reverting to their preferred version. 166.147.121.163 (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this anything more than a run-of-the-mill content dispute? You removed content from the article, another editor disagreed, you had a minor edit war, you started a discussion on the talk page, and then you immediately bring it to AIV and ANI? Perhaps you should let the discussion run its course first. If it doesn't go your way, you can either accept that your preferred version of the article is not preferred by other editors, or you can go look for a wider consensus by going to WP:3O or WP:DR. Other than that, there is no reason to report this incident here, because the IP editor(s) have not done anything wrong. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 21:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read the talk page discussion fully. You're reverting unsourced content, and the IP is reinstating it without a source. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 21:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, some content that were sourced has unreliable sources. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Added a warning to the IP's talk page. If he reverts again today, he will have violated WP:3RR and should be blocked. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 21:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)

@Scottywong: Exactly. Of course, my intention was and is to continue the discussion since the topic of the article is somewhat controversial regarding the investigation, but the IP stated s(he) will not continue further and reverted again. What really bothers me is that reversion, which shows an attitude towards WP:POINT.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User conduct

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.

---

Sorry to trouble you again. I asked for help here a few minutes ago regarding a non-admin, User:Davey2010, closing a AfD debate, see [204]. In response, User:MrScorch6200 directed me to the deletion review page, and I added my concern there, see [205]. Unfortunately, User:Davey2010 quickly deleted the entry I had posted there. Would someone have a moment to speak to User:Davey2010 about "overstepping"? Thanks again! Magnolia677 (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed your complaint and relisted the AFD which is want you wanted ? .... I haven't overstepped anything, I simply closed the AFD early so relisted it for you to help out, I honestly cannot see any issue in the way I've dealt with your problem? .... –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Deletion of inappropriate revisions

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

---

An IP today attacked an established editor at Girl Meets World with these edits.[206][207] The secondi is particularly offensive so I was wondering if there was an admin out there who would care to delete these revisions please? --AussieLegend (✉) 04:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Chillum 04:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Ip 173.172.189.197

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 already has two days doing vandalism in various articles, has multiple ads for the same and ignored. Do not know if this is the right place. But this user adds soo misinformation and vandalism in several articles ago.--Damián (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• For example here, he said that there is a soap opera.

Someone should stop this.--Damián (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Have checked through contributions and reverted all the definte problems. Are still a few edits my lack of willingness to trust google translate to assist with that might want a second set of eyes though. Amortias (T)(C) 21:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Logged out bot at 71.175.26.106?

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.

---

Either a bot is logged out and continuing to edit at 71.175.26.106 or an editor at that address is impersonating a bot. Either way, it looks an issue for an administrator to address. ElKevbo (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Since bots need an authorized account I have blocked this IP temporarily. It is probably an accidental log out by a legitimate bot. Hopefully the owner will notice. If anyone recognized that particular bot please talk to its master. Chillum 03:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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

It's Reflinks (or an earlier version of it) being run in non-interactive mode, which produces the type of edits DumZiBoT used to make. It's not a bot, so I'm going to unblock the IP address Graham87 06:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack(s) and harassment

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

---

I started a serious conversation on this board's talk page [208] that has turned into... actually, I don't know what it's turned into. But it's no longer productive, and it includes personal attacks and harassment.[209][210][211]

I would appreciate it if an admin would remove all uses of the word "c*nt" in that discussion and in the discussion that followed.[212] I asked to have one instance removed,[213] but the author apparently declined. Another editor removed it,[214] but it was restored.[215]

I would also appreciate it if the editors who chose to use that word, and the one who chose to restore it, are warned. I hope I don't have to explain how they were personal attacks and harassment. However, if it is unclear to admins here how their used was personal, I will explain it. Lightbreather (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Can we just not do this... Someone collapse the entire discussion, and we all pretend it didn't happen. We don't need to start another round of fighting over civility. It will consume this noticeboard for a month or two, spread to a dozen places all over Wikipedia space, and end up at Arbcom, and nothing productive will have happened. Monty₈₄₅ 02:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. Should it get un-collapsed, though, I would appreciate a notice, as two of my diffs are listed there and neither of those were at all intended as personal attack or harassment in any way, shape or form. If I have somehow offended you, Lightbreather, my most sincere apologies, but whatever background is going on here, I am, as I said, fully unaware of. I was, to the best of my knowledge, merely responding once (well, that and two minor fixes to my own post, without content added) to Djembayz in a thread started by Djembayz. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you, AWNH. Whether or not you intended to, I think your reply to Djembayz was personal and harassment. She obviously has very strong feelings about that word. And her trout slap was a protest to its being restored to the discussion she removed it from. And your response was to use it not once, not twice, but six times in your reply. Whether you intended it to be uncivil or not, it was. Lightbreather (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe our best option is to agree to disagree here, because it is clear that we see things differently and I suspect that just as I personally disagree with your reasoning (though I strongly appreciate your acknowledgement of my apology), you will with mine. If you would like my reasoning nonetheless, feel free to approach me on my talkpage—I am willing to explain, even if I believe that we will likely remain in disagreement over this particular point—but as this discussion is closed, I think it would be best for all involved to not continue a conversation right here. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting approach, Monty845. Something is an ongoing problem - so just collapse it, ignore it, hope it goes away? Maybe it's time to stop talking about incivility and do something about it besides debate whether or not some people are "too sensitive," or a push for civility is all just a ploy by [insert name of group you despise or distrust here]. We have at least two incivility policies that are well defined: WP:NPA and WP:HARASSMENT. If someone makes a personal attack or harasses someone, warn 'em; tell 'em exactly what they did wrong. If they do it again, no matter how productive they are, sanction 'em. "That's just how some people behave," or "That's just how some people talk" are only excuses for aggressive behavior. Lightbreather (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• We aren't censored here. He used the word in context, and under no circumstances was it directed at someone. This is not an offense here. I understand your concerns, but we can't and won't block for swear words said in a general sense. It just isn't going to happen. As we said there, incivility isn't about saying the 7 dirty words you can't say on TV, it is about people's actions. His actions were not incivil. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I have this certain feeling that WP:BOOMERANG will be applied soon. Tutelary (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC) See below comment.

I don't think so. All you have to do is go search that same "offensive" word on Commons [216] (NSFW), and they will realize that seeing the text of that word is not so offensive. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Rescinded that, then. Just from my lurking, it doesn't tend to be invoked unless the action is overt WP:FORUMSHOPPING, or constant and incessant ANI reports. This ain't gonna do it. Nonetheless, my view is that the word in itself may have certain implications of being an insult, but I was reading the talk page and there was some other uses for it--mostly slang, honestly. What those editors said/did was not in the same ballpark with personal attacks, in my opinion. Tutelary (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons is not exactly the poster child for acceptable behavior. —Neotarf (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

That is twice now that Dennis has posted that link to commons saying there is something there that is supposed to show that "the text of that word is not so offensive," but honestly, all I'm seeing when I follow it is a scroll through pussy pictures. Is this supposed to be come kind of a joke? Lightbreather (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• "We aren't censored here." - I just re-read that subsection of What Wikipedia is not, which I have read before, and it is about mainspace content, not about how we work together. For that, we look at civility rules and guidelines. Lightbreather (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Dennis' spot on - Had someone been called "that" then I'd understand ... but they haden't, I suggest this being closed and everyone just moving on. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I have undone the closing (sorry, Dennis), and because gender issues are involved, I am requesting at least one female admin to participate in the close. FWIW, I already did the actions requested before I saw this thread. Some people really need to go home and look at the mirror. That's all I'm gonna say here. —Neotarf (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Neotarf! I begged DB to re-open this, which he wouldn't do, but he gave me permission to. But it was already such a mess, I just re-opened it (partially) below, partly because, after reading her reply, I believe AWNH didn't mean to be offensive. I will let you decide what to do about the split discussion. It took me a long time to compose, so I hope I don't lose all that work. Thanks again. Lightbreather (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

HiLo gave me a lecture below about re-opening, as has Davey. It's obvious that I wasn't trying to be disruptive. Mercy! Can't my comments just be moved up here? Can I do that, or now that Davey has "closed" my re-opened discussion, does an admin need to do that? Lightbreather (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• • 1. I have NEVER said you were being disruptive at all, and 2) I;m not an admin, We have so many discussions that I feel It should be just in one place ... That way we all know where we're at, –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oh FFS, that wasn't a lecture! I wouldn't say "please" in a lecture. I AM getting frustrated about all this conservative nonsense and censorship. I apologise for showing the frustration. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that the word is not inherently disruptive. Using it over and over because you know it pisses off another editor is. Just walk away from each other and don't disrupt things to prove a point. Wikipedia is not censored, it is not a venue for free speech either. It is an encyclopedia, use your words for that. Chillum 04:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Everyone gets it that some people just don't like women, or blacks, or gays, or any number of cultural and ethnic groups. But to call someone disgusting by comparing them to women, or to any other group they feel like hating on, is unacceptable. It's just WRONG. —Neotarf (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a shame that you just did what appears to be a search and destroy mission for what you see as a naughty word, when you hatted those multiple posts with what I read as a very insulting comment. You obviously didn't read and learn from mine. It was an example of Australian slang where the meaning is definitely not "to call someone disgusting by comparing them to women". Trigger finger. Unthinking and unresponsive editing. I was actually adding information to the encyclopaedia that it's obvious some don't know. But it seems they don't want to know. Sad. HiLo48 (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of personal attacks. [217]. Connormah (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there a specific administrative action that needs to be undertaken here? The OP seems to contemplate a request for a warning, which doesn't require an administrator to make. If the issue is whether we as a community should view the term "cunt" on the same level as "nigger" and "fag" (as Neotarf's response above seems to suggest), I think the Village Pump would be a better venue. ANI is the place to get things handled that need an admin. I really don't know if there's a consensus that the specific word, vulgar as it may be, is sanctionable without more. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• ArbCom has already said that saying "cunt" is not blockable. Calling someone a "cunt" would be. Already discussed, already determined. You might disagree, but you have neither policy nor ArbCom on your side, and this little non-policy-based tantrum isn't going to change it the panda ₯’ 10:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack

This discussion replaces the closed "Personal attack(s) and harassment,"[218] which I have the closer's permission to re-open.[219]

I started a serious conversation on this board's talk page [220] that has turned into... actually, I don't know what it's turned into. But it's no longer productive, and it includes a personal attack.[221] Here is what makes it a personal attack:

1. The comment was in a discussion titled "Where and how to request a Civility board"[222] that was started by someone (me) who thinks the Wikipedia WP:NPA and WP:HARASS policies (not guidelines or essays) need enforcement.[223]
2. The personal attack was in this reply,[224] in which Eric Corbett stated his opinion that Wikipedia shouldn't have a civility pillar. He ends with the sentence: "Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one."
3. The post immediately after this one, by the same editor, opened with "Speaking as one who was once blocked for using the word sycophantic...."[225]
4. It is clear from these two posts that the editor has a wide vocabulary, and chooses his words deliberately.
5. At this point in the conversation, the only female poster in the conversation was me.
6. Merriam-Webster defines cunt as 1. usually obscene : the female genital organs; also : sexual intercourse with a woman. 2. usually disparaging & obscene : woman
7. The OED defines cunt as 1. The female genitals; the vulva or vagina. 2a. A woman as a source of sexual gratification; a promiscuous woman; a slut. Also as a general term of abuse for a woman. 2b. Sexual intercourse with a woman or women; women as a source of sexual gratification. 3. As a term of abuse for a man.
8. And even Wikipedia says it is considered to be extremely vulgar.
9. So, the word is a common term of abuse for women and, in some places, a term of abuse for men. Could EC have meant it as a general term of abuse? Possibly. Equally possible, considering the subject of the discussion and his vocabulary, if he wanted to keep it non-sexist, he could have chosen - just about any other word.
10. However, so there would be no doubt, I told him that it was offensive, and I asked him to remove it.[226]
11. He did not remove it, so I did, per WP:RPA.[227]
12. Despite my telling him that it offended me, despite my removing it per policy, he restored it.[228]

Insisting on using a word after your colleague has told you, more than once, that he/she finds it offensive is a personal attack. It's as simple as that, folks. This isn't about censorship - I'm not saying we should remove the word "cunt" from Wikipedia - it's about observing workplace conduct policies.

So, I'd like to repeat my request that EC be warned about his behavior. I'm not commenting on his contributions to the mainspace. He may be a fine editor in that regard. Note that I am not saying he should be blocked or banned (unless he's referred to his WP colleagues as cunts before) - but warned. That's all. And I hope that's the end of this, because in case anyone cares to notice, this whole debate did NOT start out about anything as churlish as name-calling, and I'm disgusted that it sank to such an unprofessional level so fast. Lightbreather (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: I warned the user, explaining why I did so. I stressed that it wasn't about censorship but rather a claimed PA. I hope you two can just put this in the past. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 07:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Striked - 07:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Let it go. This is a non-starter. EC has done this before, many times, on purpose, usually to male editors who behave in a pretentious fashion, and I'm pretty sure it's mostly to see who he can piss off this week. He probably doesn't even notice if someone is male or female, There was an enormous kerfuffle over him doing this this last year or thereabouts, and it erupted in a long debate over how the word is used in the UK versus the USA (where we Yankees find it far more offensive than do the Brits, apparently). EC is just EC, he's quirky, grumpy, curmudgeonly and most of it is an act that has no actual malice behind it. Whether the word itself should be viewed through the US or UK lens is a different issue. Montanabw^(talk) 07:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry LB, but it's not going to happen (the first reply is not helpful as the "warning" is factually incorrect). Just as there are reasons some people find the comment offensive, there are reasons others don't. WP:CIVIL is clear that offensive language is a problem only when it is directed at an editor, although people have been blocked for gratuitous and repeated nonsense. One key problem is that just as offensive words can be distressing, so too can "polite" but dismissive comments. Worse are the POV pushers who politely repeat their demands in the hope of driving opponents away. Wikipedia has no good procedure to deal with anyone not socially equipped to understand the problem with pointlessly dropping offensive terms into a discussion, and there is no good procedure to deal with other kinds of abrasive and unhelpful behavior. Replacing the word with {{rpa}} was not correct as there was no personal attack. As I understand it, the issue is that a culture which tolerates such language attracts others of a similar mind while repelling a significant portion who find such a culture unwelcoming and potentially unsafe. That argument can be made (slowly), but claiming a personal attack when there was none is only going to focus discussion on the mistake. Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, have you ever considered writing some encyclopedia articles? --Shirt58 (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Blanket changes of English variants in violation of WP:ENGVAR

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:Jaguar has blanket changed the English variant on around 100 pages by script without any sort of justification. See his contributions. Changing the variety of English used without any justification, much less consensus, is in clear violation of WP:ENGVAR, the policy he himself quotes.

If he wishes to justify the blanket changes, it also seems more fitting to have a centralized discussion rather than a hundred separate ones (although I recognize that this is an unusual place for it). I have reported it here as such a staggering number of changes would be difficult to revert without a rollback tool. Oreo Priest ^talk 13:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

For the Canadian articles I checked, at least, Jaguar does not appear to be changing the English variant so much as ensuring they consistently use EN-CA. I am not seeing anything problematic in those examples. Resolute 14:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Oreo, my justification is that all the articles I edited were either Commonwealth Realms, former British territories or any UK related product that used British spelling. Belize, for example, is a Commonwealth Realm and uses British English (there's no such thing as Belize English). I also edited Canadian related articles and implemented Canadian English into them (Ontario, Quebec, Totonto etc) so my reasons for this are 100% justified and correct? The policy I quote you mentioned is an automated edit summary provided by the script. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 14:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

In the case of Canada and the Commonwealth, I have no issues, and I should have been more clear about that. Many others are clearly not Commonwealth Realms, and they clearly have no strong national ties to the UK. Belgium, for example, is not only not in the Commonwealth, but the article has always been in US English, and consensus is to leave it like that, not that you checked. Other obvious examples, include Brazil, Russia, South Korea, YouTube, television and World War II. Not only is there no obvious case to be made for changing these, but you didn't even attempt to make the case. Oreo Priest ^talk 14:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

World War II has always been in British English, YouTube was a mistake and I admit that, television I'm not sure why, even though it ties with being invented in Scotland I guess? And the other countries have no consensus? There's no policy saying that they shouldn't be in any variant of English? To be honest I didn't think anyone would even mind - it's only a few characters of changes (colonize to colonise for example)? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 14:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is a very clear policy, it's WP:ENGVAR, the one you quoted yourself. I suppose you didn't read it at all if you thought changing the English variant was legitimate. I invite you to clean up your mess by reverting each and every one of your non-Commonwealth edits, and to begin a discussion about why it should be changed in the cases where you think it should be. Oreo Priest ^talk 14:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Some of the changes that you made do not seem to be supported by WP:ENGVAR. Most topics should stick with whichever version of English it was first written in. Only in cases where there are strong national ties is it appropriate to switch from one variety to the other. For example Belgium is not a topic with strong national ties to Britain and therefore would not use that variety of English if it was first written in American English. —Farix (t | c) 14:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Since Belgium is famously "A country invented by the British to annoy the French" [229], perhaps UK English is preferable, and has the advantage that Belgium can now annoy the Americans too. Paul B (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Oreo Priest, did you try to discuss this with Jaguar before bringing it here? From my limited review I can see no indication that you even tried. It is best to try to fix the problems between the two of you before complaining here. GB fan 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

GB fan, I did not, as explained in my initial post. I realize it is somewhat unconventional to begin here, but it seemed to be the most elegant solution. Oreo Priest ^talk 14:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar: After looking only at the top of your editing history, I've reverted you at Italy and Argentina, where a search of the history established in both cases that the earliest identifiable English variant used was U.S., and there is no association with the UK that would warrant the use of British English. As others have said, this is part of the ENGVAR policy, and you should have familiarised yourself with the entirety of the policy before implementing a script. Also, I suspect you are unaware of Oxford spelling, which is used far more on Wikipedia than I had expected. This is an area that is far less cut and dried than you appear to think; I don't think it's a good area for automated scripts. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I'm a A-Level student and I took English Literature and Language - I'm aware of Oxford Spelling. Trust me, I've read through WP:ENGVAR and I understand the policy. In fact I understand it better now - the script is also manual, I have to edit articles myself. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Continued disruption

Jaguar, having had it explained that changes require a consensus, or strong national ties, has continued unilateral script-based changes of the English variants. See his contributions again. Among these are the Suez Crisis, which Canada and the US were also involved in, and Suriname, with no clear logic at all.

At this point, I move that he be blocked, at least from using a script, and that he undo all of the script-based ENGVAR changes he has done. In cases where he thinks it should be changed, he should begin a discussion about why it should be changed, and in no cases make such a change unilaterally. Oreo Priest ^talk 18:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm trying to figure out why he changed Suriname, other than a desire to remove all USENG from neutral articles, which would be against policy. Jaguar, you've never been blocked and have almost 20k edits behind you, is there a compelling reason to not block you now? I hate to be the first, but you appear to be giving the finger to the community here by immediately going and modifying articles against policy while the discussion is ongoing. That is, by definition, WP:DE. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Oreo, are you kidding me? Disruptive editing? Is that what you seriously think? I can't even believe I'm being threatened to get blocked - the thought of it is just like what? Suriname is a former Netherlands colony, it gained independence a few decades ago and by then some of it was known as British Guiana (neighbouring French Guiana today). I was going to do Guyana instead, but accidentally mistook Suriname for the British colony - they were historically tied. That warrants British Spelling. My recent contributions are not 'disruptive' and far from it, I'm just trying to place British English into its correct articles for a change, maybe I have made a couple of mistakes then, Japan, Argentina etc. Now I have been told that the original English should be kept in the articles I will happily leave them be. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Here is the problem Jaguar, you are going about this in a way that forces multiple people to watch your edits to catch things like Suriname and Suez Crisis, neither of which requires British Eng. Had they been started with it, fine, but changing the style of English on article that do not demand it IS disruptive, as is the way you are going about it. Some of your changes are obviously fine and even obvious, like Commonwealth of Nations and Greenwich Mean Time. Let me help you out a bit: If it isn't painfully obvious that the article should be in UKENG, like the two I've linked here, then ask on the talk page first. The fact that you mistook Suriname for a British Colony is the problem, your mistakes are the problem, you are erring on the side of "made the change" when you should be erring on the side of "don't make the change". I mean seriously, you made TWO such errors in the amount of time I took to type this paragraph, while it was being discussed at ANI. That is not a show of good judgement. I am wondering if Yngvadottir was correct above, and maybe the script should not be used. It is a convenient way to get in trouble and rapidly make lots of mistakes. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • As has already been mentioned above, you (Jaguar) don't seem to understand the concept of Oxford spelling. The "-ize" suffix is not and never has been incorrect in British English, and is standard in publications ranging from the Times to the Oxford English Dictionary. You continuing to make these changes is getting well over the line into disruption. Mogism (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not kidding you Jaguar. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you did not intend for your edits to be disruptive, but that is certainly the effect. I see that you have a long track record of positive contributions, which is in part why I find this so puzzling. Certainly, you know the importance of consensus when making controversial changes, especially when it was just explained to you.

I am also quite serious about you cleaning up the massive mess you have left. Hundreds of script based edits, many of which are no longer the most recent and not easily revertable, are a massive burden to undo. At this point "I will leave them be" amounts to "now that things are the way I want them, let's keep them that way". Once again, in the cases where you think there is actually a good rationale, make sure you actually provide it and first obtain consensus (after reverting your unilateral changes that is). In the case of Suriname, for example, the only logic was an implicit 'makes sense to me', and you even had the audacity to tag it to say that it should stay British English in the future. So once again, seriously clean up the massive mess you have made. Oreo Priest ^talk 18:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Further, let's be amply clear. "The UK was once involved historically with the subject" does not constitute a strong national tie. Oreo Priest ^talk 18:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• • On what bases was the variation of English changed form US to British on Sudan, Suez Canal, Suez Crisis, Poland, World War I, World War II among others. You have never provided an explanation or pointed to a past consensus as to why the variation of English were changed. One could say that these edits are nationalistic in their intent. —Farix (t | c) 18:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Oreo and Farix are completely correct here. If you could use that rationale, then everything about America that is east of the Appalachian Mountains would use UK English, which happens to be where I hang my hat. I don't think you are intentionally trying to be disruptive either, but WP:DE isn't about intent. Whether someone is intentionally disrupting or just needs to be smacked with a clue bat, the end result is the same. In this case, I'm recommending the clue bat. You seem to have a misunderstanding of when to switch to UKENG and when to leave it completely alone. Before you do any more of this, you need some mentoring or something, so we don't have to revisit this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Suez Canal and Suez Crisis should normally be in BE it seems to me, on special connection grounds, as the British were the only major Anglophone players. I can see a case for Sudan too - essentially a British invention in its modern form, and a in effect British colony for a long time. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you see a case, but he didn't make the case, strong national ties are not obvious, there is no consensus and I would in fact dispute all of these. Oreo Priest ^talk 21:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:TIES states that there must be "strong national ties" to a subject before you can switch from one variation of English to another. However, what ties the UK has for Suez Canal and Suez Crisis are not that strong. Especially the Suez Crisis, where the US was heavily involved on the diplomatic front. If you are going to make judgements on which country has "stronger" ties, then you've already failed to understand WP:ENGVAR. Case in point, World War I, where both countries were involved, but there are some editors who want to make it British English on the bases that the UK has "stronger ties" than the US. —Farix (t | c) 11:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have self reverted all of my edits regarding non-British related articles, except from Norway. I don't know why, but neighbouring Sweden was already written in UK spelling, so I've left Norway out. Everything else is UK-related. World War II was already British Spelling, I did not change it. I took that as an invitation to convert World War I to UK spelling, so you can revert me on that if you want, I'm going to leave it. The mess isn't as massive as I thought, less than 100 edits and only a handful were mistakes which I've mostly corrected now. My intentions were good, I didn't mean to be disruptive in any way. From now on I will stop using scripts for non-UK related subjects (save Canada). ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jaguar: I wish this were true. Of over 100 edits, you only reverted 8. You changed South Korea back, but not North Korea. Minecraft remains at UK English, again with no explanation given, as does television. Suez Canal, Spain, the list goes on. You have also made no effort at justifying why you think any of the remaining articles you left where they were have strong national ties to the UK. Please check WP:ENGVAR to see examples; in short the connection must be incredibly strong and incredibly clear. Please don't stop with this token effort, but finish what you started. Oreo Priest ^talk 19:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is really not a bases to ignore WP:ENGVAR, however, there are far more articles that still need to be reverted. Remember that the key words are strong ties. Not just any kind of ties that are remotely connected to either the UK or US. —Farix (t | c) 19:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm very serious about getting some mentoring from someone who knows ENGVAR inside and out. What you are attempting to do is fine, but you have to realize that Finland might be USENG while Sweden is UKENG and the reason is that the original version was just written in that version. Neither version of English is preferred for these articles. In a few select circumstances, one version or the other is more appropriate but most of those are already changed over except for a few words that need cleaning up due to us Yanks editing Brit articles and vise versa. If you see an article that you think needs to be wholesale converted, odds are good that you are mistaken. You say you have started reverting, but as Farix points out, you really need to examine all the edits you have made, or maybe make a list and let someone else look and objectively say if it needs reverting. That is a very time consuming task, unless you have a script to convert UK to US English as well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Jaguar: I'm not going to get into qualifications with you because it's not really germane plus I don't want to out myself! However, your responses here suggest that you still have not realised that not unnecessarily changing the variety of English in which the article was originally written is part of WP:ENGVAR. In fact it is its essence: the guideline was developed to prevent destructive edit wars based on individual preferences. It does not matter what variety of English Sweden uses; Norway appears to have used U.S. English from the start (things are complicated by an import from NostalgiaWiki, but I find "aluminum" in 2010), and failing consensus on the talk page that there is a compelling reason to change, the guideline says leave it be. At World War I such an argument has been made on the talk page, and I've expressed my opinion there. I suggest you do too. However, the diff of your change at World War I provides what I consider a decisive argument that you should not be making script-assisted edits in this area, because apart from the issue of policy, you are not verifying the changes acceptably. You changed [[Momčilo Gavrić (soldier)|Momčilo Gavrić]] to [[Momčilo Gavrić (soldier)|motherčilo Gavrić]]. Stop using the script. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• We should not have to repeatedly come here and have you revert your switched from American English to British English (because you are only reverting article that are being brought up in this discussion). This is further compounded by the fact that you did not explained why you made the switch for each article, which means that all these switches are suspect unless they are blatantly obvious. It's one thing to say, "harmonizing language to established WP:ENGVAR", or "Novel by a British author, using British English per WP:TIES". But by the appearance of your edits, you seem to have taken the position that if the subject doesn't have strong US ties or has very week British ties, it should use British English. However, this is not what WP:ENGVAR says. —Farix (t | c) 20:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Just floating an idea here...

I know this is not the place for this idea to be extensively discussed, let alone decided, but I do want to mention the idea that perhaps we shouldn't worry so much about mixing different version of English in our articles. I grew up reading both American English and British English books, and as an adult I worked on many productions of British English plays, so it's never really bothered me to see "colour" and "honor" in the same article. Since we carry articles in a variety of different type of English, I think the presumption is that our readers can deal with reading those different versions when they switch from article to article, so why should it be so important to keep them segregated within an article?

Mind, I'm not saying that ENGVAR shouldn't be enforced when ignoring it becomes disruptive, as in this case, I just don't think that mixing varieties within an article is all that big a deal, unless something specific is impeding the ability of the reader to understand the article. BMK (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Like --v/r - TP 20:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that is that there are differences of grammar and word usage, too. (These are more evident with Indian English, which many of us not from that part of the world are less familiar with.) It's an imperfect world, and the encyclopaedia is full of more obvious errors such as apostrophe errors, we have an imposed usage with respect to quotation marks and terminal punctuation to prevent fruitless edit-warring over that issue, and links can do a lot to help the reader (as with billion, truck, football) but for precision and clarity, I think we need to recognise that the different dialect groups do differ, and mixing them increases the potential for confusion rather than mitigating it. We can't impose "world English" even if we wanted to. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should be concerned about those things, but it's relatively simple to write "truck (lorry)", "football (soccer)" or "billion (10⁹)" in places where ambiguity needs to be cleared up. I think it's an erroneous assumption that simply having the article written in one version of English is going to clue in the reader as to what meaning they should give those words, especially if they're read out of context, as is often the case.

Again, I'm not saying let's wipe out ENGVAR altogether. It's entirely appropriate that articles about Indian subjects use Indian English, I'm just saying let's not lose sleep when versions get mixed, especially in articles for which there is no logically preferred variety. BMK (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't lose sleep, no, and I sincerely hope no-one does. But the usefulness of having a rule in this case is that it resolves disputes. Formerip (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken is spot on. Unless the changes are blatantly disruptive. I read things daily that are a mixture of both forms of English, but if someone wants to go into articles and make them one or the other I see no issue. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 21:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• A gigantic trout to BMK for this outrageous suggestion—what will the good folk at WT:MOS do if there are no rules to be enforced? Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • They'd have time to take us all out for a beer! BMK (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to ban script use for a limited time

I don't think the disruption is intentional, but that doesn't make it any less problematic. I also don't think Jaguar really fully accepts the responsibility for the script's use either, in spite of a number of people trying to explain. I'm left with only a few tools in which to deal with this problem, and "ignore" isn't an option. I don't want to go so far as to ban ENGVAR as a whole and think that perhaps he can learn it in time, thus I propose:

---

Jaguar be banned from using any automated script or tool relating to ENGVAR, broadly interpreted, through Dec. 31, 2014. Manual ENGVAR edits would not be affected. Jaguar must also participate in cleaning up the damage done to the satisfaction of the community. Violations of this ban would be dealt with using escalating blocks.

---

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I came here to ask on what rationale he changed Minecraft to Oxford spelling, and in what way the structure "in order to" violated the rules of that variety of English. This script needs to go back on the shelf and the editor needs to talk through the issues. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I would suggest just deleting the script. While it may be helpful in some respects, it yields itself far too easily to abuse and rash actions that most of us consider disruptive—such as this case. It is the hammer that is always looking for a nail. If a similar thing happened with AWB, they would have had their usage of that editing tool pulled. —Farix (t | c) 20:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I know I could be fighting a lost cause, but I must get this point out - perhaps this is being taken too far? Is there a possibility that we could be getting carried away with the problems of the script? As far as I see it, the script itself doesn't need to be re-evaluated and neither do I. I've already reverted the non-UK articles I've implemented the spelling in, so what is the point of these sanctions? So that I can never do it again? What if I just say that I will never use the script for non-UK and non-Canadian articles? I already have done, so why the sanctions? Will it get us anywhere? I will accept responsibility for what I've done, but I disagree with these threats of escalating blocks. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  North Korea, Israel, Iraq, Syria, China, Egypt, Kenya, Belize, South Sudan, Russia, Television, Computer, and Personal computer are all non-UK articles that you converted but have not reverted back. —Farix (t | c) 21:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  Farix, did you check them? I have reverted all but three back! Belize and Kenya are English speaking countries and they use British Spelling! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  What about Personal computer?--v/r - TP 21:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  I've just reverted that one back. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Great proposal. Though I do think that he should be allowed use of a US English ENGVAR script to clean up the damage. (I strongly doubt he will go overboard with this one.) Oreo Priest ^talk 22:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  If you mean under your personal supervision for a day or two, then that would probably be fine, but not on his own. He still hasn't shown an understanding of the policy in general. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  I understand both the policy and all what you have told me. In a nut shell, stick the national spelling to their respective national articles. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  I can supervise him to clean up the damage, sure. I'm concerned that requiring to clean up the damage will lack teeth, and he'll shirk actually reverting any but the ones manually pointed out to him, and even then he'll skip some of those. It's what he's been doing so far. Oreo Priest ^talk 21:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The problem is not with the tool, it's that the user doesn't understand the ENGVAR policy. His "In a nut shell" comment just above only confirms that he doesn't understand it. Given that, he should not be encouraged to change the variety of English used in any article, whether manually or with scripts or other tools. --Amble (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Using a script to change the variety of English is basically a bad idea. That should be done manually. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - This seems like a good way to go to encourage the editor to learn ENGVAR by doing manual changes. BMK (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with Robert McClenon. The proposed ban is a bit long, but it's only on script-assisted edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• FYI The changes to Television had not been self-reverted by Jaguar as of about two hours ago, when I noticed and reverted them. I then got curious, checked the source of the evidently unjustified and oddly incomplete (it was still "color" in most places) changes, and was very surprised to find that this example of arbitrary and tiresome AE>BE orthographic imperialism was due to an experienced editor. AVarchaeologist (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I have no idea why Jaguar is making these changes but he definitely means well. Rather than a ban which seems rather forceful and bureaucratic given that he doesn't have a long history of repeated offenses, I simply suggest that Jaguar just avoids making such changes and we can all move on. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  This is why I didn't propose an ENGVAR ban, just a ban of the tools. If you don't know what you are doing, doing it faster isn't the solution. This ban will allow him to fix ENGVAR issues on any article, Wiki-wide, he just can't do it at the speed of sound. The alternative is to allow to keep using the tools, making lots of errors and end up getting blocked. This is the least aggressive way to deal with the problem. Also note that it is for a fixed time, not indef. He doesn't have to come grovel to get access back, it is automatic. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  Dr Blofeld, you were present the last time Jaguar's mess had to be sorted out. If he had a history of making such monumental messes, I'd have argued for a community site ban. Blackmane (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Mistakes have been made. That's enough for me to advise shutting this user's toy down for the year. Carrite (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  That's not very nice is it... ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but I don't like automated content editing. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Use the opportunity to familiarize yourself with ENGVAR, and edit cooperatively. Clean up your inappropriate changes, which becomes more time consuming when others have edited the article after your changes. Do not use a script to implement changes which are likely to be controversial. Edison (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Strong opposeSupport. Mistakes are not something I am willing to support a ban on the tool for. Losing battle I know...but I feel strongly enough to add my voice in that direction. Dennis said; "I don't think the disruption is intentional, but that doesn't make it any less problematic". Sure...that is true, but if it is unintentional...warning the editor would be the appropriate measure. Anything else is punitive in my opinion. Also...I don't like the community service suggestion of making the editor suit up in an orange jumpsuit to pick up the trash on the side of the road. OK...that was an analogy...but my point is made...I hope. It seems it didn't take long for the editor to prove they weren't being completely honest with us. This seems to suggest this was a purposeful attempt to disrupt after all of the warnings on this thread alone. I would even support a short term block at this point per Dennis Brown.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  I don't think your analogy works. It's like making him pick up the trash that he himself littered by the side of the road instead of giving him a ticket for littering. Not one article more than that. As is, he keeps repeating that he has cleaned up all his mistakes despite the fact that it is manifestly untrue. He hasn't even cleaned up many of the mistakes that have been manually pointed out to him by other editors! Surely you must agree that he is responsible for that. Oreo Priest ^talk 11:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  Sure, I get that, but on Wikipedia we do not hold mistakes against an editor. Now, if he was warned and ignored the warnings, as long as those were specific, then it was intentional. But the report doesn't say that and I actually trust Dennis to have that right. Like I said, it is a loosing battle but it is how I feel about it.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  Surely asking him to clean up behind himself doesn't count as holding anything against him... Oreo Priest ^talk 17:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  Absolutley. In fact I believe we should all be willing to clean up our messes, but we should not have that as part of any required sanctions.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support I was originally on the fence about this, but seeing Jaguar's reply to me I am convinced this ban needs to happen and it should be indefinite. Blackmane (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support – The fact that he's continued to use the script during this discussion warrants a good whack with the cluebat as well. Mojoworker (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Question Editing with a script is not a subject with which I am at all familiar, so this is clearly a question asked from a position of ignorance: Is the problem the script itself, or in Jaquar's misuse of it? Would the exact same script used by someone with better judgment be non-problematic? BMK (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  Even when you use a script, you are responsible for what that script does. If it screws something up, you don't blame the script, you blame the user. Here, the script made errors that he didn't check, PLUS the script is helping him make judgement errors at an accelerated pace. The problem is still Jaguar and his judgement, and removing access to the script may keep him from getting blocked or topic banned altogether. He still needs to learn ENGVAR, as his understanding of it is very, very flawed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

We are going too overboard with these idle threats of blocks and sanctions! I know that after I say this I'm just going to get hit with a lot of recoil - but let's step back and take a look at what I've actually done with this script. It's literally not a big deal - the script changes a few characters of a few words in a article (ize --> ise, or --> our, o --> oe) and whether or not people see it as disruptive, it just isn't! I've already reverted the few bytes worth of extra characters I've put in a few non-related UK articles. What's the point of these sanctions and criticism? The script is literally changing a few "bytes" of characters, I don't endorse the changes to non-UK or non-Canadian articles, but people are getting too carried away. I wish I'd never edited Belgium and none of this would have ever happened. And now I've said that, I'm ready for the abuse... ☠ Jaguar ☠ 09:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This comment shows that you still don't understand the scope of what you did. You weren't merely "changing a few bytes". You were changing the vary language that was being used on the articles. The reason for it? You didn't—and have yet to—give one and you were doing it on a massive scale. WP:ENGVAR is very clear that you don't make such changes unless (a) you get a consensus or (b) the article clearly has strong ties to the UK. Even when you claimed to have reverted all of your mistakes, editors had to repeatedly point out more articles to you. You only reverted an article when an editor specifically pointed it out to you that you should not have changed it. —Farix (t | c) 10:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Quite apart from the issue that you have been ignoring the essence of WP:ENGVAR, which is do not change the variety of English without good reason, you allowed the script to change a person's name in World War I. You were not responsibly monitoring the changes it made. I'm sorry for the emphasis, but you have been told this, and it matters. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

ENGVAR is a delicate and sensitive consensus. By rolling into town with automation, you are essentially cutting cookies on the front lawn with an ATV. Carrite (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, no one should be running a script to convert a large number of articles from American to British English or vice versa, hence why I think said script should be deleted outright. However, if it is not going to be deleted, it needs to be recoded to use some sort of white-list (for both users and articles) along with a popup telling the editor using the script that they are responsible for its use and that they should that there is a per-established consensus for such a conversion. —Farix (t | c) 19:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The script itself is OK, it's just that there are certain things in it that could be improved. For example "in order to" should not be deleted as this has always been used in UK spelling, and in some cases the script did not change "color" into "colour". With the script's creator's permission, I could have adjusted the script myself and optimised it. The script is widely used by other editors, I saw that I was not the only one who used it. Deleting it isn't the right thing to do. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Jaguar's cavalier and dismissive attitude is shown by "We are going too overboard with these idle threats of blocks and sanctions!" Please believe that you are not reading "Idle threats." I would certainly block a disruptive editor who refused to follow ENGVAR. Far too much time has been wasted in years gone by in pointless arguments over which version of English is "correct." Color vs colour, Push up vs Press up, and countless more. We do not want to revisit every such long-drawn out and pointless argument. Edison (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no correct version of English, it is essentially the same language however I have corrected my mistakes and familiarised myself with ENGVAR, thus I have stopped using the script for non UK and Canadian related articles since this ANI discussion has come to light. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep on repeating this tired old lie. You have not corrected all of your mistakes, not even close. You have corrected only ones that have been manually pointed out to you, and even then you have skipped fixing many of those. You need to make a good faith effort to fix all of your mistakes, without skipping ones that seem fine to you, and you need to not make it another editor's problem to clean up behind you. You have so far shown remarkable audacity in insisting you've cleaned everything up, when there are still dozens of articles left unaddressed. Oreo Priest ^talk 08:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Jaguar, you're treading very close to the line, if you haven't crossed it already, of disruption similar to when you created hundreds of articles on Chinese towns and cities citing the same source without checking that you were referencing the correct page of the source because you didn't understand the language. As then, you are now arguing that what you did was "not a big deal". Unfortunately, what you did turned out to be a big deal and resulted in all of those articles needing to be nuked because of the sheer number of wrong references. I forget the exact number, someone might remember, but it was well over 1000 stubs. The trouble is that your percentage of errors is high enough that it would warrant checking of all of the associated edits and because it is interspersed with enough good contributions that it rises to the level of disruption. This is not about bringing up old soup but to show that you have prior history of causing this sort of disruption and then trying to defend it. Blackmane (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

My last ANI discussion was two years ago and by that time much has changed. This script I've been using, the fact that I have made at least a dozen mistakes compared to creating nearly 10,000 stubs are not noticeable in this case. My intentions are always good, and in this case I have reverted my mistakes and stuck to UK and Canadian related articles. I don't know what else to say without repeating myself. Everyone makes mistakes, and I know that 10,000 stubs sounds like a large number but it is nothing compared to my good contributions and all the notable things I've done for this encyclopaedia. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if you do say so yourself. EEng (talk) 06:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what that's supposed to mean? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 08:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It means that since it's the community's judgment of your contributions -- not your judgment of them -- that matters, it's not only irrelevant for you to offer such an opinion, but immodest as well. If you want to raise the question tastefully, you might say something like "I like to think my mistakes are outweighed by my good contributions..." and then wait to see how others respond.

Your own userpage offers (apparently proudly):

There is nobody on Wikipedia, and not even a bot, that created 10,000 articles and having 8,250+ of them deleted... thinking about it still angers me, but I tend to cheer myself up a little bit by thinking "Oh my god, I've made history!"

This is the kind of thing people like Anthony Weiner think after making utter fools of themselves. Also on your userpage you quote yourself thus:

Even if you have knowledge, you have to have wisdom as well.

Try thinking about that.

Finally, you need to learn what the term notable means in the context of Wikipedia -- your contributions are certainly not WP:NOTABLE, unless it turns out you're really Prince Harry or something, and even then there would be some additional hurdles to get past. EEng (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

EEng, I am sorry if you show anger towards me but I think that's needlessly personal. Comparing me to Anthony Weiner and taking quotes out of my user page for mockery is out of the question. You have to make the most out of grim situations, so is having any shred of dignity "being a fool" in your books? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow. You have an explanation for everything. To "make the most" of your past, and regain your dignity, the best way would be to admit your mistakes and show that you've learned from them, not brush them off. EEng (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

See, there's the rub. You used the same argument as last time. You try to convince us that we can just dismiss your error rate against the weight of your good contributions. You do make a lot of good contributions, that's not in doubt, but the point has always been that the volume of your contributions means that even a small error percentage results in a large number of edits that need to be checked. Consider an error rate of 10%, if an editor had that over, say, 20 edits so 2 errors. in the grand scheme of things that would be unnoticeable and not much effort to find and fix. Most editors would just drop a note on the editor's TP and move on. One could easily open up 20 tabs on a browser and fix it with not too much time spent. Blow that up to 200 edits, so 20 errors. Now the effort expended would be pretty considerable, especially when the edits are interspersed at random through the 200. Now, go up to 2000 edits i.e. 200 errors... You see where I'm going with this? The effort to fix a small error rate magnifies very rapidly when dealing with a large volume of edits. Even considering a smaller rate of errors, lets say your dozen errors are interspersed over 1000 edits. Because of your prior history, do you really expect editors to have to sift through a thousand edits to correct your errors?

The one thing that is doing my nut in is how you keep trying to convince us to dismiss your error rate against your contributions. "I know that 10,000 stubs sounds like a large number but it is nothing compared to my good contributions" This one sentence makes me want to pick up my keyboard and throw it through a window. Do you have any idea of the amount of time that was spent in that last case? As I'm pretty good at reading simplified Chinese, I decided to check through 20 and found all of them to have wrong references. I decided to correct 5 of them to get a gauge of the effort required. Each of those stubs required a minimum 40mins to 1. find the correct page to reference, 2. correct the reference in the stub, 3. read through, 4. translate into English, 5. edit to avoid violating copyright, 6. double check for errors. That's 200min, over three hours spent fixing your mess and that was only 5 stubs. You seem to have zero understanding and appreciation of the efforts spent. Blackmane (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

And as before, he seems fully intent on making other editors clean up behind him. Oreo Priest ^talk 16:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen someone this clueless. An ANI open about their incorrect use of a script and what does he do? Continue using the script while the discussion is still open. That's basically flipping a birdy at everyone who has posted here, isn't it. I'm almost tempted to propose a block for the duration of this discussion. Blackmane (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Careful. There's very stiff competition along those lines. EEng (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• This has been open 5 days now, and is probably ripe for closure. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree; the way I see things is that I will either be revoked from using the script, be blocked, or left alone. The choice isn't mine to make, but if it were I would leave things be as I have and will not edit any more non UK and Canadian articles using the script. With the script creator's permission I can edit the script for myself to optimise it (I've looked through the source, it isn't difficult). There was little damage done and it was quick to be fixed, I'm glad things didn't get worse for all of us. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, you keep saying it was fixed, while others are saying it is not. Part of this proposal says you MUST fix all of them. Keep that in mind. If you were wise, you would have already fixed them all, perhaps saving a vote or two. If you are smart, you would fix them now without the waffling. It wouldn't bother me if the closer asked Oreo Priest to supervise that portion of the sanction by making a list that others can check. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:37, 24 July 2014 (

Conclusion

I have made a table down below showing all of my ENGVAR contributions in total. This shows what are non-UK or non-Canadian (I've put this as "non-UK" to clear confusion), UK related and ambiguous. Of all the non-UK ones you will see which ones I have reverted and for the acceptable ones which ones are remaining the same. I think we're all getting tired of this; people keep saying that I have not reverted all of my mistakes. Well these below show nearly all the ones of which have been corrected. I have looked through my contributions about five times today, every non-UK article has been reverted - it's true! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

UK related	Non-UK (reverted)	Ambiguous (not reverted)
Jaguar F-Type	Suriname	Television
Kenya	Sudan ‎	Suez Canal
Olympic-class ocean liner	Spain	English language
Papa New Guiana	Russia	World War I
RMS Titanic	North Korea
Montserrat	South Korea
Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha	Japan
Anguilla	Poland
Saint Kitts and Nevis	Ukraine
Northamptonshire	Brazil
Bahamas	Belgium
Grenada	Computer
Guyana ‎	Personal computer
British Raj	Iraq
George Town, Cayman Islands	Syria
Bermuda	Iran
Castries	Israel
Saint Lucia	Italy
Cayman Islands	Argentina
Sierra Leone	Suez Crisis

I keep on hearing things like "fix your mess" and "clean up your mistakes" for the past two years. So let's take a real look at what this script does, shall we? This is a revision difference for the Cayman Islands which is one of many I have used with the script. Click on the link and you will find that the script has changed a monstrous and devastating 27 bytes worth of data! It changed the words "specialized, in order to, cooperate" and a hyphen. The script has successfully changed US English to UK English according to ENGVAR. So let's delete the script, block Jaguar and keep on at him because the mistakes (which have been reverted) are unacceptable. Everyone makes mistakes, we're only human. I've read through ENGVAR, I understand fully now, I have kept well clear from non-UK articles and will delete the script for my personal use if need be. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You just NOW reverted Computer from your change. Add that to all the other articles where you didn't revert until after those articles were explicitly pointed out to you. On top of that, you are still justifying converting the "ambiguous" articles from American to British. If it is ambiguous to begin with, then you shouldn't be convert from one variation of English to another. You have repeatedly demonstrated a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from when the problems were first pointed out to you to now. In fact, you still keep claiming there was no problem to begin with despite every other editor that has commented on the issue stating the exact opposite. This shows that you have absolutely no business using a tool like a script to do mass changes of this type because who you've shown a complete lack of competency to both recognize and correct your mistakes. —Farix (t | c) 19:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. If these edits are so trivial—as you've repeatedly claimed—that you don't understand why everyone is making a big deal about them, why are you even changing from American English to British English in the first place? —Farix (t | c) 20:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Farix has phrased it quite well, especially as regards WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Oreo Priest ^talk 19:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my original comment that changing the ENGVAR tag in any article should be done manually, to give the editor a chance to consider the implications for that particular article, and should not be changed by a script for multiple articles. I thank Jaguar for reverting the improper changes, but the fact that he had to be nagged to revert the changes indicates that he shouldn't use a script to do them. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Jaguar has not fixed the Spain article as he alleges above. His only two recent edits there were his original 'engvar' edit and then a revert of another editor to his own preferred version with an incorrect edit summary.

He has still not undone his changes to the China or Egypt articles, in spite of them being brought up specifically in a list by Farix above and his prior claims to have fixed the items on that prior list.

Where he has actually reverted his changes, he has done so without even making a token attempt at preserving others' edits that were made subsequent to his changes, see the WP:POINTy edit summary, "Restoring American spelling and broken refs. " where he reverted both his changes and subsequent fixes to other parts of the article.

His pledge to "not edit any more non UK and Canadian articles using the script." was broken 14 minutes later with this edit to an article about a sovereign country.--Noren (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. I should have known better than to believe Jaguar when he said he'd fixed the articles that he claimed. Now my comment below seems naively optimistic. Oreo Priest ^talk 21:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh boy. We editors can only assume so much good faith, however, that "non-revert" on Spain is pushing that assumption extremely hard. —Farix (t | c) 21:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't stand this any more. People are too quick to judge and too quick to criticise as everyone here demonstrates. I've just looked through Spain and found that I have accidentally reverted my ENGVAR edit back to my own revision. Honest to god it was a complete accident, I was meant to revert it to the revision before mine (which I have done to all the rest) so why would anyone think I would need to keep Spain in British English? How does that make sense? Now it's the domino effect - someone accuses me of being dishonest for lying when it was a accident on which I did not know! Someone could have kindly pointed out to me that I made a mistake on Spain, but instead I have to be labelled as a dishonest liar, even going as far to convince Mark Miller who had the right idea of opposing the proposal, but thanks to the manipulation people have provided them in this ANI discussion everyone has turned against me, even when I'm trying to do the right thing. "It seems it didn't take long for the editor to prove they weren't being completely honest with us. This seems to suggest this was a purposeful attempt to disrupt" - just look at what people here have made someone think when it's NOT TRUE.

This has gone on far enough, it's making me feel mentally deprived! This sort of thing doesn't help my insomnia and severe depression. This ANI discussion has turned from being a discussion about a few mistakes concerning a script to a personal witch hunt against me. Everyone has themselves to blame to falsely accusing me of being (quote) "dishonest, liar, Anthony Weiner, Prince Harry, fool, tiresome, clueless and my favourite, imperialist". Just look at what you've all done at me. Block me then, delete the script because if this has to go on any longer I'm going to have a mental breakdown. Mock me, take out some quotes out of this paragraph. Go right ahead. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHERAPYCombatWombat42 (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Jaguar, it isn't about you, it's about your behaviour: a limited part of it, at that. It isn't even about your intent, it's about your use of the script. You continued to use it. You never even mentioned World War I above - I must be going blind, I didn't see you listed World War I the kind of article that indicates why ENGVAR is a prickly issue, I might add - despite my having where I have twice mentioned here that you let the script change someone's name. So here's the third mention. You need to stop using the script. That's it. You could have simply voluntarily stopped using it, and shown us that you realised you had inadvertently been careless. You didn't, so you need to be told to stop using it. That's all this is. Stop using the script. Make the changes manually if you feel so ineluctably called to work in this contentious area. The milk's spilt now - several editors have been over your edits, checking them. At Spain and Russia, editors have found your fixes undid others' work - but that work has now been put back. As others said earlier, the faster the script changes were reverted, the lower the likelihood of its being complicated - but we're past that point now, so what's left is for you to stop using the script, plain and simple, and then the reason for this review of your edits will be removed and so, presumably, will this section. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Jaguar, we have given you ample rope and assumed tons of good faith, but over time you've showed us that you are not acting in good faith. Calling you dishonest because you've been behaving dishonestly is completely legitimate. You continually insisted that you've addressed everything, while you have left many things unaddressed. Every time I've pointed this out, you have made no attempt to address the concern or solve the problem. At time of writing, you still haven't addressed the articles I pointed out below.

You have shown remarkable resistance to understanding the essentials of WP:ENGVAR. It's not a byte count, it's not 'I think it seems right', it's not 'I've changed it now so there's no point changing it back'. It's keeping an article at its original variant, and changes occur only when there are both strong national ties and a consensus.

You have many times complained that we're out to get you, and thrown up your hands as if it's some foregone conclusion. This despite the fact that we outlined very specific courses of action to remedy the situation, which you chose to ignore or partially ignore. I don't see why you writhe, squirm, complain and dissimulate when you could simply have taken the time you spent complaining to actually fix the mistakes you made. Take some ownership for your actions instead of playing the victim. Oreo Priest ^talk 20:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar:, you have no one to blame but yourself. Editors have asked you repeatedly to undo your actions because they where disruptive, yet you stubbornly refused to do so. Getting you to revert any one article is/was like pulling teeth. An editor is responsible for their own edits, no one else. But to this date, you refuse to take responsibility for your edits. It is that stubbornness and refusal to fix your mistakes even after they were pointed out to you repeatedly that caused editors like Mark Miller to change their minds about you.

And let me end with this final note on a much broader scale. There is no script to convert British English to American. The reason for that is not because no one thought of creating such a script, but because such a script is considered a bad idea that will encourage disruptive editing. So we don't need a script to convert American English to British? —Farix (t | c) 10:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously what matters is the content, not the byte count. Nobody's suggesting you be blocked either, just that you not be allowed use of a script you've proven you can't (or at least didn't) use responsibly. Any "keeping at" you would be because you still haven't finished, nor have you understood why what you did causes a problem as evidenced by the 'byte count' comment.

I appreciate the list. I still don't see why you insist that you've made a complete list when you clearly haven't. Here are some of the more glaring omissions:

1. Jumping Flash!
2. Minecraft
3. YouTube
4. China
5. Norway
6. Antigua and Barbuda
7. The Bahamas

Also, you really need to understand that sovereign countries, or parts of them, that were once British don't automatically have British English. Please revert those, and obtain a consensus before changing them back. Likewise for the cases you've labelled 'ambiguous'. If you could do that, as well as address the list I've made, then that would basically be the problem solved. Provided, that is, that you don't make unilateral changes in the future and don't use the script. Oreo Priest ^talk 19:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Jaguar, the community's patience is wearing thin. You have been obtuse and in some things your actions have looked downright dishonest. You are bordering on needing a block instead of a topic ban. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to Close

I think that at this point Jaguar, has willfully disengaged, won't get the point, or both. The consensous seems clear that (s)he

"... be banned from using any automated script or tool relating to ENGVAR, broadly interpreted, through Dec. 31, 2014.
Manual ENGVAR edits would not be affected. Jaguar must also participate in cleaning up the damage done to the satisfaction
of the community. Violations of this ban would be dealt with using escalating blocks."

At this point I think we should close and implement the consensous of the community. --Adam in MO Talk 04:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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

I will take the initiative to ensure he complies; this will be on his talk page if anyone else cares to participate. I will report back if he doesn't comply. Oreo Priest ^talk 07:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Group vandalism on article

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 sure if this is the right place, but the article Peter Skrzynecki is currently being heavily vandalised by a group of IPs and vandal accounts. Admin intervention including blocking the (probable) socks and protecting the page would be welcome. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Obviously conflicted edits to A2 milk

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.

---

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

BC has declared (in a way) a conflict of interest with regard to, "extensive work I carried out on the A2 milk article". BC has not declared who paid the "fee" in question but has suggested that as their contract or agreement didn't specify "promotion" in particular, they are exempt from the provisions of WP:NOPAY. Nonetheless, the original "extensive work" constitutes this major rewrite of the article in line with this draft.

That edit did a number of things -

• It increased the prominence of "fringe" claims (including the suggestion that A2 milk might diminish the symptoms of autism)
• It introduced (twice) a story about the mainstream milk industry trying to "discredit" A2 products
• It introduced a story about a rouge operator fined for making dishonest medical claims, described by the edit as "a small Queensland start-up" but by news media as "one of A2 Corporation Ltd's major licensees in Australia"
• It inferred scientific and medical concerns with regard to A2's competitors (the makers of regular A1 milk) framing each claim as being backed by strong science thus forcing "denials" from milk producers, framing "adverse effects" as being "disputed by some scientists" rather than those adverse effects being assertions from a handful of fringe scientists (as they are).
• It listed a number of studies on (non-human) animals with regard to a particular element of non-A2 milk, inferring danger to humans if extrapolated (without acknowledging that no such human trials had been conducted).
• It introduced a suggestion (in Wikipedia's voice) that regular milk should be compared to opioids or narcotics by comparison to A2 Milk.

...and made a significant number of other changes. The edit was reverted but then reinstated by BC after they "reinforced" their position on the article talk page. This has been a fairly consistent MO since - BC posts what he/she believes is a strong argument against a particular criticism on the talk page and then shortly thereafter reinstates a section citing no immediate argument with their claim.

Whatever the arrangement with BC's employer, BC's original edit, edits since and draft article are all obviously designed to promote A2 Milk in general and the a2 Corporation in particular. BC should absolutely be held to the provisions of WP:NOPAY at a minimum and be confined to editing the talk page with {{Request edit}} templates. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Response: I am a consumer of A2 milk, which is now a leading milk brand in Australia, and am interested in the subject of why it is different to normal supermarket milk. The article on A2 milk on Wikipedia was a stub and flagged for poor grammar, poor construction and poor sourcing. Considering (a) the market share it has in Australia and its entry to the UK and US markets, and (b) the conflicting views among scientists on its potential health benefits compared with normal milk and (c) the range of news stories and serious television coverage it has received in New Zealand and Australia, I considered I could, with extensive research, greatly improve the article.

I approached it the same way I approached other articles I have completely rewritten and expanded -- among them East West Link, Melbourne, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany, Joseph Franklin Rutherford and Watch Tower Society presidency dispute (1917). The exception in this case, knowing it would be a huge task, was to arrange for a fee for my work. I have not set out to promote A2 milk; my intention was and is to present more information about it, its history and the scientific disagreement -- issues that have also spawned a book, Devil in the Milk by a NZ agricultural professor, and widespread media coverage of the milk and a number of questionable tactics by rivals who have lost market share. I posted a disclosure notice on my user page before replacing the shitty stub with my much bigger version.[230].

A couple of users objected to my use of Devil in the Milk and some primary sources (scientific papers) in the science section and immediately began a campaign of denigration and canvassing, labelling the article and its sourcing as "fringe", "weird", and the lie that it was "based on anecdotes and a few primary sources".[231]. (At that stage it contained more than 40 citations to news reports). I fully accept that I was not familiar with WP:RSMED or its requirements and was content to have that section removed while I reworked it with better sourcing. User:WhatamIdoing also intervened to point out that a couple of editors were misusing BRD: instead of deleting sections or flagging sections for better sources, they simply reverted the whole article. I also agreed with the removal of a section on digestive benefits of A2 milk, agreeing that anecdotal claims were unacceptable.[232]

Throughout the process I have endeavoured to be co-operative and collaborative. However I have encountered rising levels of antagonism towards me and my edits, particularly once it became more widely known that I had accepted a fee. This is all laid bare on the talk page, culminating in a personal attack by User:Stalwart111 which blatantly breaches WP:AGF. [233] That user has also demanded that I cease editing the article and offer suggestions on the talk page.

I have zero confidence in this system working because of the collection of hostile editors who are acting as gatekeepers.

On 16 July Stalwart111 removed a paragraph from the "background" section, then on the talk page requested "incredibly strong MEDRS sourcing".[234] Since then I have provided a string of high-quality sources to satisfy his request and finally a grab-bag of statements from a range of websites by Googling a couple of terms to demonstrate that the fact I added as background is widely accepted science. When there was initially no response after I listed those quality sources, I reinstated the paragraph; he promptly reverted it again[235] claiming that "consensus among others is contrary to your opinion". That was a lie: there had been discussion up to that point, either agreeing or disagreeing with the list of sources I had provided. Still no one has discussed what is a plain statement of scientific fact -- a fact completely supported by the sources I provided and typed out as quotes.

On 19 July User:Roxy the dog altered the wording in the article's lead section from "There is no consensus that A2 milk has benefits over "A1" milk" to "There is no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk". [236] This is a very clear case of cherry picking, and provocation: the statement, although correctly sourced to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), is not an accurate and balanced statement for an encyclopedia. I started a new thread, pointing out that the EFSA review was just one of four reviews I'm aware of: two others said no such thing and referred to scientific evidence they found "intriguing" and worth further study.

In short, a number of editors on the A2 page have now become obstructive and are, I suspect, editing the article -- and blocking my edits of the article -- in order to denigrate A2 milk as a form of pushback against my edits. In the current version of the article I see nothing that markets or promotes A2 milk, or makes false claims, or presents fringe science. This is what others claim is there and as a result are questioning my motives. I say again: I am now NOT promoting A2 milk. I have read WP:NOPAY carefully and I am convinced I am not bound by its requirement to edit the article through the talk page using them as mediators. I have been working on Wikipedia for many years, have created, expanded and improved many articles. This one, to me, is no different. It was shitty, and I can improve it. And I have not finished: I am still reworking an extensive section dealing with the conflicting science findings and the series of reviews of published evidence. BlackCab (TALK) 05:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack - that's an assessment of your suggestion that while you've accepted a fee and have made promotional edits, you're not subject to guidelines related to accepting a fee and making promotional edits. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

So help me here: what, in the existing article (the result of early collaboration and compromise), is promotional? Serious question. BlackCab (TALK) 05:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm . Not much - that's the point. We successfully resisted your efforts to turn the article into a glowing endorsement of the subject and a stinging rebuke of its competitors. But those efforts (and your dissertation above) demonstrate that you are incapable of approaching this subject in a neutral manner. To be honest, I'd have concerns with your edits even if you weren't being paid to make them - your agenda seems pretty straightforward, with or without a pay-cheque at the end. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

If "we" had our "our" way the article would still be the shitty stub, which is what "we" (User:Bhny and User:Roxy the dog) reverted it to in a tag-team manoeuvre,[237][238] with a sham appeal to BRD. (Neither editor was willing to engage in meaningful discussion: Bhny immediately started his surreptitious canvassing campaign with misleading claims at two noticeboards; Roxy's contributions have been laced with sneering sarcasm.[239]). It was only the intervention of User:WhatamIdoing—who actually read my edit and reinstated material that was clearly unobjectional [240][241]—that took the article to what it is now. I accepted this. I accepted the removal of the "Digestive benefits" section. I accepted that the science section needed to be reworked. I made all this clear on the talk page. From that point more -- quite innocuous -- material was deleted; my subsequent attempts to discuss this and reinstate (a) a one-paragraph statement of scientific fact and (b) the fact that there is no consensus over the benefits of A2 milk have been met with obstruction, derision and abuse. I am doing all I can to collaborate. And Stalwart111's final little insult ("I'd have concerns with your edits even if you weren't being paid to make them) is yet another unwarranted attack on my good faith. Just examine my record. BlackCab (TALK) 07:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Through following further links from WP:PAID, I have located a June 16, 2014 update to the Wikimedia terms of use pertaining—for the first time—to paid editing. I have therefore updated the disclosure notice on my user page. BlackCab (TALK) 08:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No, if "we" had "our" way you would have complied with WP:NOPAY to begin with, proposed edits on the talk page and we would have avoided your initial attempts to turn the article into a marketing tool for your client. You didn't and we're here because you continue to believe those rules don't apply to you. And you forgot Jim1138, Second Quantization and an IP who all objected to various parts of your various claims. And your new declaration makes it clear you are being paid by a public relations and media management company for whom A2 is a major client. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I have requested comment from the Wikimedia Foundation on this issue: their new Terms of Use do allow for editors to accept a fee, so how do they view a situation such as this? Did they envisage that an editor who did so would consequently be subjected to such a tirade and a clear pattern of obstruction? But in the meantime I'll ask again, if Stalwart111 can just draw breath from his outpouring of venom and vitriol: what, in the existing article (the outcome of the collaboration and compromise achieved after the intervention of User:WhatamIdoing), is promotional? And can he please return to the article talk page and express a view on whether the sources I promptly and comprehensively provided in answer to his request support the paragraph he removed? BlackCab (TALK) 12:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh please, it's not a "tirade" or "venom" or "vitriol". You and your multinational corporate client are not the victims here. WP:NOPAY is very clear - "you are receiving, or expect to receive, monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (as [... a] contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public-relations purposes...)". You fit squarely into that category. Why do you insist that the rules don't apply to you? I've answered your question - it isn't promotional now. But we've all been subjected to long and repetitive discussions by someone who is being paid to argue with us. WhatamIdoing? reinstated only 17,000 bytes of your 53,000-byte promotional edit. So about 35,000 bytes of promotional material was removed by the "compromise" you were forced to accept. And I've removed more since. And you've been fighting 6 editors on that talk page ever since. And you openly admit you want to add more. Either play by the rules or don't; your choice. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

"I have requested comment from the Wikimedia Foundation on this issue: their new Terms of Use do allow for editors to accept a fee, so how do they view a situation such as this?" You can accept a payment, but you are still required to follow WP:COI and WP:PAY. "what, in the existing article" The more interesting question is, if no one had stopped you, what would the article look like? We know the answer to that: [242]. See WP:COIADVICE as well, particularly If the article you want to edit has few involved editors, consider asking someone at the talk page of a related Wikiproject for someone to make the change.. Second Quantization (talk)

Obvious promotional content is obvious. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

And obvious collaboration is obvious. I have accepted without demur the edits made early in the piece. Now a simple scientific statement has been removed and will not even be discussed, and a claim has been inserted into the lead based on a cherry-picked source. And I am subjected to non-stop abuse. BlackCab (TALK) 22:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

BlackCab, you're a long term and productive editor, so I don't understand why you've put yourself in this position by accepting a fee for contributions. Your edits to this article have brought forward a quantity of potentially useful sources and contributed to a more detailed piece on A2 milk. Whether these meet MEDRS is a live content dispute on the article talk page, which is where it should be. And the article as it currently stands is certainly a more comprehensive treatment of the subject than it as a few weeks ago. Its current form (thanks to various contributions)is not overly promotional, or is within the bounds of what can reasonably be argued out on a talk page.

However, it remains that you have a conflict of interest in editing an article on a company where that company is paying you to do so. This edit, at the least, contained material that other editors rightly considered promotional and lacking a neutral point of view. Increased scrutiny of these edits is not routinely harrassment, but part of the stricter examination of potentially COI paid contributions. You have appropriately declared that conflict on your userpage, though I think most people would dispute your claim that you are under no obligation to promote the product. Your PR agency is not funding your edits from a sense of philanthropy and whatever your independent intentions, it would be their reasonable expectation that the article you produce would be in the commercial interests of their client.

So: the declaration is great and in accordance with one half of WP:NOPAY. But there is a strong discouragement of paid editing, which is what you are currently engaged in. How about you now follow the other half of NOPAY and propose any further edits to this article solely on its talkpage rather than adding them directly to the article? Euryalus (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Euryalus. If the article on A2 milk is to be complete and thorough, it still needs to cover its history: how and why it came to market. This is essentially a section that deals with the science—the initial concerns that led to someone to decide to produce a milk free of A1 betacasein and the series of scientific reviews that followed. I concede (and have done so all along) that the science section (as with the digestive benefits section) was a bit ham-fisted, mainly because I was unaware of a Wikipedia policy on primary sourcing (the findings of researchers, even in peer-reviewed journals) on medical issues. In the days after uploading the article, I realised a more diplomatic approach would be to do just that: create a sandbox, drop the intended copy there and point to it from the talk page and invite discussion.

The problem now is that the hostility towards my edits and me personally have risen to levels that make any collaboration next to impossible. As I have mentioned, there are still two outstanding issues on the talk page that cannot be resolved because editors are focusing on the fee (and what they see as my compromised position) rather than the content: (a) an innocuous (but highly pertinent) scientific fact about the release of peptides during digestion of milk and (b) an edit that seems to be a deliberate negative twist in the lead, based on a cherry-picked source. Really, what hope do I have of sober, productive collaboration? I am on the receiving end both at that page and right here, of unwarranted abuse and a very clear lack of AGF. It seems to me my chances of progressing on the article now are practically nil. Wikimedia Foundation created Terms of Use that allow what am I am doing. Other editors need to accept that and work with it ... and me. BlackCab (TALK) 23:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Being a paid editor does not allow you to draw unsupported conclusions and put said conclusions into wikipedia articles. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The collaboration process involves accepting the input of other editors and I have done that. Whatever errors of judgment I may have made in my first venture into paid editing have been removed and I have accepted that. Other editors have now ceased collaborating and are focusing on insult, obstruction and in the case of Roxy the dog[243][244] deliberate provocation. BlackCab (TALK) 00:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

And still Roxy the dog persists in removing a {{dubious - discuss}} tag on the false statement he added based on a cherry-picked source.[245] That edit is still under discussion. BlackCab (TALK) 02:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

And you keep edit-warring it back in. Nobody else agrees that statement is "dubious". You failing to hear what others are telling you is not the same thing as "still under discussion". Not a single person (here or there) has agreed with your suggestion that you should be exempt from WP:NOPAY or that your edits at A2 milk have been anything but promotional and tendentious. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Proposal - BlackCab's paid editing experiment has been an unmitigated disaster. Nobody is suggesting their contributions prior to this have been anything but constructive and positive. They have comprehensively demonstrated an ability to contribute productively to a range of areas over the course of many years. But that seems to have gone out the window at A2 milk. BC continues to believe that the provisions of WP:NOPAY should not apply to them, despite having clearly outlined that they fall into the category of editors specified there. Despite the issues, I firmly believe that blocking them would be a net loss to the project. But something must be done, if for no other reason than the promotionalism and argument has now transitioned to edit-warring. I ask that BlackCab be topic-banned from the subject of milk, broadly construed. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - My first reaction was to think that Doc James or WP:Medicine folks should be called in, but I see that was done long ago. Given the violation of WP:Promotion and an extremely argumentative display here and on the talk page, it's fairly easy to conclude that BC is being disruptive, even without the edit-warring. A milk-only topic ban is appropriate. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - Does the current article read as a promotion? Stalwart111 says above "it isn't promotional now." Is the article an improvement on its original stub? It covers much broader ground and is better sourced, so yes. Am I edit warring? I have twice reinstated a {{dubious - discuss}} tag on an issue that is still under discussion on the talk page. That's it. Am I argumentative? I have certainly argued my point on the talk page and on this page: that's the point of a talk page. Am I being disruptive? No. I have disrupted nothing. I am trying to collaborate, to resolve disputes on the talk page, but struggling against editors who have become hostile. A topic ban would be unwarranted. I am still seeking some meaningful, informed input on the issue of paid editing, which is now within the Wikimedia Terms of Use. My reading is that I am not promoting the product and am therefore free to edit the article. Others clearly disagree, and I think this issue needs fuller, reasoned discussion. BlackCab (TALK) 05:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from milk, based not on paid editing but on use of Wikipedia for promotional activity, which is already prohibited by policy. User's edits would support topic ban whether or not there was a COI; in fact, status as paid editor is rather superfluous to this discussion. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I see no benefit to the project for sanction of any kind on BC, as once this drama is over I seriously doubt he will want to return to this topic. As a consumer of a2 milk, BC must believe in the benefits as having genuine science backing, (as so successfully promoted by those who gain financially from the market segmentation.) His disruptive behaviour and disregard for COI related policy and guidelines such as WP:NOPAY stem from the fact that he is acting "in good faith". As an extremely experienced editor with considerable writing talent, this first foray into paid editing and a scientific topic has been unpleasant, and this drama is the downside of his lack of understanding of the way we interpret scientific evidence. Nobody gains if a sanction is applied. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• I fully agree with a topic ban. I regard paid editing as a pariah to this project. Blackcab does decent work in other areas and I disagree often with him on his views but paid editing is a BAD THING...Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• On a side note conflicts of interest seem to be BC's biggest flaw as a contributor, the disturbing part is the singlemindedness to push their POV, I think that they can be contained but especially where there is vested interest we should be proactive more rather then wait for them to sneak in more whitewashing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose a topic ban. Absolutely not. There's an accusation that BC's edits have been sub-standard because they were paid to edit the A2 Milk article so the solution is a topic ban on milk? What if they're paid to write about bacon? Will we have that discussion again, until topic areas have been exhausted? No. Protonk (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No, the suggestion is that BC's edits have been sub-standard because BC cannot approach this topic from a neutral point of view. BC says their edits are only promotional insofar as they have developed a personal opinion about the subject no related to their paid employment. This topic ban proposal extends beyond that particular article because A2's competitor is A1 milk (basically all other milk). I've seen no evidence BC wouldn't be able to edit "bacon" related topics neutrally, as they have done with all other subjects beyond milk. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support a block or whatever else can be done to stop this disruptive paid editor. Bhny (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• support limited restriction The direct edits when no one was watching were clearly promotional and directly editing when one has a COI seems a bad idea in all situations, but they appear to be engage productively on the talk page. I suggest they be formally banned from directly editing the page, but allowed to continue in discussions and to make suggestions. The disruption is not so severe that a ban from all edits is necessary, although admittedly I haven't followed the discussions closely since I last contributed. Second Quantization (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment

I've stayed away from Wikipedia for a few days to cool down and collect my thoughts. I'll say this: I did make some misjudgments in the beginning with some of the content I added and I regret that. I went in hard and I should have trodden more lightly. It's clear that paid editing is a pathway that's fraught with danger, it can easily be misinterpreted and it clearly raises strong emotions. This was my first venture into it and in the end perhaps Stalwart was right: it was an unmitigated disaster, though I embarked on it with the best of intentions. Having said that, I'll repeat that of the six crimes Stalwart accused me of at the outset, five disappeared from the article (without objection from me) within 24 hours. The sixth is Stalwart's rather tortured interpretation of accepted science, though I accept that if it can be read that way, it should be reworded to remove ambiguity. Essentially the complaint against me is for something I wrote but which has long since disappeared through the normal process of collaboration. My attempt to remain working within the ToU has apparently been decided by some consensus to have failed, and the loudest voices here agree that my efforts were in the end promotional. (This was not my intent, but I accept my first edit injected a promotional element, which I regret). If the consensus is that I should approach the article only through the talk page, I will comply with that. I still have material on the history of A2 milk I wish to add, and the Chinese situation should be updated. But if it's decided that after all these years, all these edits and all this belated grovelling that I just can't be trusted, there's nothing I can do and I'll accept that and return to what I usually do. There have been some unfair and inaccurate claims against me, but c'est la vie. BlackCab (TALK) 10:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• By far your most level-headed, reasonable and collegial contribution to the entire issue to date, especially when read together with your equally tempered post-break comment on the article talk page. Genuine regret, agreement that your original edits were promotional and a willingness to consider the best way to contribute moving forward. Significant concessions. How you contribute is still up to you (I've made my thoughts clear) but the fact that you're now willing to consider an alternate to processes employed thus far is a big step forward. Your break (intentionally of otherwise) stopped the edit-warring and the above strongly suggests you don't intend to jump back in and start that up again. If you can commit to waiting until a genuine consensus has developed on the talk page, I think we can work collaboratively on a proposal for a scientific history section and Chinese section. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• That's a reasonable response, if and there's a big if in that one...If Black Cab will agree to a 1rr restriction or at least a very strong commitment to stray from contentious issues a full on topic ban may not be needed. I think we all have flaws as editors and as long as we address those sanctions are to avoid disruption and not punish. I think they still have enough bonafides to address this. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• As indicated above, I will approach this only through the talk page. I have already done so using the {{Request edit}} template with success. I think we can move along more harmoniously now. BlackCab (TALK) 02:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Absolutely. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Move to close

Given the above and what's now happening on the talk page, I think this can safely be closed and archived. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Operation Protetective Edge Background SYNTH issue

I initiated discussion on the original research noticeboard and made reference to it at the talk page of 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict regarding the background section being a classic example of SYNTH. There has been little traction and now the whole thing is locked down. The reasoning behind allowing the paragraph to stay is solely based on "other stuff exists". Can we get a couple eyes at the other noticeboard? I honestly can't see how the info can stay but would feel better if folks took a look and gave a quick summary based on policy for it meeting Wikipedia standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Operation_Protective_Edge.23Background — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.13.27 (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Israel is trying to kill off or cripple as much of the Hamas war machine as they can. Is there some issue about that fact? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It is grossly out of line that Wikipedia actually has had a live edit stating: "The pro-Israeli version is that..." for a day now. Every major RS notes that the spark was kids getting killed on both sides. It is fun to try to assign blame and I thought that there was no way edits so out of line with WP standards would stand. I was incorrect. This is a good example of why Wikipedia is losing both editors and readers. No one reads past the lead anyways so it isn't a big deal. La Familia can continue to the fight in the street since the internet is obviously a boring cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.13.27 (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Do or did they likewise have "The pro-Hamas version is that..."? If so, it would at least be "balanced". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Please help solve this gentle dispute and disagreement on deletion of the Article Future Group

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 , as you can see here , me and Msnicki have tried and failed to come up to a conclusion regarding deletion of the article . Msnicki feels this article is self published , not notable and ought to be deleted , all of which i politely yet firmly disagree . As much as i can view its revision history (i am not admin to see all of it), this article seems to be created/moved by a trusted user . I happen to came across this AFD and , knowing the familiarity of the company here in India, i decided to save it.(lets just say, you cannot go past 10 miles in any major city in India without coming across one of its supermarkets or fashion stores . They are literally all over the place; verify this with a google search , if you may :)). After a thorough R & D, i have added much more contents in it , even stuffing in stock exchange listings of one of its operating companies , but the user doesn't seem to get along with it . Would appreciate expert intervention, Thank you -- Sahil 05:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have relisted - the "keep" !votes don't fully convince me - in fact, some people there seem to have no concept of notability. I'd prefer to see additional policy-based discussion. Note: that's a community discussion, not a fight between you and Msnicki. *NOTE*: Sahil, can you please fix your signature, as it does not link to either your userpage or talkpage as required the panda ₯’ 08:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course its not a fight , we are just in disagreement :D . I feel i had been polite throughout just as much as co-editor Msnicki , correct me if i am wrong. Oh, and about the sign , i dont know why my four tildes aren't working. If anyone can , please help me out at my talk page ( although thats a totally different topic) . Peace ! -- Sahil 09:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Bennett (actor)

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.

---

Looks like the subject is part of a targeted campaign. The comments are getting into WP:BLP territory. [246] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

AfD speedy closed (no prejudice against re-nomination by a legitimate editor, if there are any reasons for such.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The article itself appears to be a perennial target of throwaway sock accounts, so if a few people could add it to their watch-lists, that would be great. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I know we don't fish, but there might be a legitimate reason here for a CU to match the sock accounts to a master. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I will take a close look at this in the morning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Not to mention username abuse (see the various editor"s" who have edited the article and !voted). Softlavender (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Update: Unsuprisingly,  Confirmed via checkuser as to all suspected accounts. All socks already indeffed by Dennis Brown. I've upped the sockmaster's block to indefinite also as this is a single-purpose attack account (plus, in context, the username is impermissible). I've also indeffed a couple of attack accounts that show up earlier in the article history. Fut. Perf. has semiprotected the article and I'd ask that people watchlist it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced edits from 82.35.64.69

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

---

82.35.64.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The above ip address keeps adding unsourced material to articles about years in British television, often without fully explaining their significance. An example might be "Gray O'Brien is to leave Coronation Street later this year", which doesn't fully explain who he is or why we need to know he's leaving the series. I started off looking for sources for this stuff, and offering some gentle guidance, but it's going on for a while now, and is getting a bit monotonous. Often the information is inaccurate in some way, and I've asked repeatedly if they could provide sources for the entries (they're obviously finding it from somewhere), but never get a response other than to see the appearance of another random entry later the same day or the next day. I've resorted to issuing user warnings for unsourced editing after several attempts to communicate with this user, and deleting the material. I've also discussed this matter with another user through {{helpme}} as I wasn't sure where to take it. Sadly we've reached level 4 now without success, so I'm bringing the matter here. This is Paul (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like vandalism, if they've been warned 4 times take them here as its usualy a quicker turnaround. Amortias (T)(C) 17:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Done, and blocked by Chillum. This is Paul (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Nuisance behaviour from Gringoladomenega

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 investigate the intent and purpose of Gringoladomenega. I made an issue last week about him purposefully following me around on WP deliberately making unnecessary and pointless reverts and edits to my contributions without explaining why, and today, after a period of being away he is, within seconds/minutes instigating an edit war despite previous being warned. Thanks. Panhead2014 (talk) Panhead2014 (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Bleeeeeh. Well, Panhead wasn't bothered for "a period" by this editor because they were blocked for edit warring (no fewer than five admins agree on that)--let's get that straight first. Having said that, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Athletic_Bilbao&diff=618668708&oldid=618668113 this edit by Panhead is clearly an improvement, albeit a minor one: best to have the name at the beginning of a new paragraph. But their edit summary, a complaint about their opponent starting or continuing an edit war, is of course happily ironic since the edit itself is a continuation of the edit war. Panhead's edits on Míchel Salgado are an improvement (and not just because they cleverly reinstate one of my edits!), but they are probably also a continuation of sorts of the edit warring that got them blocked.

  In short, if I can, we have some battleground mentality on both sides. Gringo reverts without much valid reason, and Panhead is happy to oblige in these tit-for-tat exchanges. One could argue that Panhead deserves yet another block, and that Gringo deserves at least a warning. Or one could hope that these two hotheads just let it go, let it go, I can't hold it back anymore. For the record, Panhead is a bit of a tirritator, and rude to boot--but their recent edits are good. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

So I deserve anther block because I've improved the language used in an article, yet Gringoladomenega, who despite being warned previously about edit warring, only deserves a warning when it is clear what his motivation is. There's a very good reason, Drmies, why I have asked before for other admin to get involved in this ongoing issue. Panhead2014 (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: Maybe Panhead is right, and at least for purposes at ANI, you should let another admin take a look at this. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 15:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Apparently neither MrScorch6200 (never heard of this person) nor Panhead can read. Kindly try to read my comments more carefully. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No need to be rude and obnoxious, Drmies. Panhead2014 (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Alright then, Mr. Panhead. I said, above, "it could be argued that etc." I did not argue that you should be blocked, nor did I call for a block. Neither you nor MrScorch seemed to grasp that. But I can argue that, and now I will: I don't feel very forgiving anymore.

  Given your continued battleground attitude, demonstrated here (not just in your comment but in the very ANI thread you started based on one or two edits by another editor), on your talk page, and elsewhere (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, for one), I think that you are incapable of working in a collaborative environment. You were involved in lengthy and silly edit wars (Míchel Salgado, Athletic Bilbao, Sergio Busquets) where no one looked good, but it is important to realize that your two or three opponents by sheer numbers can be said to have represented a consensus, and that one of them, MYS77, apologized for getting into it in the first place. You drove one editor into retirement, and maybe Always Learning was a bit of a diva, but he was a really nice and helpful diva.

  In sum, your behavior is simply disruptive, rude, and uncollaborative. The two (denied) unblock requests indicate that you never got it, and I see no reason to think that you get it now. In addition, I wonder if the other admins who have looked into your case (Bagumba, Jpgordon, Randykitty, and Dennis Brown--yes, four admins) think that your post-block behavior isn't a good enough indication that maybe one week was too short to begin with. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I served the block and accept my behaviour, whilst intentionally good, was in violation of WP's rules. That is in the past now. Wholly unfair though to blame me for Always Learning choosing to leave because he acted brattish and couldn't get what he wanted, even after contacting others to support his "fight", but not unexpected from yourself, Drmies. I believe I have made in clear on a few occasions that I really have little interest in dealing with you given the relationship you have with certain others, so will not respond to you, or your provocative remarks anymore. Even other contributors think you should cease your involvement. Regards. Panhead2014 (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Violation of WP:LISTPEOPLE at List of surviving silent film actors

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.

---

Despite ongoing discussion on the talk page which has not satisfactorily resolved the issue, Clibenfoart has persisted in adding content which violates WP:LISTPEOPLE (as clearly stated on the talkpage) of List of surviving silent film actors. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you considered using the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard? MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 18:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

My opinion and the opinion of user Oscar Lake (if I understood him right) was that we should include Shep Houghton. This is a List of surviving silent film actors and Shep Houghton played in a silent film and he is still alive, so he belongs clearly into this list. It's certainly not in the sense of wikipedia and it's readers if we abstract some living persons from the list and to pretend that they aren't still alive or haven't played in a silent film, just because they are may not notable enough for a wikipedia article. Rules are not bad and we should follow them in the most cases, but we don't need to follow them, when human logic and mind tells us to do something else. --Clibenfoart (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Shep Houghton is the very definition of a BLP1E-case as described in WP:LISTPEOPLE. Sources only speak of him in relation to a single aspect of his life, where he wasn't considered to have made a significant contribution in public life beyond it. This shows that he would only be considered to have any notability as a member of this kind of list (surviving silent film actors), but that through this focus, he is a significant and noted example by good reliable sources. Removing him is actually against the guideline, not a violation of it. He probably doesn't rate an article, but since this is his one "claim to fame" according to sources, he meets the guideline requirements.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Reminder: This is not the proper venue to continue discussing inclusion details like that. This really isn't a conduct dispute, it's more content, so not much can be done here. DRN would a good place to go if this can't be resolved on the talk page. If you guys are done here, I'd like to have this closed. It's really not that helpful to your dispute. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User talk:82.123.63.47

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.

---

Disruptive editor [247]. I am not sure if this is a threat or not. An request was made to have the dispute taken to the talkpage [248] which looks like it was ignored. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I've already reported him to WP:AIV. I've said it before, but there is no need to open an ANI report for obvious IP vandalism. Just take it to WP:AIV. RGloucester — ☎ 21:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to think it is not as clear cut though, I do not think the IP knows that we are only reporting what the WP:RS say. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Edit war at T. B. Joshua

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

---

Someone want to do something about the regular reverts? I don't know if either has done 3 in 24 hours, but if you go beyond that... John Carter (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

 Deferred to to AN3. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 21:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• I see that Randykitty is already on the case. Word to the wise: always start with a templated warning for edit warring (or 3RR)--it can make a lot of things a lot easier. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Broad media cover in WP:LEAK, Expendables 3

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 would want an Admin desicion on this subject of adding a Leak to an article.

Not an admin issue

This Leak has recieved broad media coverage in several news agencies like The verge, TorrentFreak, bussinessinsider, and some foregin media papers/site. According to WP:LEAK this makes mentioning this in the article fine, unless that quote is changed. Also this leak broke several download records according to TorrentFreak, like 200,000 times in less then 24 hours. The concerning article is the film "The Expendables 3" In X-Men Origins: Wolverine a significant part of the article is used for discribing what happened days before the film was leaked. According to this I think that this is important enugh to be atleast mentioned in the article Relevant links: Relevant diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Expendables_3&diff=618698412&oldid=618694493 Article in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Expendables_3 News from leak: http://www.theverge.com/2014/7/25/5936943/expendables-3-leaks-nearly-a-month-before-release http://www.businessinsider.com/expendables-3-leaks-online-2014-7 http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/expendables-3-leaks-online-pirated-copy-downloaded-189000-times-in-24-hours-1201268947/ http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/07/25/expendables-3-leak/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigggan (talk • contribs) 23:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Admins don't get involved in content. This is a discussion for the article talkpage the panda ₯’ 23:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Unsourced changes by Airmantx

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.

---

Airmantx (talk · contribs) has made several unsourced changes to Wikipedia articles and has also been warned several times, but will not stop. These are some of the articles affected by their disruptive editing:

• Shades of Cool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lorde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lana Del Rey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lana Del Rey discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Royals (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ultraviolence (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Littlecarmen (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably quicker to take this to WP:AIV turn arounds are a bit quicker as they tend to be a yes/no response. Amortias (T)(C) 19:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, I did. Littlecarmen (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Netoholic changing templates at WP:WPTC

Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been embarking on a complete overhaul of Template:Infobox hurricane; while this has met a lot of opposition at WT:WPTC, the real reason I am here is because of the repeated disruptions involving Template:Infobox hurricane current. In this section, Netoholic repeatedly argues against the clear consensus that "hurricane current" should be left alone (and not merged with "Infobox hurricane"). The user then took the "hurricane current" template to TfD (see here, in what may have been bad faith, as it was clear there was no support for deletion. Then, going against consensus, Netoholic did this (which was quickly reverted), as well as this (without even bothering to leave an edit summary). Then, today, apparently still not following consensus, Netoholic made this change, which was similar to the previous one. I think me and several other members of WP:WPTC are past tired of these antics. Also, another thing tiring editors is Netoholic's repeated attempts to "fix" unbroken things, which has also met opposition from longtime WP:WPTC editors. You can see most of that frustration at WT:WPTC. Some, including myself and User:Yellow Evan, are at the point of calling for all of these unwanted changes to be reverted. United States Man (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Specific relevant discussions include:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Problems with the merged tropical cyclone templates and Template:Infobox hurricane
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#SSHWS
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Subtropical storms

I hope those specific links help in some way or another regarding this. There have also been relevant discussions at User talk:Netoholic. Dustin (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I Oppose any action against Netoholic. An indepth analysis of the above links complemented by the discussion on this user's talk page would reveal that this user is just pursuing in good faith what s/he believes to be right. The banner on the talk page "Some thoughts" also summarize the theme of his editing efforts here. Sticking to one's convictions consistent with the overall Wikipedia policies does not and should not warrant an action. The above issue should be resolved through discussion on respective talk pages. No admin action needed. --PeterCRames (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

So you are saying that repeatedly going against consensus deserves no action? Some of this may be in good-faith, but some is also disruptive. United States Man (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Amazing that a week-old account with only 42 edits is able to make such an indepth study regarding Wikipedia's ways and an editor's intentions. --Calton | Talk 04:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Calton again avoid personal attacks plz. "a week-old account with only 42 edits" - Do unregistered users not use Wikipedia? How do these metrics predict a person's knowledge level about Wikipedia policies? I don't claim to be knowledgeable but an IP is also allowed to voice it's opinion. If there is a minimum rule prescribed by the admin I'll stop right away. Else I'll voice my opinion in the disputes I'm not involved. --PeterCRames (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, since I have made no personal attacks whatsoever, your laughably clumsy bit of deflection will receive no consideration whatsoever. --Calton | Talk 16:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

A gentle reminder: You (Calton) have been blocked indefinitely from editing for racist edit sumamries & general awful attitude towards others. (7 March 2013) here --PeterCRames (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that that wasn't an incompetently executed block for bogus reasons by an admin exercising bad judgment and reading comprehension-- a bit of stretch, but we'll try. So, the relation of that "gentle reminder" to the issue at hand? Oh, right: nothing whatsoever.

So, being determined to check off every box on the "Obvious Sockpuppet is Obvious" bingo card, are there any others you'd like to try? And a "gentle reminder": indulging in -- by your logic -- personal attacks while whinging about how awful they are isn't a good tactic for drawing attention away from yourself.

And speaking of reading comprehension, you seem to have failed to answer the direct question asked of you: what was your previous account? And to add: why are you using a new account instead of your original? Shall I rephrase, to make it easier? --Calton | Talk 05:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've read the WPTC thread (leading up to this AN/I request) and I don't see a need for an admin to step in. Protonk (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

A bit of offensive bigotry

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 a review of the exchange here. The user Asdisis (talk · contribs) proposed a change to the article's text. My reply to his post was to the effect that his position is based on a misconception about Croatian national history, and against cited sources. To which he replied I am a Serbian nationalist pushing a Serbian nationalist agenda (Croats and Serbs being rather antagonistic towards each other due to the '90s war). My response was to point out I am in fact Croatian (just as he is), and that his allegations are absurd. To which I was informed that I am likely a secret Serb nevertheless, posing as a Croat to deceive him, with the user continuously making references to my Serbian "nationalist agenda" (most recently in the thread below that one [249]). My stomach churning somewhat, I decided to appeal to the community for a warning or sanction against further such behavior. -- Director (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

1 - I had not purposed any change, I just started a discussion.

2 - I had not hastily accused Director of nationalistic agenda. I had other discussions with him, and I based my allegation upon my experience dealing with him in earlier discussions. That is why i stated in my first response to him that "I suspect he has nationalistic agenda" and that I think discussing him is pointless. I simply do not want to discuss with him since I consider that his actions are not done in good faith.

3 - After my first response, he said that he is Croatian, thus he can't have anti-Croatian nationalistic agenda. I stated that his claim that he is Croatian can not mean that he does not have nationalistic agenda. I explicitly said that his act determine his behavior, not his nationality.

4 - I also stated that there is a possibility he is lying about his nationality to hide his nationalistic agenda. I personally think that is the case here. I based my allegation upon his pro-Serbian nationalistic agenda. There are far better chances that he is Serbian, since he has pro-Serbian nationalistic agenda. However I explicitly said that his nationality is not important and that his claims can not erase a clear pattern of his behavior. In the above post he is misrepresenting the case, stating that I accused him being Serbian, and that he has nationalistic agenda. The case is quite the opposite. I said that he has nationalistic agenda, and that I think there are far better chances that he is lying about his nationality so he could disprove any allegation about his nationalistic agenda. I have seen that tactics on several occasions.

5 - I never stated my nationality, so the above post reflects Director's opinion. I may also accuse him of alleging my nationality.

6 - I have not constantly referring to Director's nationalistic agenda. I had other discussions with him and I base my allegation on those discussions.

7 - I would be willing to reference that discussions, since they are important for this case. If only this discussion is looked, it may look like I accused Director of nationalistic agenda out of the clear sky. That is not the case. I also oppose to discuss nationalities. I had not based my allegation upon nationality. On the other hand, Director had tried to overturn my allegation with stating his nationality. I explicitly said that nationalities are not important, only acts and patterns of behavior. I only mentioned my opinion about Director's nationality because I think he is lying, and that is related to his acts. Even if he is telling the truth about his nationality, and there is no way to confirm that, his Croatian nationality can not mean that he does not have nationalistic agenda. Asdisis (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk about the content not the contributor, both of you. Argumentum ad hominem will only lead to trouble. If you cannot stick to talking about the content then consider taking a break or just work in another area. Regardless of who either of you are your arguments should stand on their own. Chillum 19:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Ad hominem tactics have a great rate of success on Wikipedia. I'm a new editor and from the first discussion I had I learned that. My several dozen sources were overturn by ad-hominem attacks. I mention that, because Director himself used ad-hominem attack and accused me of sock sockpuppeting. I had not used ad-hominem attack in this discussion. I just stated that I refuse to discuss with Director, and stated my reasoning. Asdisis (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you refuse to discuss with Director, then move to another article. Consensus doesn't exist without discussion - problem solved. the panda ₯’ 20:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I already have moved on. I noted that discussion is open for other editors and I would like to objectively discuss with anyone who is rational and reasonable. It seems that my analysis have touched Director's nerve so he brought this to ANI. Asdisis (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice personal attacks. Not planning on sticking around long, eh? Drop by, stir up crap, make insults, then be shown the door? Wouldn't be surprised if you'd had previous run-ins with Director with another account and figured you'd try to pop another nail in the coffin the panda ₯’ 22:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Those are serious allegations. I do not think this is appropriate. "stir up crap" , "insults"?? You will have to explain. I had previous discussions with Director, yes. I haven't up to now accused him of anything, although he used ad-hominem attacks against me in those discussions. In fact i regarded him in those discussions as the only one who is discussing in good faith. Up to now, my behavior towards him was commendable. As for the last allegation. Is it common for Director to have "run-ins"? Has someone else made the same allegations against him? I really did not have previous accounts, what makes you think I had? Director, and another editor also accused me of that, but I regarded that allegations as a part of ad-hominem attack, since they haven't further explained. Asdisis (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You just suggested he was not "rational and reasonable", right? You don't feel that meets the definition of a personal attack? the panda ₯’ 22:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Out of sheer curiosity: whose "nationalistic agenda" do you believe I am pushing? -- Director (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Asdisis. I'll take the silence as indicative of your realization that one cannot allege "nationalist agendas" without picking a nation. Its very obvious that you have taken it upon yourself to presume, and even deny, my nationality on the basis of my opposing you ("you oppose me, I think you're Serbian"). I could care less what you think about my ethnicity etc, but I'll thank you to keep your bigoted opinions to yourself. -- Director (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I had not answered because this is not a continuation of previous discussions. Read again my posts more careful and you will see that I was quite clear. I said several times that I do not want to talk about nationalities, and that your claim about your nationality can not overturn a clear pattern of you behavior. Do not try to misrepresent the case. I had not, ever, had the "you oppose me, I think you're Serbian" attitude. It's quite opposite, you claimed that you are Croatian thus you can't have nationalistic agenda. That simply does not follow, so please stop repeating your nationality in every discussion you have. Asdisis (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Here,[250] you're doing a lot of talking about nationalities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I do not. Yes, I'm talking about nationalities however I just answered Director who started to justify his acts by stating his nationality. We had a few post long conversation. I also have to mention that this discussion is just a continuation of our previous encounters. I asked if it would be helpful to reference other discussions I had with him. Director is the one who initialized a talk about nationalities. I answered a few times, however I always drove attention from talk about nationalities which is not the center point of my comment. It's just a part of the reply. I stated clearly that nationalities are not important. To quote myself " I frankly doubt your claim. But that isn't important.". I stated that I doubt his claim, but that nationalities are not important, that "I had not mentioned his nationality." in my previous comments. He clearly misunderstood me when he replied "Oh yes, I must be Serbian if I don't agree with Croatian nationalist nonsense.. No Real Croat would do such a thing.. ", so I had to explain once again that "I do not base my allegation on his nationality and that I explicitly stated that his national agenda can be seen trough his acts.". I tried to explain how his claim about being Croatian can't give him any credit, since I saw that tactics from him in earlier discussions when I presented numerous sources to disprove his "I'm Croatian, believe me" attitude. I spent enormous time to find sources and investigate before I figured out that he is only leading me on in a futile chase. I also noted that there is even no way to tell if he is telling the truth. I tried to explain how he can be Croatian and have anti-Croatian nationalist agenda in an effort to explain how futile are his claims that he is Croatian. Yes, I mentioned nationalities, however I only replied to his comment, and always explicitly mentioned that nationalities are not important. Asdisis (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Holy crap. I wasn't sure there was a real issue ... until Asdisis' comment at 23:04 above. Director, you're right ... so now, what to do about it? the panda ₯’ 23:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

What issue? I'm new here and I will accept the punishment if I broke some rules. I'm still not familiar with all the rules. I hope, I will learn something from this process. Maybe you can further explain and reference the rules I violated. That would be helpful. Asdisis (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• This discussion has gone in the wrong way. The bottom line is that I refused to discuss with director and we had a few post long conversation about the reasoning which belongs to out previous encounters. I felt that he is not discussing in good faith and that I will only loose time discussing with him. Asdisis (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Nooo, the bottom line is that you're insulting people along ethnic/national lines, which is obviously not in good faith. the panda ₯’ 23:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

That was not my intention. Maybe you misunderstood something. Could you quote my statement that you think is an insult? Asdisis (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I already quoted one that you said much earlier in this thread. Turned out that was a pretty tame one, considering the rest of the story the panda ₯’ 23:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I can not see it. If you think of "rational and reasonable" , that is not an insult along ethnic/national lines. Maybe you could further explain your view of the rest of the story. I tied to objectively explain what happened in the discussion to be helpful. Maybe it doesn't go in my favor, but I tried to be objective, and give a detail explanation supported by quotes. It would be helpful if you could do the same, since I really do not see upon what you arrived to those conclusions. A more detail explanation would prevent such mistake to repeat. Asdisis (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Calling someone irrational and unreasonable is a plain old garden-variety person attack. The first law of WP:CIVIL is to comment on content not on contributors - you most certainly were not referring to edits, were you? the panda ₯’ 12:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Since you refused to explain, I have to reject your allegations as unfounded. Asdisis (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Refused? Screw that, I have a life and family that is more important than Wikipedia. Hell, I didn't even know that you had replied. There is no time limit on Wikipedia - we all live in different times zones, you know. the panda ₯’ 12:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by ip:175.138.232.130

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.

---

175.138.232.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been constantly removing a section of the GeForce article,[251][252] and being rude and un-cooperative about it.[253][254] I have tried to get him/her to discuss the issue at Talk:GeForce#Nouveau driver, but had no success. There have also been numerous warnings on his/her talk page. Lonaowna (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week for persistent disruptive editing. Thank you for reporting, Lonaowna. Bishonen | talk 09:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC).

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

Sockpuppet

Now there is a similar ip (175.138.235.107 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) making the exact same edit.[255] Lonaowna (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Range 175.138.232.0/22 blocked for one week. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:94.196.246.0

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 94.196.246.0 got blocked and now trolling on talk page since someone left that possibility to troll. --84.248.189.125 (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably needs Rev-del looking at the edit before he blanked his own stupidity. Amortias (T)(C) 18:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I did something wrong but I just wanted to hide those harassment texts. P.S. What does "Rev-dev" mean? --84.248.189.125 (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec x3) Just don't harass and personally attack other editors again, no one feels like dealing with that crap all the time. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Eeh... so did I something wrong when I posted here? --84.248.189.125 (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I was letting him do it for a while since it stops him doing anything worse. Admins can see the IP's deleted edits, and those made earlier by Never the twain shall meet (talk · contribs) and Arounddance (talk · contribs).  —SMALLJIM  18:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkpage access removed and offending edits deleted, since they appear to have stopped for the time being. I've also hard-blocked the IP (prevented logged-in editors from editing from that IP) to flush out any other named accounts, or at least to prevent their editing. Acroterion (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Requesting closure

Can an uninvolved editor close this, please? Thanks. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 06:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to have done that by itself. There is no need to wrap a stifle box around every discussion, only the ones that drag on interminably. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

There's been plenty of shorter discussions that have been archived/closed with {{archive top/bottom}} no matter the topic. Just take a look at the archives. I guess it's just personal style. Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 06:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought that the archive box was picked up by the archive bot so that rather than waiting for a set period it would archive on the next run. Although I may be remembering the functionality in Miszabot before that was stopped. Blackmane (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Threat of a block

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

---

An IP editor, 100.1.172.140, told me through an edit summary (this one), "You touch this update one more time and I'll have you blocked.. The updates are fully acceptable.", and on his talk: "You touch those updates one more time I'm yanking funding. The links work..". I reverted his addition because he used Wikipedia in three of his five incorrectly formatted sources. I take the threat as especially hostile because of the manner he said it in. I cite WP:Harassment, "Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. and "Threatening another person is considered harassment." MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 18:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Left a message in the IPs talk page, hopefully they'll rent a clue. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It's an empty threat, and inappropriately hostile. I've left them a note. Please avoid being drawn into an edit war yourself, something that's easy to do when one encounters this sort of baiting. Acroterion (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Request for administrator to evaluate the conduct of user

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

---

Resolved

 – Forum Shopping, WP:STICK close [[256]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like an administrator to evaluate the conduct of Scalhotrod in the last week. Specifically, from this point [257] through today. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

To help narrow it down, I'm talking about his participation in this AN discussion (including subsections), his edits at: users' talk pages (including his and mine), which are obviously related to the AN discussion. Lightbreather (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that we don't need to be discussing this at ANI right now. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Admins needed for editor Achinoam

I was first alerted to this editors fringe POV on the Jewish Bolshevism article, with this edit. Using the IHR for a source for anything is a red flag, but most especially in an article concerning Jewish people. Then looking at the editors other contribs, it is painfully obvious they are here to disrupt the project and insert antisemitism into articles. Revert as vandalism and block, imo. Dave Dial (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Didn't notice it was a fringe website, ran a search on Wikipedia and saw it was quoted 49 times and wrongly assumed it was a good source. And to the admins, I will make slower edits and will research the validity of internet sources more in depth. Achinoam (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've removed a word from this section title: let us not jump to conclusions. I see some edits on David Duke that may be valid, and some that may not be--I'm interested in the opinion of Dougweller. For me, this is not an open and shut case, not yet, not without more diffs that clearly indicate an agenda of sorts. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oh, I am sure that is the case. Like your addition of Socialist who embrace pedophilia, or your creation of a page about a unknown Rabbi who was supposedly a pedo. Or your 'first edits' here removing negative info from Stormfront and David Duke articles, and putting in negative information into BLP articles of Jewish people. Or removing positive info about them. I am sure you are correct, you are just a new user who didn't know the IHR was an antisemitic organization. In any case, perhaps I've jumped the gun, or perhaps not. In any case, there is little doubt to me that you are here from Stormfront to disrupt the project. But I won't comment here anymore and let others decide. Dave Dial (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I think his deleted contributions are telling. I deleted the page as an attack page, but given the presence of sources I was not sure how to proceed. It looked like it may have been based on a real incident but it was so badly written and made such serious accusations I G10'd it.

There does seem to be a theme going on here. I do think it is soap boxing and disruptive. Chillum 16:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't make accusations. He's been sentenced to 24 years in prison. As can be seen in at least one of the sources. G10 wasn't a valid deletion criteria. Achinoam (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. There is always WP:DRV. It was poorly written and given the content if it does need an article it needs to be well written, so I deleted it. Chillum 16:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not the best writer. I don't mind the article deletion. But that's very different from inserting libel in the article, which I didn't if you actually looked at the sources. And is the subject of this inquisition tribunal. Achinoam (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You beat me to this Drmies, thanks for asking. I'm concerned. As Drmies suggests, a couple of his edits at David Duke are dubious, specifically the removal of 'anti-Semitic'[258] evidently on the basis that the document had been shown to be incorrect on a different issue, and after I reinstated it, removing it again with an edit summary "I removed it because the source published incorrect information on the subject. By WP:RSUW, "For sources of very low reliability, due weight may be no mention at all." This edit[259] removed a description (white supremacist) on the basis that it wasn't on the page of the National Alliance (United States) - fair enough, but like other edits at David Duke directional, removing critical material - why not replace the description with something actually in the article (which I did)? He's edited quite a few articles an American rabbis - to be specific, articles in Category:American Conservative rabbis basically removing material for various reasons which at first sight seem legitimate. One entry in this category is Shaye J. D. Cohen whom he prod'd:"= Articles relies solely on primary sources. Can't find anything about subject on Google Scholar other than self-published articles". Take a look at the article. Cohen is "Littauer Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations of Harvard University." with various other prestigious visiting lectureships, etc. Yes, I imagine Google will find a lot of material he published, but in reliable academic sources. I cannot view this as a good faith prod. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I actually de-PRODded that one. A named professorship (at Harvard no less) is a clean pass of WP:ACADEMIC.--Randykitty (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

PS: I also dePRODded David G. Dalin, which had been kept at an earlier AFD. --Randykitty (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Dave, their edit to the Stormfront article was valid--what they removed was vague and unsourced. Chillum, good point: that was one distasteful little article. The edit to Cultural Marxism was total crap. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Was my addition to cultural Marxism really that bad? My text: "Many cultural Marxist concepts became dominant; others, such as pedophile liberation, have fallen out of favor." Compare to the source blogs.telegraph.co.uk: "Although many of these ideas died from their own absurdity (paedophile liberation is not too popular these days) many have come to be influential or even dominant." The source blogs.telegraph.co.uk is quoted over 250 times in Wikipedia and the Telegraph is a mainstream newspaper. WP:USERG says "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." I think the source I provided meets this definition. Achinoam (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes it was pretty bad. Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources, particularly for controversial claims. Saying that the source is used elsewhere does not make it valid. Your edits are showing a clear point of view that you are trying to represent on Wikipedia, we are not a place for soap boxing. Chillum 17:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

A point of view about what exactly? That's like the only article about marxism that I edited. And it's not just a blog, but a blog for the Telegrapher which is a BIG newspaper. WP:USERG "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." Maybe you don't agree but at least I made an effort to research the source's validity. Achinoam (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• There's a bit more to it. It's not really the blogginess--it's that a. the information you added (or reinserted) to the article) is very poorly written and b. it's an editorial, not an actual "factual" article that you're citing. But worse, what's being uttered as an obviously tongue-in-cheek comment is inserted into our article as if it were really a news item that Marxism doesn't support the sexual abuse of children. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
• First, you source was referring to "The ideas of Antonio Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse," while your edit refers to these ideas as "cultural Marxist concepts." While possibly Gramsci and Marcuse held these views, it is wrong to consider them as concepts of cultural Marxism unless cultural Marxists generally held them. See also "News organizations": "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are rarely reliable for statements of fact." This is clearly an opinion piece, not a news story. Note the title, "Criticising Cultural Marxism doesn't make you Anders Breivik". It's not like he was reporting statements Gramsci and Marcuse had just made. I cannot find any mention of this in reliable sources.

It seems that this editor is looking for bad things to add to articles about Jews and the Left, while trying to remove bad things in articles about the far right, and has no concern about policy. I notice he has quoted policy and guidelines often right from his first edit where he or she referred to "WP:PEACOCK" as a reason to remove a word.[260] I do not predict any improvement and therefore support an indefinite block.

TFD (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Since you asked it appears to me that your POV is pro anti-semitic organisations and you seem to be focused on pointing out a connection between being jewish and being a pedophile. Do you really have to ask me what your point of view is? It seems clear to me and it is fringe.

I am going to leave this for another admin to decide on. Chillum 18:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what to make of it myself. It might be that he is really trying to just edit and simply can't edit without showing his biases, seemingly anti-jewish, anti-left. The problem is, our policies on neutrality and competency don't differentiate between intentional and unintentional, only the result matters. I've looked, but I don't have a simple answer. The only thing that is certain is that we can't have these kinds of edits. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
• Whether intentional or not, the editor shows a strong tendency towards POV editing and edits a narrow range of articles. My inclination is that the pattern is no accident. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It's also interesting to note that Achinoam displays a surprising familiarity with WP processes despite having such a new account - the first edit under this name was in June. Their first two edits cite a policy in the edit summary, and many more use common shorthand like 'OR', which is not the sort of behaviour one usually sees from an editor less than two months into their career. Are we certain that this isn't an experienced editor with a second account? Euchrid (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• There is an odor of a sock, isn't there? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

And a couple of links I'm not familiar with after all these years. So yes, it seems likely he is. Topic ban? Dougweller (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind a topic ban. I disagree that I have a PoV, however I can understand that my edits gave that impression. Look at my history: I have changed my topics since I was notified of this. I can cooperate.Achinoam (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Returning sockpuppet harassing another editor

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.

---

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

The above user has placed this very abusive message three times on the talk page of User:Michał Sobkowski today. This is almost certainly a sock of the indefinitely blocked user Pacynka Sobkowskiego who has been harassing Michał Sobkowski via multiple socks for the last two years or more. For background see [261], [262], [263]. Voceditenore (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked it as a Vandalism Only Account, as the talk page messages were clearly intended to be disruption. Given that the target is an admin on another wiki, I'm don't know if there is sufficient evidence to conclusively link this new account to the old one, it could just be another person coming here with the same intent. Either way though, they are blocked. Monty₈₄₅ 16:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Odd behavior by GinAndChronically

Would anyone be willing to look into the recent edits by GinAndChronically (talk · contribs)? The issue that has come up lately is that they are adding "ewns" to right before "corner" in an article, such as this edit, where they used the summary, "a two street intersection has four corners, which corner e w n s ? otherwise the building is in the middle of the intersection." Another example of that is this edit, where they change a page for a town located in the northeastern corner of Connecticut to say, "Windham County is a county located in the upper most northeastern section of the U.S. state of Connecticut." To say that these don't add confusion would be an understatement, as I reverted all of the examples in their recent edits, along with Pi.1415926535. Furthermore, we have both left messages on his talk page explaining that this behavior does not work, and we have been met with responses that have edit summaries such as boneheads. I really didn't want to have to bring them here, but I was wondering if someone would be able to look into this, as they clearly aren't getting the point that we are trying to help them, and are instead getting borderline insults as responses back. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

To add to that: they're prone to respond to any criticism with lengthy rants as seen on their talk page, and have no interest in engaging in actual discussion. They reverting one of the edits that ktr reversed, but their other editing since has been largely uncontroversial spelling corrections with incorrect edit summaries. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I should also add that many recent edits are filled with false edit summaries, but they are all for spelling corrections. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) They've also made a series of edits with the summary "ambiguous colloquialism", but some of these are either effectively null edits [264] or outright wrong [265]. It appears the goal is to correct misspellings of individual (see [266]), but in a very confusing and ineffective way. This feels like a competence issue more than anything but GinAndChronically needs to do better. Mackensen (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

More on this; two of the edits were to add the {{sic}} template to blockquoted sources: [267] [268]. I checked the sources and the error was in the transcription--the source spelled the word correctly. These edits (which I changed) took a bad situation (transcription error) and made it worse by making it less likely it'll be caught and corrected. Mackensen (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is a competence issue. The editor reads everything literally and edits accordingly. Without mentorship, this will not end well. The user cannot handle any ambiguity or the existence of multiple interpretations. Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

So, what do people think should be done here, as I don't think them continuing to attack us will be very productive, and it seems like there is agreement for something to be done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I definitely feel like a WP:CIR block could be justified here. It seems as if the pattern is: 1) GinAndChronically introduces a bizarre batch of edits with a similar pattern of changes and/or edit summaries; 2) GinAndChronically gets asked "why?" and is asked to stop on their talk page; 3) GinAndChronically goes on a tangential rant about it; 4) GinAndChronically eventually abandons that line of editing and returns to step 1, only for the cycle to begin again. Repeatedly having to clean up such generally unconstructive mass edits does not seem like an efficient use of other editors' resources. Given the most recent batches of edits, I'm not certain what benefit mentorship could have here, but if someone wishes to make that effort, feel free. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Kevin--What is the problem here? I have every right to advocate my position on my TP and to provide an edit summary that best supplies me with that ability to isolate it from all other edit summaries that I have made--the several thousand. As far as I know these summaries have not used racially derogatory or cuss words and there is no WP policy or guideline that should be applicable toward what has been used to warrant a change in what I have done with the matter of edit summaries. To use my edit summaries as an example of how someone perceived themselves as being defied is absolute rubbish. Has anyone particularly the complainant bothered to look at the time stamps about what has been brought to attention and when that activity stopped. Or is the real question or an additional question at hand that the complainant is perceiving that he is being defied by my holding to the opinion expressed on my TP that if WP intends to have articles of lasting value then the words and expressions used have to accurately describe the subject. The use of colloquialism and inaccurate words are not of long lasting value. People are using the word corner as a colloquialism for the word intersection. One is no more than the other. They are not interchangeable especially when used as a description in a legal proceeding. Oh, well this is not a legal proceeding but if it were correct it certainly could be otherwise it is inaccurate. Plain and simple. What do we know today that can be provided so that later it does not become an issue? What is there today will not always be there tomorrow and who is here to day will not always be around for tomorrow so what fault is there on insisting that if WP wants to include information that can be found out today of long lasting value then what purpose does a colloquialism serve or even a misapplied word.

As for the use of ewns? All that was said was that it should not be used; not that if it were applicable in some manner that there was a way for it be integrated into WP articles but essentially that it was irrelevant. In what way is it irrelevant in an attempt to clarify and make proper those words and phases already in use? Again, a corner is not an intersection and an intersection is not a corner. That is not a different interpretation but a mistake.

As for those edit summaries concerning spelling, did anyone bother to point out at the time that there was an inconsistency? Or was it someone's perception that someone was being defiant? If that is the case then that is something on which the complainant has to work because someone has jumped to an inaccurate perception? First I am told to leave things be because longevity is sufficient for consensus. Absolutely no one at WP is going to acknowledge that a mistake will ever be accepted as consensus.

If someone characterizes my response as a rant then I have absolutely nothing more to discuss with that person because they have come to a conclusion that seeks to achieve absolutely no understanding that I believe is suppose to be part of the WP experience. The rant characterization is similar to the reaction of a dog that turns its back on you. That is the indication of a dog that you do not exist. If I do not exist then there is no reason to respond.GinAndChronically (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Whether you use cuss words or not is irrelevant ... WP:CONSENSUS is the primary law that you agreed to on Wikipedia, yet you state you don't follow it. WP:EDITSUMMARY - something else you agreed to, but you don't seem to like it much either. You don't necessarily have a "right" to do anything - you have the ability to post sourced changes on an article talkpage, and see if you get consensus. You're also making sweeping generalizations about the concept of a "corner" that will not bear fruition according to the laws of many jurisdictions - but that's a content issue you'll have to take up on articles the panda ₯’ 19:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Edits like this give the impression that you don't review your edits for accuracy before saving them. That's unhelpful. Mackensen (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope this is not to develop into a tit-for-tat? With the logic of Mackensen then presenting an example where an edit was made and then revert by myself would conceal the issue of reviewing edits? Impressions are not the best way by which to make decisions because they can be what persists in one's mind influenced by their weltanschauung.

At least DangerousPanda suggested that my opinion of "corner" is not universal but did not rule out that it was non-existent because "many" is not "most" that could be a majority and then there is "all" which would be universal. He then goes on to support this with the intended use of the article talk page. I never said that ALL uses of corner were instead of intersection. I said that people are using corner for intersection. Yes there is a concept of "corner"; there is also the place name of "corner". If "Jackson's Corner" was the subject then it might sound rather repetitive to say that it is at the corner of X and Y Streets unless it was on all or most corners at X and Y Streets.

But what I see coming about is not my opinion about the use of corner instead of intersection but whether I am challenging WP authority. I repeat, has any one reviewed the stamp times of when I was notified and when it stopped? If what is being pursued is the perception of challenging authority; of so then someone is barking up the wrong tree.

I will also say that I will persist in my opinion that longevity is not a sufficient bases by which to establish consensus since every thing regularly in every article is not reviewed for accuracy.GinAndChronically (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone be able to take action on this, as there is no reason that this needs to continue on longer than it already is. Gin, we are not challenging your challenge of authority as you think you are doing here. What we are challenging is the fact that you are introducing confusing information into an article in a style which has not been used before, and would require an RFC to implement. I have no problem challenging authority, but the way in which you are doing it clearly shows that you are unable to listen to others when we ask politely for you to stop. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

Given the poor-quality edit shown by Mackensen above, but also based on the entirety of the conversation herein, I am of the belief that GinAndChronically does not care about the quality of their work, but rather the quantity. Seeing as how the most recent batch of mass changes by this user included such egregiously awful edits as this and this, I'm further convinced of this. A statement made by this editor on their talk page is particularly telling: "So, no time lost; no effort gone unrewarded." Actually, plenty of time has been lost in cleaning up after GinAndChronically; every series of mass edits ultimately seems to result in some cleanup that must be undertaken by other editors. This is a clear case of failing to get the point, and thus I am blocking GinAndChronically indefinitely for persistent disruptive editing and WP:CIR, at least until a time that we as a community can be sufficiently convinced that future edits will not be similarly disruptive. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

And, to wit, this edit summary appears to sum up this editor's attitude toward editing in a collegial environment. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Mass tagging

User:99.238.74.216 (a/k/a User:99.247.1.157 a/k/a User:99.238.74.216) is continuing to mass add linkrot tags after being repeatedly warned and blocked. Also they claim to be a Master Editor, so there may be possible sockpuppetry at play as well. Could this be addressed as appropriate? Thank you. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 15:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked this IP series before on the basis of their contemptuous responses to editors who are wondering why the IP is tagging every instance they can find of a bare URL with a linkrot template. The tagging is not inherently blockable, but their attitude toward those who wonder why there is no corresponding effort to actually fix the issue (the tool to do so is embedded in the template) is. Drive-by tagging with no effort to improve references exhibits an attitude of leaving it to others to actually fix the issue, and tagging single instances of bare urls in an otherwise well-referenced article seems unhelpful. As an aside, they seem to completely misunderstand the service award system and are using that as a basis for ignoring those they feel aren't worthy of notice. It's also possible that they once had a named account from about 2006, based on their claim. Overall, there appears to be a competency issue. Acroterion (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a classic case of drive by editing with no thought of improving any of the articles. However, editors have also been subject to insulting remarks from these unregistered IP addresses. I believe that, like Acroterion's remarks above, there is a competency issue here. It really is time for this issue to be addressed in a positive manner in order to protect the encylopedia. David J Johnson (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, is there a tool to easily check for linkrot? If not, are we even sure that any of the links are rotten? With no helpful edit summary, or even a talk page comment indicating at least one or two of the links that are bad, it is rather difficult to be sure. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 23:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. I misunderstood the purpose of the 'linkrot' tag. I actually went back and fixed a few of the articles. Several had only 1 bare reference. Easy to fix with Reflinks. Including, you know, the user who is tagging them. They do appear to be doing other editting and toning down on the drive-by tagging. Here's hoping. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 00:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

They've scaled back the testiness to occasional jabs, and I haven't noticed a recurrence of the "I'm a master editor so I outrank you" business. It would be nice if they fixed as much as they tagged, but maybe there's a little progress. Acroterion (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Talker36912

I request that this account is blocked indefinitely because it was created with the sole purpose of making vandalism. Here I show some evidence of what I say:

• Yo no creo en los hombres (2014 telenovela): Difference between revisions July 29, 2014
• Quinceañera (telenovela): Difference between revisions July 29, 2014
• Mujeres Asesinas (Mexico): Difference between revisions
• Mira Quien Baila: Difference between revisions

I think he's account is a puppet of User talk:173.172.189.197. Anyway, this user must have or will commit vandalism.--Damián (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism is reported at WP:AIV. Sockpuppets are reported at WP:SPI - you know this already. Oh, and saying "...will commit..." is not actionable. It's also not a good idea to "suggest the punishment" here - you lay out the specific issue, and let admins/the community decide the panda ₯’

Edits to Chris Kelly

The subject of the article is a British politician, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Dudley South. His page has long been edited by anonymous IP addresses from the Houses of Parliament who oppose the inclusion of the facts that he once appealed to fellow MP's to give his sister a job and that he was a paid non-executive of his father's company. These deletions occurred again on 26 July by User:Natasha millward [269] and again on 28 July by User: Gareth Kegg [270], both were the first edits for those respective users. The use of these user names is malicious as there is a Natasha Milward who is Kelly's Labour opponent at the next general election, and Gareth Kegg, is of course too similar to my own name. I would like the page protected and the respective users warned over their names. I believe of course that the first editor is NOT the actual Natasha Milward as it would seem such bizarre behaviour. Forgive me if this is the wrong place for this query, I hardly ever edit outside of articles. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have blocked both editors per BLP/harassment, revision-deleted their names from the history of the article, and semi-protected it for a month. Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Could my edits to their respective talk pages informing them of this discussion be revision deleted as well? The uniqueness of my name is now so apparent, I need a hatnote for them! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted both talkpages, there was nothing else on them anyway. Black Kite (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Es715

Es715 has made a variety of peculiar edits, the bulk of which comprise either test additions and reversions (A/B, C/D, E/F, G/H) and the majority of these seem to be test edits with page protection templates: [271][272][273][274]. I've previous attempted to explain why these edits are unhelpful and distracting, but apparently to no avail. I haven't found any particularly constructive additions from the user, and some things, like their various deleted vanity articles, and this article, or this edit, seem to suggest they're not quite ready for editing in the wild. Another example: In this request for page protection, they insert their request in the body of the article as though it were a Talk page, and the article hadn't even seen obvious disruption since June 29. And at List of Sam & Cat episodes, (where they again make their request visible in the article body) we haven't seen any obvious vandalism for about four days, and it was quickly handled. Requesting some admin input. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Also editing as 68.108.23.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) per this edit. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing disruptive editing by fluctuating IP.

On Laura Mersini-Houghton, a fluctuating IP has been adding grammatically incorrect, likely POV, original research into the lede of the article. He has been assisted by Holybeef who may be a sock or meatpuppet, or it may be a random convergence of interests. Holybeef has been warned for disruptive editing on this article before, and is fresh off a block for edit warring on Alan Guth. The IP is now getting quite uncivil (see the response starting "My man" in this diff, and has provocatively engaged at the edit war on Alan Guth, explicitly stating that he was reverting the consensus version of the article for "no reason" with the message "you want nasty, I show you nasty" (both in the edit summary) - diff here.

I have already left notices requesting more eyes at Wikiproject Biography, Wikiproject Physics, Wikiproject Women Scientists and on the original research noticeboard, hoping that some neutral editors might be able to build a consensus there that they would respect, but this latest behavior from the shifting IPs has convinced me that this is unlikely.

I recommend that both pages be temporarily semi-protected and if possible that the fluctuating IP user be blocked for disruptive editing. Assuming that Holybeef and the fluctuating IP are not sockpuppet accounts of one another, I see no need for administrative sanctions at this time (though it would be nice if he were restricted to 0RR on these pages).

Suspected IP addresses:

• 178.253.170.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.167.90.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.99.27.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 92.245.5.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.244.231.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 178.41.217.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.99.28.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 195.91.109.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Potentially also (IP editors showing up during the Mersini-Houghton deletion debate):

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

Pages:

• Alan Guth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Laura Mersini-Houghton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'll notify the fluctuating IP user at their most recent IP address used in the Laura Mersini-Houghton talk page, and on the Laura Mersini-Houghton talk page itself, so they will be likely to see it. I will also notify Holybeef, even though he's not the focus of this report. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 00:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There seems to be a huge content dispute on both of these pages, and while that is not a subject delved into by this noticeboard (see WP:DRN), the edit warring, personal attacks, and disruption caused by a whole host of IPs and users on both of these articles is. I recommend protection of this until the folks can play nice on the talk page and work within established dispute resolution processes. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 01:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, to clarify my position here - this is separate from the content dispute on these pages, which I'm hoping we can deal with by getting more eyes on the actual page to clearly establish consensus (though, honestly, it's a fairly cut-and-dry case of original research being pushed by Holybeef and the IP editor, to the consternation of nearly everyone else involved). I think it is primarily behavioral issues which are causing the ongoing problems, however. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 02:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that the editing pattern described above is operating in parallel with aggressive talk page discussions, in which the editors involved cite Wikipedia rules but are generally not following any easily-recognizable version. I know you've heard many times before that you musn't protect the WP:Wrong version, but in order to save time and effort it will probably help for someone to carefully review the entire situation and act based on an overall plan that will work. Simply protecting the pages and telling everyone to talk, in my judgment, is likely to prolong the dispute without productivity. I think Holybeef's comment below pretty much makes my point for me, though. -- SCZenz (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It's you and your Masonic bros who invade pages like grasshoppers to massacre those pages beyond belief and totally against the rules (ironically: while excessively quoting rules but only general ones, never bullet-by-bullet.) So knock the bs, time to call a spade a spade: you're just a gang of manipulators who at any cost try to portray Guth as originator of inflation though its clear he stole it, portray Mersini as notable despite many editors noting she's not, being just an average researcher, and so on. In doing so, you disregard previous consensuses, proclaim "forbidden references", "banned words", remove neutrality from intro and overall, report me falsely to admins, etc. Holybeef (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Is this edit by Holybeef mentioned above? It shows the classic WP:SYNTH of adding (to the lead, of course), "Some of the above references credit Mersini-Houghton... However that is incorrect since... [sources not mentioning Mersini-Houghton]". The above statement by Holybeef shows the problem pretty clearly, and examining Special:Contributions/Holybeef shows the editor has not yet had the opportunity to edit outside a very narrow field in the four months they have been contributing. Perhaps a topic ban would assist their gaining experience in other areas. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this would be ideal, though it's a bit tangential to this report, which I would say was more focused on the fluctuating IP editor. If Holybeef is the fluctuating IP editor, then there's some sockpuppetry going on and a general block is appropriate. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

116.251.187.6

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.

---

116.251.187.6 is vandalising random articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/116.251.187.6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtpaley (talk • contribs) 19:59, July 28, 2014‎ (UTC)

Moved issue to Administrator intervention against vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtpaley (talk • contribs) 20:52, July 28, 2014 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppetry for already blocked editor using peacock language on Nas.

75.176.16.52 has been blocked for edit-warring and reinstating overly effusive adjectives in the article on Nas. Several editors reverted, but the IP kept at it until blocked. Immediately thereafter, User_talk:200.35.147.154, User_talk:Plyons91, and User_talk:103.25.58.72 all surfaced from nowhere and began reverting and reinstating the exact same language. I put an escalated warning on each of those talk pages because to me this seemed like clearly the work of the same individual. They are still at it. The past two days of Nas's edit history is nothing but me, User:Dan56, User:Jim1138, and ClueBot reverting their vandalism. JesseRafe (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I've semiprotcted the article for 10 days. The only account involved, User:Plyons91 might have just ended up in the middle of it, as their edit was substantially different from what the IP editors were doing, and was created several weeks ago. That the IP editors decided to include Plyon's edits when continuing to revert doesn't seem enough to be sure the account is being used in conjunction with the IPs. Monty₈₄₅ 15:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Page move problem

Palestinian land laws was a stable article for a number of years. Recently an editor did not agree with the name and unilaterally moved it three times to three different names in one day finally settling on Land ownership in the State of Palestine. [275] [276] [277] My position is that editor should have at least initiated a discussion before moving the article. Moving the article back to the stable version requires administrator tools. My request is that the article should be moved back to the stable name so that any proposed page moves should be conducted properly following proper procedure of WP:RM. Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

First comment - he was informed of discretionary sanctions in this area on the 20th of June by User:Mendaliv.[278] after receiving an ARBPIA 1RR block by User:EdJohnston. I'm not sure what to do about the move. Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Controversial move. Should be undone and a RM opened by Wickey-nl. Not sure whether a sanction is merited. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Moves reverted, article now back at previous title Palestinian land laws. On the face of it, the actions of Wickey-nl don't seem to egregious and I don't think any sort of sanction would be merited. Unless I'm missing something this thread can probably be closed. Jenks24 (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

McDoobAU93

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 keeps removing an RfC from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis
The idea of the RfC is to seek outside opinions from editiors without entrenched ideas instead of the purely North American editors which dominate the article and rule with an iron fist.
See these diffs
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis&diff=618998558&oldid=618998361
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis&diff=618998091&oldid=618997586
77.97.151.145 (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Watch out for the boomerang when it hits you back. This grandstanding RFC has been reverted by three independent editors, myself being the third. Yes I have undone it twice, which would actually make my second revert, but also would be 77.97's fourth in 24 hours. There is no consensus in the community for this, and the editor has no stake in the change other than his perception of nationalistic bias (despite significant evidence of editors on both sides supporting positions their supposed national identity would oppose). Editor is not here to build the article, which has gone from one of the lamest edit wars to FA-status with editors who were willing to set aside their differences and improve the project. This nonsense needs to end. --McDoobAU93 17:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• This IP address keeps arguing the same nonsense for awhile now, usually with rants insulting Americans such as [279] and [280]. Those two edits alone should be enough to convince you this person is a problem. Since the same issue was brought up dozens of times already, with large numbers of participates, no need to keep doing it yet again because someone didn't get the results they wanted. Dream Focus 17:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The RfC is not to look for consensus within the community as the community is a Majority of North American editors with a North American viewpoint, the RfC is to look for opinions from outside uninvolved editors but you keep censoring it and never give it a chance, we are aware of your views... it is not your views we seek, please stop vandalizing the talk page by removing the RfC 77.97.151.145 (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie333

This user keeps removing an RfC from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis
The idea of the RfC is to seek outside opinions from editiors without entrenched ideas instead of the purely North American editors which dominate the article and rule with an iron fist.
See these diffs
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis&diff=618992113&oldid=618991855
77.97.151.145 (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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

FreeRangeFrog

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved User blocked for block evasion. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 17:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC) This user was usualy beaing a disruptive admin, performing unexpected edits and actions. Would someone block the above admin? 206.19.188.252 (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Didn't you see the big orange banner stating that you must provide diffs? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Boomeranged. Elockid (Talk) 16:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

could a friendly admin...

...please provide the last (or last proper if there is vandalism etc) content of List of Bank Identification Numbers and post it on my talk page.

217.43.5.168 (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

92.222.153.153

Can someone block Special:Contributions/92.222.153.153. It's probably Grawp/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Materialscientist:...now it's Special:Contributions/62.244.31.16. There may be more in the pipeline I guess until he gets bored. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, blocked, the third one (not mentioned above) blocked too. The talk page temporarily s-protected as well. -- Hoary (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

And another one Special:Contributions/190.199.79.135. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked and those two article s/protected. Black Kite (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Death threat? from 112.175.69.140

By 112.175.69.140 (talk · contribs)
On my talk page here 4x and multiple times
I'm not putting a ANI notice on the IP's talk page. Jim1138 (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably associated with the ANI immediately above Jim1138 (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Death threat or no death threat... This should be blockworthy if he had offered you flowers instead. Kleuske (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

IP blocked by FPAS; I've protected Jim's talkpage (since this fellow has a habit of reappearing with a new IP every two minutes). Yunshui ^雲_水 10:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Yunshui: I don't mind acting as a lightning rod. I'd rather my friend be vandalizing my pages than articles or other's talk pages. Jim1138 (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Same on my talkpage. I've s/protected that as well until our puerile friend gets bored. Black Kite (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Jeremy has now moved to Special:Contributions/190.38.118.55 + Special:Contributions/190.72.192.21 Sean.hoyland - talk 10:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Again, both blocked. Could someone more knowledgable than me check if these and the earlier IPs are proxies? They're in different countries from the earlier ones and it would fit our friend's MO. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

112.175.69.140 port 3128, and 190.72.192.21 port 8080, they are open and usable. I extended the 8080 to a year, Fut Perf. already blocked the other for webhost, which is close enough. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Nailed the other two as well, ports 8080. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Getting close to time to take this to law enforcement, and in my view should they begin naming names, the line is going to crossed. Jusdafax 11:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

And 181.198.187.133, ostensibly in Ecuador. -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Port 80 was an open proxy, and with a Captcha system to prevent abuse, which I find ironic. 1 year blocked. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

He's moved to Special:Contributions/186.91.64.115 and now he is damaging content. Please semi-protect every single page he edits. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, and I've assumed it's another open proxy. Acroterion (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

A rangeblock is under consideration here.  —SMALLJIM  16:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Block needed

Michelle47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using a script to spam User talk:Sean.hoyland with (so far as I am aware) false accusations about anti-Semitic attacks. If, by some weird circumstance, her claims were legitimate, the actions still warrant a cool-down block. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I'm sure you already know this, but it's usually best to avoid describing it as a cool down block.—LucasThoms 00:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, ten null edits and then spamming the same personal attack on the same talk page several dozen times seems pretty blockable. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It is most likely this guy Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. Reported him here, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It is, he's blocked, talkpage protected, please WP:DENY. Acroterion (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Back again as 190.198.91.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

...and 186.88.232.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , Huldra (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Both blocked. Euryalus (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Also 190.79.128.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Electric Wombat (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, now he is on my talk-page, rev-dels needed, please? And block of s 190.72.30.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Huldra (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Now as 186.88.64.47, on User talk:Zero0000. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

And under an attack-username I will not cite here. Obvious on the page history of abovementioned talkpage, however. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Account-name created at 1.36 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/newusers User talk:Malik Shabazz under attck. Huldra (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

and 186.89.187.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Huldra (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• This is part of what is filed at WP:SPI for a quick check. I already did a /17 rangeblock, but it needs more and I'm off to bed and have a busy day tomorrow. It needs someone who knows how to block ranges to do anon blocks on a dozen or so ranges, which means doing homework, and I just don't have the time for at least 16 hours. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Another sock [281] ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 07:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Jeremy aka JarlaxleArtemis is back

• Special:Contributions/190.205.18.90
• Special:Contributions/186.93.207.200

Any page he touches needs to be semi-protected. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I would extend that to some talk pages as well. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 07:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

And More Nonsense

Posting here as well as AIV: [282] ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 07:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

More eyes needed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/newusers, block and rev-del abusive user-names, please, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I've seen at least one ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 08:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Heh, we all got them, take it a very special barnstar... I do! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Khan Yunis ...the article, that is, is now under attack. Check: 190.75.228.58 and 186.88.199.183 Huldra (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Heres another Sean.hoyland paid propgandist 4 EI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 09:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

More JA ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 10:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

More from Special:Contributions/190.203.98.221. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

More JA ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 10:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"I will kill you, evil piece of shit", a direct death threat against a named person, so Jeremy has probably just broken Californian law. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

He's already violated a half-dozen federal (US) laws. But I'll leave that up to the Foundation. I don't place too much faith in his nonsense. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 10:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: He Also Called Sean a "Nazi Subhuman" in his edit summary. This Getting Slightly out of hand. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 15:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Article was protected a few hours ago, and I've now revdeled that edit summary. Monty₈₄₅ 15:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This has been quiet for a while now, I think the range blocks placed seems to have solved the issue. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 18:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

In future situations, it would be best to not repost the concerning sentences in the diff links as this defeats the purpose of using revision deletion. Mike V • Talk 20:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Aye. Speaking as someone who's dealt extensively with him in this phase of his cycle and someone who keeps up to date on his LTA page, revert the garbage, provide a diff of the disturbing edit (and/or forward any disturbing emails you receive) to the Foundation via email as per the LTA report, and semi-protect his targets for a brief while. (Abuse filters don't work too well as he just probes them until he finds something that works.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Long term abuse user again back

See previous thread. Now back as Special:Contributions/201.243.126.28. (Edit summaries and edits are pretty obviously JarlaxleArtemis, particular in their attacks against Sean.hoyland. Likely to reappear under a different IP or username as soon as blocked. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

More Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis disruption. Please block

• Special:Contributions/184.48.170.229
• Special:Contributions/190.38.18.28
• Special:Contributions/78.93.120.165
• Special:Contributions/187.216.41.198

...and semi-protect every page edited. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Judging from the nature of the edit at 1929 Hebron massacre and the details for 186.93.164.54, these IPs are likely to be Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis.

• Special:Contributions/2601:D:9580:E47:CDB7:DC6E:D823:87C3
• Special:Contributions/186.93.164.54

Others include

• Special:Contributions/201.243.169.144
• Special:Contributions/190.201.96.250
• Special:Contributions/201.243.161.156
• Special:Contributions/190.36.170.134

Every page edited by JarlaxleArtemis needs semi-protection. That is more important that revdeling their edit summaries. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

201.243.161.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) tried to delete Sean's above post, and then reverted a random edit of his, so I'm guessing it's probably the same guy as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Need eyes on user creation log. Attack usernames are again being created, similar to the spree at 22nd July. (revdelled) example can be found at 22:08 (20:08 UTC) in the user creation log. Going by the pattern established, more usernames of a similar kind will likely pop up soon. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Please look through this part of the userlist and block the one not yet blocked. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

No need, someone locked it globally. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Alright, good to know. Hope that's the end of this for now, I can imagine nicer things to do with my time than hunt this one down to prevent further disruption. Also, my strongest possible sympathies for having to deal with this, Nawlin. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• No problem - I'm used to it. Jeremy's obsessive/repetitive behaviors haven't changed one bit since he was 15 years old and was upset with Wikipedia for not posting his Dungeons and Dragons articles. It's almost Pavlovian. Interfere with his vandalism, and he starts posting the same old cowardly, yet machinelike insults. Not even interesting anymore. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  It's really quite sad to see that even after all these years he's still at it. You'd think he would have grown up and moved on by now. Blackmane (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

NawlinWiki I put in the request for oversight. As for a more permanent solution, the Foundation legal department really should file a complaint with the FBI under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Appeals to him, his mother, his ISP(s) have all fallen on deaf ears. I know the Foundation has (to my knowledge) never pursued charges against an individual, perhaps it is time. With so many years as evidence, it's the only way I can see to get Jeremy to stop. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 19:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

IANAL, but due to his constant use of open proxies and his (past) tendency to have 4chan users post his threats by proxy, wouldn't it be nigh-impossible to confirm it is him as far as a court of law goes? (Also, I'm under the impression from the LTA page that the Foundation is either already contemplating or in the process of doing so, in which case they wouldn't be saying anything one way or another.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I am a lawyer. (this is not legal advice just opinion) The long, long history easily confirmed enough of it is him to give at least probable cause for various search warrants. The proof they would gather from the various ISPs, the Foundation, Wikia, etc could easily lock him away for a long time. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 22:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Addition: I agree that the LTA page points that the foundation is already considering legal action, I'm just requesting that the Foundation actually pursue it. I'm sure I'm not the only editor that would be more than a little relieved to see a story on CNN about Jeremy being arrested. Now, the fact that some of the abuse occurred when he was a minor could complicate things, but since he's been at it so long, even just prosecuting the stuff since he was of legal age would most likely garner a conviction. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 23:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Solarra: I doubt very much that the WMF will ever do anything here. It would be wonderful if I was wrong, but I just don`t think so. I have not had my email enabled for years, because the WMF never even got a filter in place to stop him sending hundreds of abusive emails in a couple of minutes. In short, so far, they have not lifted a finger to stop him, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if they did, you wouldn't know about it until after the fact, Huldra. And unless you're a specific current target of his ire, it's perfectly safe to have your email enabled (He's all but given up on me and NawlinWiki, for the most part.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I´m a specific target of his (one of many!)...so I think I`ll pass. Seriously, the WMF attitude to editors leave me not much hope that they will ever do anything (for us) against Jeremy. Hope I´m wrong... Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• In my view, death threats have got to be dealt with firmly, using available legal tools. If it is at all possible, WMF needs to be proactive about filing complaints in such cases, especially where long-term behaviors are established. No one should be afraid to edit Wikipedia. Jusdafax 19:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• I suspect this (just blocked IP) is the same: Special:Contributions/ 200.222.64.106 The next few hours might get "interesting"..... Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Pages created by Hola2000

Hola2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For the past week or so, this user has created multiple pages (10 as of the time this report was written) that have little or no content on them. These pages have been tagged under various criteria, including G2, A1, A3, and A7 and all have been deleted except for one that someone else added real content to and one that was only just tagged. They've also been warned numerous times (including a final warning for removing CSD tags from their articles), yet continued to remove the tags. This seems to me to be a classic WP:CIR/WP:BULLINCHINA case, so I'd suggest a block until they can demonstrate understanding of their mistakes. --Jakob (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be either a WP:CIR problem here, or a deliberate attempt to disrupt. I've seem this pattern before and it turned out to be a sock of a banned user. Unfortunately, I don't remember who. In any case, admin intervention is needed to prevent further disruption.- MrX 19:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I have temporarily blocked the user. Hopefully they will begin discussing the concerns on their user talk page. Alternately, I have no issue with another admin unblocking the user so that they can respond to this thread, provided the other admin feels the user is serious about engaging in discussion to resolve concerns. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hola2000 is a confirmed sock of Mauricio80 (as is Sweet231), so I've switched the block to indef.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Barek and Ponyo.- MrX 21:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and conduct by Holybeef

Background: Statement by User:0x0077BE

This is a report about Holybeef:

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

The incidents occurred on several pages, but are primarily centered around these pages:

• Alan Guth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Laura Mersini-Houghton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Holybeef is a user who has been aggressively editing two BLPs, Alan Guth and Laura Mersini-Houghton to add (or re-add) original research about scientific priority claims. Numerous outside parties (myself included) have now been dragged into conflict with him, and now with a fluctuating IP editor who has recently taking to incivility and vandalism (addressed in a separate incident report). Unfortunately, numerous editors are finding that it is not possible to have a real discussion of the issues with Holybeef, and as we try to explain why what he's doing is original research, the talk pages are filling up rather rapidly, putting a pretty high barrier to entry on new editors. This is also creating a false sense of imbalance - on both articles, neutral third parties and long-term editors strongly agree that Holybeef (and the fluctuating IP editor)'s edits are low quality and in violation of Wikipedia policy, but he uses aggressive tactics to take ownership of the article and create the impression that there is a legitimate content dispute.

As you can see from Holybeef's talk page, he has been warned numerous times by various editors that he is misusing or misunderstanding Wikipedia policies. He was recently blocked for edit warring and for intransigently characterizing good faith edits (which multiple neutral parties clarified as being good faith edits) as vandalism. The archive link is here, where Bbb23 explicitly mentions that a 3RR violation indeed occurred and that a block would have been appropriate even if that were not true. Even so, Holybeef makes the demonstrably false claim that he "never made more than 3 edits in 24h" in his immediate request for unblocking - clearly demonstrating no understanding of why the block occurred and not even addressing the facts of the case. His mischaracterization of all attempts to remove or reword his addition of WP:OR to Alan Guth's page as vandalism continue in his tradition of completely mischaracterizing anyone he disagrees with - in the AfD for Laura Mersini-Houghton, he characterized 3 editors' votes as "bogus" diff.

On the talk page for Alan Guth's article, you can see that he also consistently misrepresents consensus. In numerous points in the article, he refers to versions of the article with his contributions as the "consensus" version, citing the discussion in the recantation of inflation theory section as evidence that he had a consensus to make his additions. It's a bit hard to parse, but you'll note that no editors joined in his view, they merely got tired of arguing with him. Drbogdan, Csmallw, MGBirdsall, SCZenz and Yandex5 all oppose his additions, with only himself in favor of the changes. He persists in reverting anyone who makes changes, however, and so the edits have been on the main page for over a month, which he seems to believe gives him consensus. Whenever it is suggested that he does not have consensus, he cites WP:NOTDEMOCRACY as a justification that he does not need consensus, because he has "a reliable secondary source" (also a disputed claim, but irrelevant, since consensus is required either way) here is a diff of him making a comment representative of one he makes in several places here.

Finally, he has recently changed his tactics somewhat and moved onto making personal attacks and accusations of conspiracy against other editors, and even against the subjects of the articles themselves. He starts with accusations of some sort of fraud and some kind of participation in freemasonry here. After I attempted to place notices about issues related to the fluctuating IP editor disrupting Laura Mersini-Houghton, he copy-pasted substantially the same general accusations of conspiracy charges against me and the other editors on the page in each of the venues, diffs for each venue are: AN/I, NORB, Mersini-Houghton talk page, his own talk page.

Note: This report is related to this earlier report of a fluctuating IP (historical link), covering an overlapping set of behaviors and articles from a different user.

Proposal

There are two major issues. One is that Holybeef clearly is either a single purpose account or has some sort of POV related to either these two scientists or, more likely, cosmologists in general and claims of scientific priority (as can be seen by the limited scope of his contribution history. The other is his unwillingness or inability to understand Wikipedia policies or to attempt to reach any sort of consensus, and his aggressive editing style. To remedy the first problem, I suggest a minimum 6 month topic ban from editing in either the article or talk namespace of articles on any articles relating to cosmology, biographies of scientists, or anything related to claims of scientific priority - a topic ban was also suggested by Johnuniq here. Regarding the second issue, I would say that he should be put on notice for these behaviors, and, given his propensity for edit warring, that he be officially sanctioned with 0RR (or possibly 1RR) for at least 1 month.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• I would strongly support an indefinite block. This editor's BLP violations are outrageous. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Originally I was going to propose a cosmology topic ban as I felt that the user might still be possibly mentored towards a more active involvement in the community, but after looking at his contribs it is clear to me that this is a single purpose account and frankly the nature of the egregious BLP violations concerns me. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 17:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support sanctions up to and including an indefinite block; clear BLP violations are present in his contributions, and he seems to have no contriteness or even acknowledgement of these violations. That, along with the WP:SPA-nature of his edits, makes me believe that he is not here to build an encyclopedia, and instead simply to push his POV. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support sanctions as above. Not only are the BLP/SPA/OR issues problematic, the user has serious issues with being civil in a discussion, even when the other user is trying to smooth things over. Primefac (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block per Newyorkbrad.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Response

Again you with your conspiracy theories. The reason why I had only covered 2 articles that interest me so far is that I joined recently, and unlike you I'm not a professional 24/7 editor (but still made a significant contribution to those few at least.) But I did warn you about your resorting to conspiracy theories as you did in Alan Guth Talk page. You're just making a fool of yourself and misleading/jeopardizing other editors. Holybeef (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

What conspiracy theories? The only conspiracy theories I'm seeing are coming from you. Such as where you said "I'd bet money that he's a member of Freemasonry lodge at MIT (world's Masonic stronghold) and that most of you "groupies" are his bros". Nil Einne (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

Based on my own evaluation of the BLP violations and bizarre conspiracy allegations, and supported by the consensus above, I have blocked Holybeef indefinitely. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

user acroterion

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 posted several reliable sources and my opinion here. Acroterion reverted that edits by writing "david duke". But why? Did I mention jews people? No. I have not added all of them in the article yet. Instead to add there, I wrote them on the talk page, which all user should do it. So how did he dare to revert it on the talk page, just like this articel. There were even some discussion like here, which were't removed from anyone. So why he removed my one. Only because he is an admin? He also warned me by writing "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Zionism, you may be blocked from editing." How can she write me it just for undid his revesion once, and was my edit disprutive?No. This is injustice. Lastly he wrote "not a forum", but why? I did not write anything strange that is usually written in a forum. His edit should be reverted. Thanks 109.154.0.64 (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The trolling was obvious, the sources weren't notable, and the subject matter was probably offensive to a lot of people. I'm not sure what you're hoping to find here other than a boomerang. 165.214.12.79 (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I endorse Acroterion's action. Your posting was anti-Semitic and loathesome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Not that I was notified of this discussion or anything, but the complainant's posting was obvious anti-semitic trolling of Talk:Zionism using the opinions of David Duke, among others. He was reverted twice and warned against further disruption. Acroterion (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

What Brad said. Mackensen (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User:JajaDSeries (again)

The user keeps defying their block by removing the block notice at their talk page and posting there much the same information they have been blocked for ([283], [284]). I've notified the blocking admin but they may not be available to respond.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

And then also User:121.54.54.226 edits to User talk:JajaDSeries and other pages with the same edits. IP is one of several in same netblock with same behavior pattern over at least a week. I've given that IP 1 week block, bumped the user account to indef for evasion, and semi-protected it user-account's talkpage. Don't have time now to work on rangeblock. DMacks (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

JajaDSeries is yet another sockpuppet of User:Jajadelera. - Areaseven (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Nikita-Rodin-2002 CIR issue

Никита-Родин-2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user (Nikita) was last up at ANI about three weeks ago (see the archived thread) where it was revealed that he had previously been indeffed at Russian Wikipedia with talk page access revoked. The benefit of the doubt was extended to this user after some discussion took place with a Russian speaker... but nothing much ever happened and the thread got archived.

Today Nikita is back, having created two not-so-hot articles (Ice Age:Traw and STS Kids). His only other contributions have been seriously problematic (the "best" was STS Love, which is now up for AfD). I'm not often one for telling people to go away because their English isn't good enough, but nothing out of this editor has been of a useable quality. While he's editing in good faith, everything he's done has been problematic, and doesn't seem to be conversant enough to contribute positively. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Indef. block. If he cannot contribute satisfactorily to the Russian Wikipedia, what chance has he here? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The user's block log shows he's not actually blocked.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Not on enwiki, but at ruwiki he's indeffed. See here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Ok, I see. It wouldn't be the first time a user is blocked over WP:CIR issues. I'd support a block if he does not show language competence. Do you know the reasons he was blocked at the Russian Wikipedia for?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
        • The translation for the last block says he was blocked for vandalism.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef block for WP:CIR. I checked his contributions the last time he was here at ANI and would have supported an indef block already back then, because of an obvious lack of competence. Thomas.W ^talk 11:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Vandalism on ru.wikipedia plus lack of language competence.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Repeated vandalism and lack of competence in general, and in particular with English, but perhaps in Russian too. Note he was also vandalising Rainbow Fish via a variety of IPs. [285], ditto RU WP. He has consistently tried to upload the equivalent of STS Love on RU WP [286], initially deleted twice per their equivalent of A7, and the last 2 times for blatant copyright violation. Once he was indef blocked, he has returned there via sockpuppets . The most recent one attempted to create and re-create the equivalent of Rainbow Fish (animated series) (starring Rainbow Fish) which was twice deleted for being either not in Russian or a garbled machine translation [287]. Today he's also created "STS Love" on the Ukrainian Wikipedia [288]. Incidentally, he has a draft for Rainbow Fish (animated series) in User:Никита-Родин-2002/Sandbox (in Russian) and he claims to the director. Voceditenore (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The "2002" in his username is obviously his year of birth, so it's really no surprise that he lives in a fantasy world. But he should do it somewhere else, not on Wikipedia. Thomas.W ^talk 13:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The concentration on cartoon series in RU WP and here may also be a reflection of his age. Voceditenore (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Well let's not focus so much on the age—there's no minimum age for Wikipedia. I'd say more than anything the probable youth of Nikita means that the problem is one of maturity rather than malice. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Which is exactly what WP:CIR is about, so it's already covered. Thomas.W ^talk 14:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support I didn't want to, and tried to find a reason to oppose, but Wikipedia is not here to teach English. This user clearly has a deficiency in the language, and while I fully support folks with limited English skills, this user does not even have a basic understanding of English as far as I can see. Blocks are not a ban, if he can come back and demonstrate a basic English skill, he can request an unblock and demonstrate to a reviewing admin his competency in English. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀} 18:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

India Against Corruption yet again

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.

---

Yep, with apologies, again. India Against Corruption has featured here on several occasions and also at noticeboards such as WP:DRN. Examples include this ANI report, this one, this and this.

The gist is that there was a populist movement in India during 2011-2012 that the media etc termed "India Against Corruption" and that there also exists a rather secretive pressure group bearing the same name that dubiously claims to have existed for 50 years or more but that has had problems regarding our notability policy. A whole heap of accounts were blocked, for reasons that varied from obvious socks to meats and, in at least one instance, an open proxy. All of those accounts were attempting to twist the IAC article (about the populist movement) into one about the pressure group.

Mansjelly (talk · contribs) has recently turned up and is making carefully-worded chilling statements in a similar manner to the previously blocked accounts, a primary example of which was HRA1924 (talk · contribs). The most recent example is this. They are also arguing exactly the same points as were made during the previous ANI etc reports, using what appear to be the same "retractions" (not really retractions because they conflate the movement with the group), and using the same idiosyncratic style as can be seen by anyone who is bold enough to compare their contributions with, say, 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk · contribs).

It is late here, I'm tired and am unlikely to be taking this any further for 12+ hours because, amazingly, I've also got some paid work going on. As happened originally, the article has ended up being full-protected and there remains uncertainty regarding whether this is socking or meatpuppetry. What is pretty certain to me is that there is an unusual commonality and that Mansjelly has displayed a remarkable familiarity with technical matters such as SPI and CU (one of several examples is here, where they also allude to what I strongly suspect are the same news sources that were mentioned in previous discussions earlier this year). Can anyone spare some time to look into this? Sagas drive me daft and this is a saga, so I quite understand if no-one can rise to it. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what to respond to in this rant since I am neither a sock-puppet or a meat-puppet (and Sitush should take this to the appropriate forum with his evidence for it).

The article India Against Corruption which is almost 90% exclusively authored by Sitush has serious content policy violations which are readily apparent to any Indian who has experienced those events. I have reviewed the records and IPs Sitush has specified. This article after having gone through every Wikipedia Dispute resolution process finally ended up at Mediation. When the IAC organisation provided a set of over 60 reliable secondary news sources which establish that they have taken back control of the IAC movement which is the subject of the present article AND that Mr. Anna Hazare was not part of their organisation, at that point Sitush backed out from mediation and refused to rejoin it.

Since there is no Dispute Resolution forum higher than Mediation, the IAC repeatedly complained to WM Foundation asking for the "libellous" content against them authored by Sitush to be removed from the article, and for the article to be "stubbed". See [289]. Finally IAC has filed a complaint asking for both Wikipemedia's Indian Domain names to be scrapped for distributing child pornography on a massively organised scale [290]. The Govt of India has instituted a high-power-committee to go into the allegations headed by the Vigilance Director of the Ministry of Information Technology. Over 5,000 pornographic images from Wikimedia Commons have been filed on record. Notice has been issued to both WM Foundation and Sitush by the Govt of India to defend the allegations that they have uploaded these child pornography images on an organised and systematic scale. Both have chosen not to appear.

I have nothing to do with all of the above. I am neither a sock puppet nor a meat puppet. Everything I have said above can be located using Google, as I have done. I have 600 edits as an IP editor. I opened my account about 4 months back because my corporate IP address was compromised and couldn't be used to edit, then we got a new IP address and I didn't need to use that account. Our IP is being misused again so I am using this account. Mansjelly (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously not a useful editor, blatantly violating the spirit of WP:LEGAL and generally being a disruptive pain. Indeffed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Since Mansjelly is now blocked is the one month of full protection of the article still needed?--67.68.162.111 (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Jesus! I've been accused of distributing child porn by the Indian government? That's news to me and would be a completely false allegation. How much lower can these people go? - Sitush (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Good block. "I opened my account about 4 months back because my corporate IP address was compromised and couldn't be used to edit" — would that be "compromised and couldn't be used to edit" as in "blocked"? That's what normally causes IP and other addresses to not be useable for editing. So Manjelly was block evading (who'd have guessed). And repeating those allegations against Sitush here, even if by some extreme unlikeliness they were actually made by the Indian government (and I'd like you to savour the unlikeliness of that for a moment), is pure scandal. But it doesn't look like they were, as I can't find anything about it on Google, despite Mansjelly's claim that "Everything I have said above can be located using Google, as I have done". No it can't. Don't worry, Sitush, you're a cunt.[291] Bishonen | talk 07:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen, you have obviously searched only in the English language Google. The full text of the IAC complaint made to the Prime Minister of India about Wikimedia's pornography is available in GUJARATI language along with all Wikimedia's child pornographic images sub-titled in the our PM's native language. Sitush is named at 11 places in the complaint. This is not my IP address, it is a shared cyber-cafe in Ahmedabad (Gujarat).

(Redacted) block evasion 120.61.48.205 (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Since I've never uploaded any picture of a child, pornographic or otherwise, to Commons or Wikipedia, any complaint is bullshit. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

(Redacted) block evasion 122.170.18.204 (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No-one has contacted me, and I'm eminently contactable. As a matter of natural justice, someone should be providing me with details of the charges and the evidence that supports them. But since there is no evidence, I guess that won't happen. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

(Redacted) block evasion Akp987 (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind word, Bish. I feel better already. - Sitush (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, when I come across people who are active against corruption, I tend to expect them to be honest and upstanding sorts. But then their supporters use unfounded accusations and despicable lies about people to try to get their way? If that's the people trying to clean up corruption, it's scary thinking about what the actual corrupt ones must be like. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

(Redacted) block evasion 120.61.48.205 (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot wrong with Commons in my opinion, but I have nothing to do with it and am powerless to change it. But it wasn't Commons I was talking of anyway, it was the despicable liars accusing Sitush personally of being involved in child pornography. Now, I don't know it it was you and you are Manjelly evading your block, or you're someone else in Mumbai - but if you support such despicable tactics that makes you every bit as as bad as the corrupt people you claim you're opposing. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

(Redacted) Akp987 (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

(Any passing admin care to do the necessary here? — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC))

The necessary has been done. Cute how they think they've got some genius formula for evading blocks, like we haven't seen and dealt with this sort of thing a thousand times before. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

(Hello passing admin :-) — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Just an open couple of questions to the IAC supporters here. 1) If you claim to be against corruption, don't you think you should be behaving honorably and honestly here rather than making outrageously false accusations against individuals of being involved in child pornography? I have absolutely nothing against your organization, but I'd say your tactics are far more likely to bring your organization into disrepute in the minds of readers than to advance your cause. 2) Do you honestly think tactics of intimidation will scare hard-working editors like Sitush and others away and leave you in control? I can assure you it will not. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

<block-evading sock removed and blocked> Bishonen | talk 11:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

I'm sorry, but a forum discussion is *not* evidence. If you want to provide evidence that Sitush and I are perverts, give us the links to our actual uploads and to the actual things we have allegedly done. The thing is you can't, because the evidence does not exist - and all your continuing dishonourable behaviour is doing is painting IAC supporters in an even worse light. Look, as a neutral observer (and one who has spent time in India and would love to see corruption tackled) I'm sympathetic to your cause - but you are really not helping yourself with this approach. Try answering my questions - do you really think you are presenting yourselves in an honourable light and do you really think you can win by intimidation? — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Weird. First time I clicked on those links I saw forum discussions, now when I click I see Commons images - but those images were not uploaded by Sitush or I, so they do nothing whatsoever to support your accusations. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don't get why we're leaving Mansjelly's block-evading socks all over this thread. I removed one, but was discouraged when I saw the others being replied to. Alan, to talk with the blocked sockmaster, you should go to his talkpage. Better to remove, ignore and WP:DENY here, surely. Bishonen | talk 11:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

  Yeah, I guess you're right - but in case other IAC supporters are watching (and I'm sure they are), I really just wanted to try to make them think about what a dreadful public image they're creating for themselves by their approach. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I have removed more, if anyone wants to see what the responses are to they can look at the history. GB fan 12:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Sorry I didn't catch Mansjelly before it got to this BS. Obviously neither editor has uploade porn to Commons, all you have to do is look at their Global contributions. Such allegations seem only to show the depths to which these people will go. Dougweller (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed an open tab with an edit conflict - I've lowered the protection to semi. Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI

No child pornography is mentioned in the link. The phrase "highly obscene" is used, but nothing more. --Auric talk 14:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

(Redacted) 2400:8900:0:0:F03C:91FF:FE73:667D (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a court of law - accordingly, I suggest you take your pseudolegalistic bollocks elsewhere. Your pathetic attempts at intimidation aren't fooling anyone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

(Redacted) 2400:8900:0:0:F03C:91FF:FE73:667D (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by Csisscrs

This is related to this edit by Csisscrs (talk · contribs); which appears to reference the notices the user was placing into their edit summaries on Edmonton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

According to the edit summaries, the user claims to be a "Canadian Security Intelligence Service Officer"", and in their legal threat they claim that by using that edit summary was a "warning to those who changed it" that reverting those edits could open the person up to prosecution.

Requesting help in reviewing the user's edits to the Edmonton article, to ensure no WP:DOLT issues exist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for the legal threats. I endorse the indefinite block on the different ground that the user's contributions consist of introducing hoax content and false information. The pseudo legal threats are just part of the silliness. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Legal threats over weather information. That belongs in the Lame Hall of Fame. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Look at the more recent edits prior to the block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It takes all kinds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This ban feels kinda hasty, guys. The Canadaian Secret Police are pretty serious about accurate weather information, and recent court rulings have indicated that unsubstantiated claims in Wikipedia edit summaries are an acceptable form of police identification, so I'm afraid this guy might be on the level. I'm just crossing my fingers that this doesn't get Wikipedia banned in America and Canada. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 01:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

That's funny. Tell us another one. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hilarity aside... Terrificastatistics (talk · contribs) and 199.119.235.164 (talk · contribs) are suspected socks of the supposed CSIS administrator. We should keep an eye out.
Support the block. The editor accused me of giving false info when it was the editor replacing factual info with false info. Why would CSIS be interested in providing false info regarding population, annexation, climate, etc.? Seems just like an editor naïvely trying to intimidate those whom (s)he thinks are naïve. We have been significantly underestimated! Hwy43 (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Those are kind of old, but the IP geolocates to Vancouver, which might be a clue of what to watch out for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't we, I dunno, report this to the CIA or the FBI or something? --Shirt58 (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The CIA and the FBI aren't Canadian, they're from the USA, you idiot! --Shirt58 (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but Canada's part of the USA. Isn't it? --Shirt58 (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it should be reported to the proper Canadian law enforcement authorities. This chap, for instance. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears this issue has been adequately mocked, I don't need to further explain why I reverted Csisscrs' changes to referenced facts. 117Avenue (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Markdabner

Here's the back story: I reported this user for violating the 3RR on List of people who have run across Australia a few weeks ago and nothing came from it because a few days as past. The content dispute stems from the additions of Sarah Mycroft. Apparently there's some issue on if she really ran. That's where De Williams comes in. If Mycroft didn't run that means De Williams is the first woman. I started a discussion on the talk page and started off on the lack of verifiable sources on the fact Mycroft didn't run. I explained to him on his talk page that from my google search that I couldn't find any real source and that if he has some add it to the discussion. He continues to refuse to discuss the issue sees this as 'punishing De Williams'. It's clear he is a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and refuses to post any verifiable source, believe me I have tried to find them. It's becoming disruptive and I have had enough of going in circles trying to ask him to discuss it properly, telling him how to, and he continue adding of the content dispute back into the article. He seems to think this is a war and has not listened to a word I said. I think a topic ban is in order. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A side note, I no longer want any contact with this user. He has openly and continually ignored what I said. I have told him now 5 times that he needs verifiable sources and went into detail on explain what that is and all his responses are rants on my talk page. I'll leave it to someone else to deal with this user as I've had enough.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Users comments directed to me when I asked not to be contacted by him "I dont know what your problem is, but whatever is making you behave this way, please don't direct it at me. You know behind the counter at McDonalds, the little 15yo who's a Manager and treats everyone like crap, I feel like you are behaving in that manner, and its simply not cool when I've been trying to resolve this with you calmly and genuinely wanted your help. I wont be messaging you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markdabner (talk • contribs) 06:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)"

He has been attacking me for last couple of posts and doesn't seem to want my help. Everytime I tell him something he said rants about something else. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Withdrawing as seems like nothing is going to come of this. All I recommend is someone watch List of people who have run across Australia and try to get this user to stop POV pushing and start participating in the discussion. I won't be watching the page anymore as I've had enough of this users blatant POV pushing.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Words being put in my mouth/Attacks

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

---

Yesterday I made a comment on User talk:Jimbo Wales [292] which has (I think) been misinterpreted by User:Viriditas, now whilst I accept it is ok to misinterpret what I said, what was said about me after is most certainly not ok in my opinion.

The comment I made, was more or less just me passing by and reading a lot of drama and posting a quick (mostly humorous) one line comment to the effect of "I agree, you people need to just get along." I didn't expect much to come of it, I expected people to laugh it off along with me or to simply just ignore me. It was not trolling I maintain to this very moment that the people in that thread need to make a massive chill pill.

Now, onto why I'm here. Viriditas responded at first with this comment [293] which although striking me as bizarre, I didn't think much of it until I went back to the thread and read this [294] and more disturbingly this [295]. The second comment listed here refers to me as "immature" and says "I admire trolls that make fun of women". The third comment says "Young people like Frosty who think it's unbearably funny to refer to women as cunts are victims of their own immaturity." Now of these three particular quotes listed here, I will let the first one slide quite easily. I can be immature, I'm a teenager, there are very few teenagers that aren't. I do however completely resent the second and third quotes provided. I don't admire trolls that make fun of women, and I certainly do not and never will be in favor of that sort of language when referring to women. I would like something to be done here, because the diffs I have provides are full of comments that I am very much not ok with being said about me, just because I am part of a demographic that Viridatas doesn't approve of. ~Frosty (Talk page) 09:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The best advice I can give you, being 50 and female, is to shrug, mutter a few profanities and/or obscenities (keeping it between your keyboard and your chair) and move on. Nothing worthwhile will come from an ANI-report. You got caught in stumbled into an pseudo-quasi-semi-ironic exchange between a crusader and a joker. A bad place to be. Kleuske (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got to concur with Kleuske. You tried to apply some balm to a festering discussion and it backfired. Nobody is going to fault you for that or think you're a misogynist pig. Your reputation is secure. Bringing it to ANI just means that more people see it. Heat rather than light. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I suppose so. :/ ~Frosty (Talk page) 10:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Neo-nazi needs a block.

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

IP behaves the same as (the now blocked) Themainman69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), IP has proceeded to harass me for pointing this out ([296], [297], [298], [299], [300]), and has vandalized the SPI page. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but now he's switched to 76.70.42.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Looks like we'll need a range block. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh, well I blocked that one for a week (the "israeli shills" thing is just too much) for block evasion, but we'll need a more experienced sysop to do the range block, 'cuz that's something I've never done, honestly. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson and FreeRangeFrog: rangeblock appears to have very large collateral in this case, so is not recommendable nor likely effective. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Help with autoblock, please

A user I blocked, Mosfetfaser (talk · contribs), remains autoblocked. I don't remember how to do that stuff… and when I clicked on "Auto-blocked IP addresses are not listed here but can be found via this tool" I got a 403 because it was on toolserver. Perhaps the tool has been migrated (though aren't the migrated tools redirected to the new URL? Why not?), but I would like the user to be unblocked a little faster, rather than me trying to research how to do it. Somebody help, please? Also feel free to tell me the new URL, if any, for User:Nakon's autoblock helper tool or other similar functionality. Bishonen | talk 08:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC).

Jim Carter - Public (talk · contribs) reported being autoblocked on his talk page. And then discovering it was lifted. Nothing on JC's block log. Jim1138 (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how autoblock works, when I was trying to leave MusikAnimal a message, I saw that I was autoblocked by Anna Frodesiak. I came back to my talk page and made a request. And almost after the request, when I edited my sandbox, wow.. there is no block. And then searched my block log, I'm surprised to see no block log! Don't tell me I'm dreaming. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Since you never had a block on your own account, if you were hit by an autoblock it can only be because you happened to be on an IP shared with somebody else who was blocked previously. Unless you remember what the autoblock message said it will probably be difficult to reconstruct what exactly happened. The reason it was gone again so suddenly might be because you happened to be reassigned to a different dynamic IP in the meantime? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

What you do in the absence of the extra tool is, you go to Special:BlockList and scroll/page down searching for an "autoblock" entry with the blocking admin's name and a block summary resembling that of the original block. I found your Mosfetfaser entry somewhere on page 3 or so and lifted it now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Fut. Bishonen | talk 09:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC).

I vaguely remember hearing that we've recently gotten a feature whereby an autoblock is automatically lifted when its original block is lifted. If we block an autoblocked person quickly (e.g. one second), will that override the original block and get rid of the autoblock? I tried that some time back, unsuccessfully, but it was well before I heard of the automatic-ending-for-autoblock feature. See the last section of the "Automatic reset" section of WP:Autoblock for the feature I'm talking about. Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the username, Jim Carter - Public is likely editing from some shared internet portal. A temporary hard {{anonblock}} was likely placed on the shared IP, preventing Jim from editing even though he is logged in. For this reason, I'd argue hard blocks are not fitting for shared IPs... but the point is to prevent the vandal from using an account to continue vandalizing. Disabling account creation is usually all that is needed, as it's unlikely the vandal already had an account or else they would have used it. Fortunately, autoblocks automatically expire after 24 hours, so maybe that is what happened here. If the problem persists, he can request to be ip-block exempt, but that should be a last-ditch effort, especially since most admins won't hard block anon's anyway. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Orlando Bloom

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.

---

For some reason this article is getting spammed with vandalism (from mobiles?). It's on PC but semi might be a good thing for an hour or two. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC).

Its a fight between Justin Bieber fans and Orlando Bloom fans, semi is probably a good idea. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I give it 3 days of semi, and extended PC1 for another 3 months in light of the ongoing issues. Monty₈₄₅ 23:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks! We have many conflicts spilling onto WP, but I hadn't expected one between the Beliebers and the Bloomers! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC).

No one expects the fannish imposition. Deor (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Apparently it's because of Bloom allegedly punching Bieber in the face last April. A well-deserved punch IMO. Thomas.W ^talk 08:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Already moving to the talk page, so eyes needed at Talk:Orlando Bloom. Monty₈₄₅ 23:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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

harassment and threat from User:Milowent

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.

---

He has began harassing me ony my talk page today, so I reverted it, he then unreverted it and just left me a message on my talk page saying "Don't screw with me, Me" here Me5000 (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• LOL. So this user has a hidden motivation of long and undetermined standing which has led to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 29 (re Columbia Mall), which I've politely tried to ask about (see the DRV and User talk:Me5000), and he's avoiding it. Me was just blocked within the last hour for unbecoming behavior (3RR violation in spirit). I honestly want to know what his beef is with deletion processes, no one has paid any attention to him in a meaningful way. I'm duly admonished for using the word "screw" in frustration and shall move onto other things, but please watchlist his talk page.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"Don't screw with me" is neither a threat or harassment. It is not a personal attack and only slight uncivil if at all. It is a naughty word in some families but that is not against the rules. Seems he is just asking you to leave him alone. Anything other evidence of an issue?

Milowent, if you are seeking a productive conversation then that is probably not going to help. Chillum 16:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Below is the harassment I'm talking about, Chillum. I have never even talked to this person and now he's say I'm harassing him? And this is what he unreverted on my talk page here "Aren't you enjoying doing that yourself though? Please respond to me inquiry above, I'm a social scientist with deep interest in your motivations." regarding an event from something that happened a week ago which I was blocked by RoySmith for, although he admitted the block was just to get my attention. Additionally, the "don't screw with me" remark he left on my talk page for reverting his harassment, if not a threat, what is it? Just a friendly reminder I am not allowed to revert his comments and that I am required to answer him because he is a "social scientist with deep interest in [my] motivations"? Me5000 (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Come to think of it, "don't screw with me" is actually a complaint from me (not Me) against Me's (not me) horrible harassment and treatment of me (not Me). I'VE BEEN BULLIED. Amusingly, Me (not me) has now gone over to two unrelated mall AfDs to vote delete. That was part of my inquiry, he created a bunch of stubs on probably non-notable malls awhile back, to make some unknown point.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Me5000 is allowed to remove all but sanctions and declined unblock requests from his userpage per WP:UP#CMT. I've removed the content again. "Don't screw with me" isn't a threat or harassment. This can be closed.--v/r - TP 17:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Persistant incorrect additions made on alien 3 article

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.

---

editor Kidbuu504 (talk · contribs) repeatedly insists on replacing correct information on the Alien 3 article with information pertaining to storyline retcons in a video game[301] [302] [303] etc. Multiple editors including myself have reverted them and given our reasons but he continues to make these edits most often with no explanation why. no attempt has been made by him to bring his argument to the talk page. his edits are disruptive enough that I beleive a block should be considered.

Comment This would be better taken to WP:AIV once the editor has been sufficently warned. Amortias (T)(C) 18:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Editor already blocked just needs closing. Amortias (T)(C) 20:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Autorum and the creation of non-notable BLPs

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 came across this user while patrolling Special:Newpages, when he had created Andrei Condrea. I prod'd the article as a BLP of a non-notable football player who plays for a non-professional league, per Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Association_football. When I went to post to the user's talk page to notify them of the prod, I found a long, long list of prior prod and speedy notifications. I also noted a significant number of warnings:

• User_talk:Autorum#July_2014_2, where he was warned not to remove prod notifications from articles he authored. This was on July 18. Yet, today he continues this behavior [304] without doing anything to improve the article.
• User_talk:Autorum#July_2014_4, where he was given a {{uw-create2}} warning. Yet, he continues. A whole new raft of articles has been created by him today which are clearly inappropriate; all but two (Vasile Lepure, currently tagged for speedy, and Vadim Istrati, which was deleted but subsequently restored by the deleting admin) are recreations of previously speedied/prod'd articles. Examples: [305][306][307].
• User_talk:Autorum#July_2014_7, where he was given a {{uw-create4}} final warning for creating inappropriate pages. Yet, he recreated it at least three more times (See deletion log noting it was deleted twice subsequent to that and has been recreated yet again).

This editor has been warned on multiple occasions. He has refused communication at every turn, and ignored all warnings including the final warning received on July 20. I recommend that this user be blocked, and all articles this user has created be deleted. All articles created by this editor are for non-professional level football players. The league all of these players play in is the Moldovan "B" Division, which is not a professional level league. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues#Men.27s_leagues, and note that only the Moldovan National Division is a professional league in Moldova. User has been notified of this thread. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. Maybe this user does not understand English, maybe he is simply not listening; either way, his activities are a waste of everyone's time. Anyone may unblock if he convinces them that he has read and understands WP:NFOOTBALL and will not continue to create NN footballer articles. JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

...and new user Ripensia (talk · contribs) popped up and started re-creating the articles. Blocked per WP:EVADE. JohnCD (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

block user Easycalculation

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 can see a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Easycalculation

In which the user named Easycalculation is trying to project him/her as part of the site Easycalculation.com

I represent HIOX, which owns the site easycalculation.com The user Easycalculation should be blocked as it is being used to harm the reputation of the site Easycalculation.com in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanhiwiki (talk • contribs) 03:39, 30 July 2014‎

User:Easycalculation has only made 25 edits, all on the 25th or 26th of February this year, very few of which are in article space. While there is a vague claim concerning Easycalculation.com on Easycalculation's user page ("Easycalculation name is based off my site Easycalculation.com It is a math site that was started 2007"), I see nothing that could be considered remotely harmful to the reputation of the website - and I doubt anyone would take the claim seriously, given the grammatical errors etc. Why is this a problem? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems like the username falls under WP:CORPNAME. PaleAqua (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This is about Easycalculation (talk · contribs).

Andy is correct—the user's edits are entirely innocuous (and, I suspect, have all been reverted). I reworded the user's page because it is clear that English is not their strong point and it would be a mistake to read too much into their "my site Easycalculation.com" (I changed that to "the site Easycalculation.com"). Johnuniq (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Bewbslova

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 a fairly new editor (my IP changes frequently, not as new as my contribs might lead you to think) who is having all contributions made today reverted by Bewbslova. This is in retaliation to me reverting his 4 edits (in my mind, they were all unencyclopedic). Nothing I've done since my last IP switch was huge (other than some section blanking reverting) but I think I had a positive impact on the project unlike Bewbslova. I'd like to request a warning and rollback from a more experienced user. 165.214.12.80 (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry my bad I am trying to undo it I did not mean to undo the edit in the first place then someone else started editing it so I could not undo my message. Bewbslova (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

That seems pretty reasonable, I'm still not fond of your edits though. I think you should try to copy the tone of the articles you're working on. Is there any chance someone with rollback can fix the mess we've made of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Union_of_Students_in_Ireland&action=history? 165.214.12.80 (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Some1 will sort it eventually because it is really fucked up. Bewbslova (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done—LucasThoms 19:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Bewbslova is clearly not finished reverting constructive edits, such as the one I made to List of Pokémon (441–493). After reverting my edit with the descriptive edit summary "not a helpful edit", he has the guts to template my talk page. If it matters, you may examine my edit and compare. Bewbslova has had his warning, but now is the time to start taking preventative measures against further unconstructive editing. Baconfry (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indef by Jac16888. Favonian (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Brand.com sock farm problem.

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 Brand.com (an "online reputation management" company), there have been four probable sockpuppets in the last two days. See sockpuppet investigation: [308]. As each one is blocked, a new SPA account appears. Suggest a few days of semi-protection to quiet things down. John Nagle (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You would think that an online reputation management company would avoid the very public scrutiny of Wikipedia. Chillum 21:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User: BeatleManix

BeatleManix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - genre warring in spite of repeated requests on his talk page to stop. Radiopathy •talk• 23:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

75.156.178.30 / "Daman Hongren"

75.156.178.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been fairly uncivil and often does not write in standard English which makes communication difficult.

In this edit he calls me a LIAR! and removed the fact that I am on vacation from my user talk page.

In this edit he writes I teL yuu. Pleez riit in Ingglish! which is a common strange method he uses to write.

Additionally some of the text he has attempted to add is not really understandable nor supported by the references in question such as here [309]. I have concerns about their ability to contribute to Wikipedia productively. As they use a bunch of IPs they may be difficult to address. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The ratio between our ages is 5/3, and I will let you figure out which way that goes. I hav used swear words. They are *not* uncivil, because I am not attacking anybody with them. 75.156.178.30 (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This complaint is evidence that you do not know how to take a vacation. Turning off your computer is the first step to getting some rest. Wikipedia is very addictive. As a professional, I suspect that Doctor Heilman has already gotten a tool to log himself out at pre-set times, so that he is not late for work. The edition in question contains evidence that Doctor Heilman was making it inconvenient for me to find what he had deleted. 75.156.178.30 (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

In context, I thot it was funny. This is how wikipedia looks to me, sometimes. 75.156.178.30 (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I use an e-mail address the first time I write on a talk page. That's an exceptional degree of identifiability, so raising issues of any kind with me is not a problem. Avoiding me, and trying to do anything about my excercises in understanding the lack of philosophy in your favourite medical editorial is a problem. Do you want me to make it your problem? If you will complain about Jimmy Wales principle that anybody can edit wikipedia, then you should complain to him. Doctor Heilman is strongly in favour of deleting material that he does not understand, whether it is sourced or not.

I am an artist. He is an applied scientist. We are bound to clash. Assume that all of these accusations are essentially true from either standpoint. Are any of them serious enough to warrant an investigation? If so, then keep your mind open; not at both ends, though! Follow the links, and understand the issues on Talk:Selective_serotonin_reuptake_inhibitor#Avoiding_Discussion_of_Causation_with_Evasion. If you want to contribute, then the more the merrier. A backlog of questions is there for me to answer. Bohgosity BumaskiL 75.156.178.30 (talk) 02:50,

30 July 2014 (UTC)

This editor who uses IP addresses and sometimes calls himself "Bohgosity BumaskiL" is, on the balance, disruptive. Some of his article edits can be interpreted as good-faith although even that can be a stretch, and the edits often make the article worse by changing article content to very complicated language, and most often getting reverted. He deliberately uses peculiar non-standard spelling for reasons only he understands, going so far as to refactor his own comments to make spelling worse, even after being asked to write in plain English. He refactors the comments of others for reasons that don't seem to be allowed by WP:TPG. He seems to have something out personally for Doc James, see his bizarre comments on Doc's User Talk. Overall this guy comes off as a troll not here for any good reason. Zad68 15:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This IP editor has now registered the account Daman Hongren, apparently naming himself after this one: Daman Hongren. Zad68 13:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Now blocked for trolling/WP:NOTHERE by Bbb23 Zad68 02:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• This isn't an English problem. The user is simply a troll and toying with us. Either that or, to use a technical term, he's bananas. Either way, he's WP:NOTHERE and I see no point in attempting to reason with him, even though it no doubt amuses him.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)