Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive862

Personal attacks, 3RR edit-warring and article ownership by user Tharthan

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, this was mistakenly entered under the main AN, not ANI.JesseRafe (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The user Tharthan has been edit warring on two articles, violating 3rr, the first being Yo Edit History (which also included a personal attack in an edit summary) and the second is Erewhon Edit History. I stopped after two edits, but this editor seems to be unable or unwilling to let go of his own prose and style, writing in a distracting and overly-indulgent tone and language (just see his User Page for his manifesto on his affected wordchoice (e.g. he insists "whilst" is perfectly normal for North America whereas every single style guide suggests avoiding it, even for British/Commonwealth speakers/writers, including both while and wiktionary:whilst. JesseRafe (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Further, I posted on his Talk Page a formulaic warning about personal attacks (cf. "callow fool") in case he had a history of these and he erased it, which I assume is a user's prerogative to whitewash their bad history. JesseRafe (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

P̶a̶r̶d̶o̶n̶ ̶m̶e̶,̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶i̶c̶e̶d̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶I̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶p̶o̶s̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶o̶w̶n̶ ̶t̶a̶l̶k̶ ̶p̶a̶g̶e̶?̶ ̶I have already apologised to you for the personal attack (which I, again, apologise for), explained why I removed the unwarranted template "Welcome to Wikipedia" talk page post, and also attempted to start a discussion with you at your own talk page regarding the issue at hand. However, I was at school when I wrote that post, and now that I come home I see that you have suddenly started a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard of all places over a relatively minor and easily resolvable issue. If you truly thought that it was a bigger problem, it would have been fairer to have started a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard than to so swiftly take your concerns here.

Furthermore, whilst I do apologise for getting a bit heated up earlier, I would appreciate if you did not yourself act so hostilely towards me.

Finally, I was unaware that I broke 3RR. I was almost certain that these edits had taken place over the period of several days. If I am incorrect on this point, then I sincerely apologise.

In addition, the reason I maintained that we keep "whilst" on the page in question was because it was not confusing, it was the wording of the original writer of that (myself) and it had no real reason to be removed other than a dissonance of style.

EDIT: I have also responded to your response to my response on your talk page.

EDIT 2: Also, I never claimed that "whilst" was common across North America, I merely said that it had use in North America, and it has plenty of currency in my local dialect.

Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I post this now after trying to have a civil discussion with user JesseRafe at their talk page, but said person seems to have no wish to discuss things civilly whatsoever. They now are making rude statements ("blowhard" being one that they used that actually borderlines on being a personal attack) about my character and my intentions when such information has no bearing on the discussion being had there. I leave things to your decision, administrators, because it seems as if JesseRafe has no interest in coming to a peaceful agreement on this matter. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Usage note: "whilst" is not used in North America. Those who do not read modem British fiction might not even recognize it as a word. --NellieBly (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Tharthan, my intentions and words were clear, I didn't want your whining and excuses on my Talk Page. If you want to discuss "whilst" do it on the while page (as whilst doesn't have one, hmmm, what does that tell you?) as that discussion doesn't belong on Yo, but what does is your flagrant deletion of cited and sourced material for your own unverified etymological musings. As to Erewhon, again you made a unilateral move when there was zero Talk Page consensus, used horrendously unencyclopedic tone in your prose, and just mindlessly revert without even considering you might be in the wrong. Keep those discussions where they belong, I said "leave off" because I find it annoying to have 8 notifications in 10 minutes because some editor insists on both writing on my Talk Page AND not knowing there's a "preview" function (hint: use it). Thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@NellieBly I have been using it since I was a child and have never run into anyone who questioned my using of it (neither as a child, nor now). In addition, I have talked with many a person who also uses the term. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that the exact clarification given to "whilst" by comprehensive and neutral sources is that it is rare in North America, and might be perceived negatively by some. Not that it is not present at all or only as a Briticism. Remember, though, I don't speak for North America or the United States, I only speak for my area. @JesseRafe Frankly, I am tired of this cynicism and name calling. It did initially arise from an already apologised-for (multiple times) personal attack made by me, but now at this point all that's going on here is the uttering of rude comments and hostility for no good reason whatsoever. Choose not to accept my apology if you so wish; I have offered it to you sincerely and as a gesture of goodwill. But if you so choose to think of me as some overzealous editor or haughty dandy or whatnot, please at least stop this incivility.

Switch the pages in question back to your preferred version if that'll satisfy you. I'm not going to fight against your claims. Just please stop this.Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I have never, ever heard a fellow American say "whilst" either out loud or in writing. It sounds like something out of Dickens, a Britishism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Just because you've never heard the term used doesn't mean it is not in use. And whilst while it's accurate to say "whilst" doesn't have a page, it does redirect to "while" so one can hardly say the term doesn't exist or have use. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

When have you heard Americans use it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Both Webster and the American Heritage have it as "Chiefly British". I learned the word right here on Wikipedia, after almost two decades in the US. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

So we've established that it's not common in the United States in general. That's great, but I was never disputing that. I'm not really concerned with the (modern) "United States of America". My priorities are in my homeland, New England. Either way, the "issue" in question with my wording on the page "Yo" has been fixed by someone else, to a completely different word. So that's that.

But I'll tell you, it's funny when people notice a regionalism in my speech (which is only natural, since I don't waste my time artificially filtering my speech to comply with biased "standards" like General American or the like). Some regionalisms in my speech that people from outside of my area often point out are how I call a bubbler a bubbler (though I hear that they also call bubblers bubblers in Wisconsin as well, though I can't confirm this), sodapop sodapop, carriages carriages, (Italian) grinders (Italian) grinders, blinkers blinkers, wicked meaning "very", etc. So, yes folks, I speak a dialect of New England English and not some variation of General American. I'm not sure why this would surprise people, considering I come from New England and have such listed on my user page, but whatever. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

So does that mean I can change Yo back into standard English (and again, obviously whilst redirects to while (nobody said it didn't Chaheel Riens) but my point is EVERY style guide calls "whilst" BOTH chiefly British AND argues against its use as it is "considered archaic, pedantic or pompous", which is the main reason why I removed it, not because it was a Briticism. JesseRafe (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, bossman, but somebody else changed "whilst" to something completely different already. Probably the best outcome, in my opinion. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I usually try to avoid AN/I. Posting here or the other drama-pages pollutes your Precious Bodily Fluids, far as I'm concerned, but I'll make an exception in this case. Tharthandorf apologised above, contentious issue probably resolved. If the participants are happy with the outcome, maybe we should close this? Pete AU aka--Shirt58 (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of varieties of English: thanks to Wikipedia, in conversation I now refer to five different codes of football as just "football". (I've recently acquired a taste for American football – I had to lean the rules to find out what @Drmies: was talking about, then found I quite liked it.) And confusion ensues.

Additional comments

I realise the discussion above has been closed, but I see the last post by Shirt58 and have to shake my head in dismay. Shirt58 says "contentious issue probably resolved. If the participants are happy with the outcome" and I see that clearly they are not. After what we all thought was a resolution,[1] JesseRafe decided to change the whole damn thing.[2] Tharthan reverted,[3] and then so did JesseRafe.[4] Perhaps both sides need to go to the naughty corner for a while. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

On the positive side the conflict is no longer about the word "whilst." On the negative, it remains fairly uncollegiate. Not at the level requiring admin tools, but could do with wider editor input to encourage consensus between the competing versions. -Euryalus (talk) 06:55, 8 November 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.

Days after my return to Wikipedia after months away, cursing editor returns to bait me

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

---

I've been a Wikipedia editor for more than nine years, and generally well-regarded by my peers, if my awards cabinet is even a small indication. I've tried to get help from admin Dennis Brown, but he told me that since people curse in real life it's OK for an editor to tell me "fuck off" and repeatedly use other versions of the f-word at me.

Back in June, the edit-warring Winkelvi got into an edit-war and used inflammatory language that admittedly got me upset. Both of us were blocked temporarily by User:DangerousPanda, who like Dennis Brown said the f-bombs against me were OK. I understand DangerousPanda may have some admin ANI issues of his own now.

Here are four examples of Winkelvi's incivility at the time, that helped lead to our mutual block:

• "(as if it's any of your fucking business). And if you keep this bullshit up on my talk page, I'll remove your comments as well. Simply because you're starting to really piss me off..." [5]

• Or this edit summary: "now stay away from my talk page and fuck off" [6] Please note this is a personal attack: It's not the adjective form of "stay off my fucking page" but the verb form "fuck you." Why did an admin let that personal attack slide?

• When an editor starts an ANI, he is required to let the other editor know. I had no choice but to post the ANI notice on Winkelvi's talk page. Despite this requirement, this is how he responds: "(→‎ANI: stay the fuck off my damn talk page)" [7]

• We're also required to post 3RR notices. So he falsely accuses me of harassment though according to Wikipedia 3RR reporting policy I had no choice put to post a 3RR warning: "(→‎3RR: already told you to stay the hell off my talk page, this is now harassment)' [8]. Shortly after that, Dangerous Panda blocked him. -

Within days of my return, that editor was back on my talk page to bait me: He could have made his point on the article in question's talk page, but chose instead to come poke me. I responded by pointing to an infobox template that contradicted his assertion and told him to stay off my talk page, explaining I considered communication from him to be harassment. He responded first by bragging about how he told me "stay the fuck off his page" in June, [9] and then began cursing me again with a brand-new "fucking" [10].

An admin who tolerates editors who tell others to "fuck off" is bad for Wikipedia. It engenders an atmosphere palatable only to angry, poorly socialized white guys in their 20s. It's disrespectful and a distinct turnoff to older editors, women, and many ethnic and religious groups, among others. And really: Do we want to create an environment hostile to anyone except guys who like say "fuck off"? To have Wikipedia be a disrespectful, uninviting place except for people like that?

Dennis Brown is OK with that. He told me "many people will occasionally say 'fuck off'," and goes to say that since he uses it in the real world it's OK to do it here. And then he blames me: "If you can't forgive small transgressions, then the internet is a bad place for you." We're not talking about the Internet. We're talking about Wikipedia, where WP:CIVIL is an important guideline. Dennis Brown's contention that anyone who doesn't like being told "fuck off" in a Wikipedia discussion should leave Wikipedia seems remarkable to me. Is that the bar we're setting for Wikipedia behavior? That repeatedly using the f-bomb against another editor is OK? --Tenebrae (talk) 09:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This permalink shows a section on Winkelvi's talk which you started. That was in response to a perfectly civil section from Winkelvi at your talk (permalink). Winkelvi is not a role model for collaborative language, but the response was perfectly in keeping with the style of your comments. It is never useful to hold a grudge, just forget that someone on the Internet was rude to you last June. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you for real? Let's do this - any editor who tells another editor to "fuck off" and stay off their talk page should consider it mutual.--v/r - TP 20:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Roger that, TParis: if another editor has given you offense and you have asked the offending party to stay off your talk page, then you -- at a minimum -- should be prepared to reciprocate and stay off the offending editor's talk page. To do otherwise strikes me as intentionally provocative and an attempt to continue an unnecessary feud. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

[Responding to Johnuniq; there were intervening posts] I see. It's my fault he came unsolicited to my page after a lengthy ANI/3RR battle in June that got us both temporarily blocked from Wikipedia. That's a far, far cry from being "rude to [me] in June."

Perhaps I could ask you to look here, look here, and look here ... mutual 3RR reports and an ANI. This wasn't "rudeness" ... this was all-our war between two editors that wound up in two blocks.

After all that, he deliberately comes to my page, when he could have gone to the article's talk page. That is baiting, and it was his deliberate choice.

And he's cursing at me again in November. So let's be clear that we're dealing with an angry, foulmouthed, uncivil person who went out of his way to provoke me simply by interacting with me. Why would a person who curses you, fought you, made (and continues to make) false accusations go to your talk page if not delieratey provoke you. And here's the thing: I can't curse at him, because the admin gives his special dispensation to curse at me. If I told Winkelvi the same number of f-words he told me, I'd be blocked in a second. Why is that?--Tenebrae (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• You are mischaracterizing what I said, which doesn't serve you well here. The original discussion is here [11]. Let me repeat. He shouldn't have said "fuck off" and was warned as such back in June. When it comes to random use of the word, not in a personal attack: if you can't handle seeing it in type, then yes, the internet is a bad place for you, including Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a swear free zone. We try to promote a collegiate environment, but that doesn't mean we censor people. We do what we can to limit personal attacks, but we aren't going to start blocking people for occasional swearing. It simply isn't going to happen. It is the context that matters more than the words. Here, the sole reason you would have to complain is that he said "I wasn't fucking baiting you, I was trying to inform you.". You are free to call it crass, or try to encourage better use of language (a reasonable goal), but under no circumstance should we block someone who says "fuck" every now and then. You mentioned about how it offends devout Christians and Muslims on that talk page, but our goal isn't to cater to any religion, it is to provide a reasonable environment for all editors, including accommodating and tolerating whenever possible. Now, if he is edit warring or harassing or doing something else, then yes, blocks are possible, but your singular focus on the f-bomb is bordering on obsession. Dennis - 2¢ 12:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Concur, it's not a fair witness description of Dennis's statements. NE Ent 13:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's entirely disappointing that both of these reliable editors are involved in such a thing as personal attacks and incivility. I don't think that cursing has any room on Wikipedia and believe me there have been many times that I would have loved to have told someone to fuck off but didn't. There is nothing on Wikipedia that can't be settled with just discussion, even heated, and consensus. I don't know the whole story and there is always 3 sides to every story, yours, theirs and the truth, but I think this just needs to stop. The edit in question of Winkelvi "baiting" Tene was Tene removing an IPs edit saying that Sebastian Stan and Chris Evans were married. Clearly they aren't. Clearly this is someone who is a fan of The Winter Soldier and wanted to make a silly edit. Wink's response on Tene's talk page, no offense Wink, was a little much. It had nothing to do with the LGBT community seeing as how they aren't a couple and pretty sure neither of them are gay, it was just a fan edit and that whole thing was unnecessary. I would just say at this point, try to stay away from each other, if your paths happen to cross, try to discuss the edit in question civilly and if you can't, ask for other neutral editors opinions. I don't want to see anyone leave. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown is correct Wikipedia isn't a profanity free zone but considering the past between these two editors, special consideration should be taken when it comes language. They should know that such language only serves to escalate tensions not defuse them. It would also probably be beneficial if these two don't deal directly with each other and instead first seek wider community support for their rationales when it comes to content disputes.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • If it's profanity in general, yes, it's fine but when it's directed at someone for the use of nothing other than a personal attack or to escalate things, then profanity has no place here. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I think we're in agreement here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• If Tenebrae's position is "Any communication from you is harassment," they will need to stay clear of any articles / discussions Winkelvi chooses to participate in. On the hand, a discussion of an edit on Chris Evans (actor) is best made on Talk:Chris_Evans_(actor), and I encourage Winkelvi in the future to use article, not user, talk for content discussions. NE Ent 13:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • If the edit was a legit edit that needed discussing, I would agree, but the fact that it was a fan made edit about two actors being married when clearly they aren't, that does not need to be discussed, just removed. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Concur -- didn't mean to imply a discussion was required, just that any discussion is best made on article talk. NE Ent 14:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Agreed, and you make a good point that discussions need to be made on the article talks not the editors. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
        • These cases are always problematic. I agree that swearing should be held to a minimum, but under no circumstances can we take actions for simple, occasional swearing that isn't calling someone a name, unless it part of a disruptive pattern (ie: happening daily or done just to disrupt). Wikipedia is a worldwide thing, a global encyclopedia. It requires we are all a bit more tolerant than perhaps we would like to be. In part, due to our own cultural biases and what we call "normal" isn't "normal" to everyone else. Also because humans are humans, and sometimes they are annoying as hell, including me. Like I told him way back when and again yesterday, telling someone to "fuck off" isn't acceptable, it is a bit too personal and aggressive. If he makes a habit of it, he will be blocked. If it is a rare occurrence, I would simply warn him, the same as I would anyone else. I tolerate all kinds of stuff I don't particularly like here. So must we all. WP:NPA is the line in the sand, and if someone gets too close to that line on a regular basis, then of course we will deal with it as well. I suggest we go edit articles now. I'm at work, so I'm going to go sell glass tubes of electric sunshine, and maybe edit later. Dennis - 2¢ 14:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
          • "Sell glass tubes of electric sunshine", that sounds lovely. And I agree, warnings should be given, and these two should just go back to editing and try not to interact too much. Cuss in general but keep the "fuck offs" to a minimum. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
            • The reference is to indoor grow lights for medical marijuana. —Neotarf (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comments from the accused: First, I think it's important to look at the diffs in order of occurance: This edit [12] prompted me to attempt to inform Tenebrae with a good faith effort that his reversion was questionable and why [13]. The article he edited is on my watchlist, and I was about to deal with a pending reversion there, that's why I knew he had reverted the edit to begin with. I was not hounding his edits or looking for him to create an issue between us as he has implied. After reading my post on his page, his response was to not WP:AGF and accuse me in an edit summary of harassing him earlier this year (which I did not) [14]. He then proceeded to my own talk page and left the following [15] and, after reading a communication between me and another editor, took it upon himself to disparage me at that editor's talkpage here [16]. Ironically, he remembered being told to stay off my talkpage and says any communication from will be considered harassment, but he keeps returning to my talkpage to continue accusing me of bad faith actions and harassment [17]. When I went to his talkpage, all I was doing was trying to inform of something I thought he might be unaware of. That's it.

I have to admit I am truly perplexed by Tenebrae's choice to come here after he was told by two administrators (Dennis Brown and Drmies) that doing so would be a bad idea and the fuss he was making about this issue was over-the-top. I am also dismayed at his accusation that my only purpose for going to his talk page was to harass him and "stir up trouble" and to bait him. I could understand him feeling that way if I had been brash, "crass", or rude in the comments I left. But none of that happened. I had actually forgotten about our conflict a few months ago and didn't remember what had occurred until he came to my talk page, brought it up, and made baseless accusations and personal attacks there as well as in the edit summary he left when deleting my comments. I had stated on Dangerous Panda's talkpage that even after this episode, I'm willing to bury the hatchet and let bygones be bygones - to edit in the future with him collegially and peacefully. I further wrote that I hoped he could see his way to turning the clock back on all this and forgetting his grudge against me. He read my attempt at an olive-branch, responded nastily with more accusations, and then came here. But he didn't just come here. He then also went on a support canvassing campaign here [18], here [19], here [20], here [21], here [22], and here [23].

In conclusion, I can't see why I should receive any warnings for anything as some here have suggested. My initial contact with Tenebrae was totally in good faith. I did not "brag" about the incident(s) between us back in June as he claims. The negative picture Tenebrae is attempting to paint of me is from six months ago, not now. If anyone should receive a warning it should be Tenebrae for wasting the community's time on this report/complaint as it is more about Tenebrae wanting to see me punished for something I said/did 6 months ago and the fact the he still hasn't gotten over it. Look at the diffs above: Tenebrae is the one who is looking to cause trouble for me, not the other way around. I can't stress more that when I went to Tenebrae's talk page it was completely in good faith. Please note, the tension and drama only started when Tenebrae reacted as he did, not before. That reaction continued for post after post on my talk page and at post after post on the talk pages of others. There, he continued his over-reacting and accusations, doing everything he could to relive our contact 6 months ago (he's doing it here in the initial report, too) as well as his editing block (which was longer than my own, and I think that is what really rankled him and kept him away for months on end). In the future, I will now have no problem remembering what happened between us in June 2014 because of this ridiculous mess happening now. That memory will keep me from interacting with him at all costs. Unless, of course, he can finally accept the olive branch I presented him yesterday and leave his near obsessive and vitriolic grudge against me behind. Holding onto it is not healthy for him or the Wikipedia community. As this report has clearly demonstrated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Coming to my page to haughtily claim I'm wrong about something, when he in fact didn't read the relevant Wikipedia template and was wrong himself ... that's not an "olive branch."

"fuck off" [24] is a personal attack and he got away with it. Fine. Dennis Brown says, Well, it's OK to say "fuck off" if you don't make a habit of it. Yet Winkelvi throws the f-bomb gratuitously again in November. [25] He has done so in every series of communication with me. Is that "repeated behavior"? Tell me, please, how it's not.

Baiting someone and then saying, "Oh, look, he's holding a grudge" is classic misdirection. And another lie. I was not, in fact, holding a grudge. I returned to Wikipedia and presumed that with the thousands of editors here we would never have to cross paths again. He chose to be the instigator. I never would have spoken to him again. So clearly, he is the one who is obsessing on me and refuses to let go, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I. Did. Not. Bait. You. You assumed that was what I was doing because the lens through which you were seeing me (and are still seeing me) was clouded by your anger and grudge against me due to what happened six months ago. That is obvious by what you posted here [26] on October 22nd: "I've been off Wikipedia for a few months after some excruciatingly frustrating experience with a bunch of trollish Wikipedians, including an admin who says it's OK for another editor, perhaps his buddy, to curse at me and presumably at other editors". You are holding a grudge, and I'm not the only one who has pointed this out. Are you also accusing those who have noted this grudge as also misdirecting?

And, please, stop bringing up the "fuck off" comment as if it happened in the last couple of days. It did not. It happened six months ago. Please let it go and move forward, hopefully by accepting the offer I gave you in all sincerity: to bury the hatchet and let bygones be bygones, edit together in the future collegially and peacefully as well see your way to turning the clock back on all this and forgetting your grudge against me for something that happened quite a while ago. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You conveniently ignore you threw a "fucking" at me just yesterday. [27] This is a pattern with you, and constant cursing at someone is classic bullying. Oh, and you did brag yesterday about cursing me previously: "And, by the way, I think I said 'stay the fuck off my talkpage', not the version you remember." [28]

Giving an explanation for my absence is holding a grudge? No. If I were to have gone to you or gone to admins to stir things up, that is holding a grudge. And that's exactly the case with you when you came unsolicited to my talk page to claim, erroneously, that I was wrong about something, though Wikipedia template policy does not support you. Coming to me within days of my returning ... that seems like you're obsessing about me, and now you've told another editor on his talk page that you plan on stalking me. There's something quite wrong going on.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"and now you've told another editor on his talk page that you plan on stalking me. There's something quite wrong going on" What? I said I was going to be stalking you, where? Diff, please. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"I will need to keep tabs on what you post on talk pages to ensure you are not committing incivility and trying to disparage my name" [29]. So you're going to follow me all around my talk-page posts? All of them? Really? That's stalking.

And it is not the place of even a civil editor, let alone one who curses other editors, to follow an editor around to try to catch him being uncivil. And I never even used your name in that post that advised a fellow editor to ask for proof when another editor makes a policy/guideline assertion — a completely non-controversial piece of advice. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I rightfully stated I would have to start watching your talk page comments for you discussing me and making disparaging comments. I said it because it was clear to me at that point that you weren't going to stop your efforts to see me punished for the transgressions you imagine I committed against you six months ago. And, I note you did more of that today on the same editor's talkpage [30]: "Wow, you really are obsessed with me", "now saying you'll stalk me", "misleading other editors by saying your personal preference is the truth is just wrong". Implying that because you didn't mention me by name exonerates you from personal attacks and incivility just doesn't wash.

I'm done trying to communicate with you here. This whole experience has been beyond frustrating, and frankly, just doesn't deserve any more attention that it has already garnered. Trying to work things out with you while you are in this state of upset is clearly not going to do anything productive. If you want to continue, please do. Because, in my opinion, it only further sullies your "cause" to see me punished. Which is what this is all about. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

An IBAN would be appropiate, 1-way or 2-way. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

One-way IBANs are inherently inequitable. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

As a completely impartial observer, I saw Winkelvi leave a civil message (which may or many not have been supported by the infobox MoS), and Tenebrae responded with a bit of a temper. 4.34.132.146 (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You would need to see whole backstory: Look here, look here, and look here ... mutual 3RR reports and an ANI. Coming to my talk page at all after that, when he could have used the article's talk page, was a deliberate choice on his part. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I won't read the entire history, because it seems to be just that, history. While he could have used the article talk page, he left a perfectly civil note on your talk page. You could have ignored it, deleted it, or considered having a rational discussion. Instead you confronted him on his talk page, and now this is happening. 4.34.132.146 (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: in regards to the "support canvassing campaign", I don't state my opinion in favor of the editor who asked me to voice it unless that's my actual opinion. What I wrote was neutral and not a full advocacy of having you punished. I think that's what Tene wanted was to have people on neutral ground state what they thought. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Tenebrae, you have already been told by myself and an uninvolved editor that you are mischaracterizing my comments, undoubtedly with the goal of making me look bad. My comments are linked, you don't need to twist and misquote them. I was brutally clear. At this point, I'm going to recommend you drop the stick. I wouldn't recommend an interaction ban, as currently Tenenbrae's constant hammering in multiple places (I already closed the thread on DangerousPanda's page) has become disruptive to Wikipedia as a whole than the single utterance of the word "fuck" (keep in mind, the other use was in June and was dealt with then). You keep saying the same thing over and over, and you just don't like the answers you are getting there, so you tried here. We aren't a Magic 8 ball, you don't get to keep shaking until you get an answer you like. Ironically, this started over the use of the word "fuck" two times in five months by a user, yet has been used 49 times in this one ANI posting, just this morning, mainly by Tenebrae. It is the very definition of absurd. At this point, I'm going to strongly recommend both editors disengage and do their best to simply avoid each other, because if this cat fight ANI discussion continues, it will end badly for someone(s). Dennis - 2¢ 18:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I never wanted to engage with Winkelvi in the first place, and I will gladly disengage if he will do the same. I will say, however, that since your own actions as an admin are in question, an impartial, uninvolved admin needs to weigh in. That's only fair. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

And it's not canvassing when one doesn't ask for support. A couple of editors are trying to drive me off Wikipedia and my colleagues deserve to be alerted. I asked for no support and said only: "I just wanted to let some of the good and responsible editors here know, and that if they're interested in following what's going on, that's the link." I never asked anyone to comment. In addition, the editors with whom I am collegial are all their own people who would never betray their beliefs, and I certainly don't know what they're going to say. They are hardly puppets, and are outspoken people with a variety of viewpoints. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

For the record, he cursed me with "fuck" or "fucking" four times, not two. I've already providing the diffs. Let's be accurate, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Admins are not classroom monitors, so if someone is merely offended by certain language then I think it is right to dismiss the complaint. However, if Tenebrae is becoming annoyed or distressed at being repeatedly sworn at then maybe Winkelvi could just agree to not swear directly at him, regardless of whether he feels justified. It seems a reasonable request to me, even if you have poor relations with the other editor, and one I would personally strive to respect. Betty Logan (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Presumably yours is a response engendered by this? I'm not convinced that Tenebrae has demonstrated Winkelvi has been swearing directly at them recently, so it may not be particularly relevant. Tenebrae is upset and needs to get over it. - Sitush (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• This is part of the "shaking the Magic 8 ball" I spoke of. And yes Betty, but there is 4-5 months between incidents, and the two events aren't the same. That is the whole point, and why I recommended Tenebrae just walk away. Now his disruption includes trying to canvass you for support. Of course, I don't blame you for that, as he deliberately mislead you in his point on your talk page, and again misquoted me. If this continues, I'm going to simply ask for Tenebrae to be blocked a week for WP:DE via not dropping the stick and intentionally misrepresenting the words of others (deception). Dennis - 2¢ 19:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You're threatening to block me when your own actions and statements as an admin are at issue? How is that possibly just? The Noticeboard is where we're supposed to hash things out. It's up to an impartial, third-party admin to close it. Threatening to block me when you are one of the parties involved ... wow.

I didn't misquote or misrepresent you. Here is what you said [31]: "I'm saying that many people will occasionally say 'fuck off.' I don't remember doing it here, but in the real world, yes, I've told someone to fuck off more than once in my life. Probably once every year or two. Granted, in the real world, when I get fed up, I can be crass, I won't deny it. I'm saying that if it is a habit, it becomes a problem. If it isn't a habit, then it is just a singular rude overreaction."

So it's OK to "occasionally say 'fuck off'" on Wikipedia. So because you use "fuck" occasionally in real life, it's OK for Wikipedians to use it. I'm not misquoting or misrepresenting you.

"I'm saying that if it is a habit, it becomes a problem." Four times using "fuck" or "fucking" in two consecutive encounters seems a habit to me. (The 4 1/2 month difference is deceptive since I wasn't even here for that time. He instigated unasked-for contact within days of my return.)

"If you can't forgive small transgressions, then the internet is a bad place for you." We're not talking about the whole Internet, but Wikipeda, which has a civility guideline. Being told "fuck" repeatedly is not a small transgression. But you seem to think I should take it as that or else Wikipedia is "a bad place for [me]." I believe WP:CIVIL frowns on an editor using the f-word against another editor repeatedly. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

He didn't threaten to block you. He asked for a block to be considered, implying he will not be imposing it as he is involved. 4.34.132.146 (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, Tenebrae, go have a cup of tea. This is likely to end badly for you if you do not. You have misrepresented, you have canvassed, you are still holding the stick and you have been around long enough now surely to realise that the Civility policy is dead in the water except perhaps for repetitive (as in daily etc) and egregious examples. The "best" outcome for you here seems to be that Wv gets blocked punitively for a few hours by some admin with less than perfect clue, and that won't actually change a thing. Wv has offered a reasonable proposal and you seem not to want to take it. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Tenebrae, you are going on and on and on and on about this. Over and over. Dennis did not say it's ok, just that it's not the worst sin in the world. It just a word, a word many people say when they stub their toe. Logically it should be far less disturbing to "devout Christians and Muslims" than saying, say, GODDAM, which is asking God to consign someone to eternal torment. And yet we generally treat that swearword as trivial. 'Fuck' has no religious meaning at all, so should not affect Christians or Muslims more than anyone else. For the record I think Winkelvi's comment on your talk page was utterly stupid and they should be ashamed of themselves for sanctimoniously insinuating that you were homophobic, un-PC or whatever for removing something so obviously false and silly. Yes, it was provocative bear-poking. But that does not justify you acting as though you are on a mauling rampage and going on and on and on about one semi-meaningless word "repeated" over a space of several months. Working with others is also about letting some things drop to foster useful work. Many times I've decided to let someone else have "the last word" when I've seen a discussion is just degenerating into a pointless tit-for-tat fault-identifying excercise. It's natural to want to "win" or prove yourself "right", but it's not always productive. Paul B (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It's hard not to respond to statements like "the Civility policy is dead in the water." That's simply one editor's opinion; that opinion doesn't override policy. Wikipedia:Civility is a policy in effect and I think we're all expected to be civil on Wikipedia.

Sitush is correct in saying Dennis Brown only threatened to ask for a block, not to block me himself. I apologize for misstating. I did not misrepresent any other statement; in fact, I copy-pasted his own words here.

That said, I thank you Paul B for acknowledging the "provocative bear-poking." That acknowledgment and to keep Winkelvi away from ever interacting with me is all I've asked for this entire time. Winkelvi keeps saying I want him "punished." I never said that. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not "culture"; it is verbal abuse. No possible good can come from adding provocative language to a content dispute. Admins should be discouraging this, not making excuses for it. —Neotarf (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• And when it is a personal attack or extraordinarily harsh, admin do take action. What admin (and non-admin) SHOULDN'T do is be control freaks that tell everyone which words are ok and which words aren't. Admin aren't nannies, school marms or the PC police, we are here to facilitate solutions to problems, which should be in proportion to the problem itself. Dennis - 2¢ 02:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, could we have some clarification here?

The editor who is objecting here is a person of long standing who would like to be treated with respect. It doesn't mean they're always right, just that they'd like other people to be respectful; and they're probably open to someone reminding them to be respectful too.

Certainly other people editing this website need the ability to inform us of errors, indicate they are upset, and in some cases tell us to stop communicating with them. We all know that the English language has plenty of ways to do this that don't require swearing at people. And we also all know where we'll be going as a community, if we continue to act like this website is our "Mean and Grouchy Swearing Club" and everyone who doesn't like it should leave.

That said, it can't just be the task of a single administrator alone like User:Dennis Brown to improve the atmosphere here.

We all need to uphold the Aloha Spirit, and find more examples for promoting positive communication styles if we want the site to grow. And if "Aloha" is a little much for some folks, most cultures have some version of "here is how we treat others when we want to show we are friendly and respectful." Pretty often (though not always), you can tell when someone is making a effort to be friendly and respectful with you.

Are the folks in this thread really suggesting that all editors here have to accept people swearing at us, because that's where the community wants to set its social norms? -- Djembayz (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Request from Gender Gap project to reopen thread

Just to note, an attempt was made by a member of the Gender Gap group to reopen the discussion to allow further participation in the context of their project, where a notification had just been posted. The original closure by Drmies was reverted by Sitush. Both Sitush and Drmies are *involved* in the current Arbcom Gender Gap Task Force case, as is Dennis Brown, who made extensive comments in the discussion. —Neotarf (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I reclosed (reverting a bold re-opening) because this was a blatant attempt to hijack yet another drama board thread with what would be yet more of the same arguments. The above discussion related to a specific set of circumstances and neither needed nor should have been subjected to generalised debate about wider issues. My opinion seems to have been confirmed by the fact that I was not reverted and by various people (including regular GGTF participants) who commented in the subsequent point-y thread at WT:GGTF. Neotarf, you are just needling again. Please don't. - Sitush (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion Sitush refers to is titled ANI thread involving respect for women reopened, than reverted back to closed, and the "various people" besides himself are Djembayz, Robert McClenon, GRuban, Drmies, Carolmooredc, Rich Farmbrough, and Eric Corbett. Two of the eight (including Sitush) are women, and apparently, Corbett joined in just to ask, "What's the basis for [the] argument that calling someone a cunt is childish?" How he or anyone else can not see how off-putting this kind of language is to many people - especially women - who would like to edit on Wikipedia... it boggles the mind. That some editors here continue to discount how offensive that language ("cunt," "fuck," and so on) is - is equally unsettling. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't claim that it wasn't offensive to some people, I merely questioned the claim that it was childish. Eric Corbett 17:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not the language of chidren. It's the language of low-lifes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, as are those who might disagree with you. Eric Corbett 17:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying it is the language of children??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

If you take off your blinkers you will be able to see clearly that I was questioning the assertion made by another editor that it was childish. Eric Corbett 20:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• More evidence that the so-called "Gender Gap Task Force" is little more than a wannabe civility police and a drama magnet. Carrite (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

  Quite. Eric Corbett 17:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

To this observer, the remarks of SitushCarrite - so-called task force, wannabe civility police, drama magnet - provide evidence only about his prejudices. And Corbett's "Quite" says that he shares those prejudices. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

When did opinions become prejudices? And for the sake of clarity, Sitush didn't say what you claim he did. Now who's displaying their prejudices? Eric Corbett 21:37, 8 November 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

There is a full-scale edit warring in the article involving multiple users. I am not suggesting (yet) that the users be sanctioned, but I would appreciate if someone takes a look and takes some action like e.g. page protection or discretionary sanctions. I did edit the article long time ago, so that I am involved.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• 6 edits yesterday, 1 today, 1 the day before. Looks like they are sticking to 1RR. I don't see the need for any drastic action yet. Dennis - 2¢ 14:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I see a lot of content that had references being repeatedly removed for what appears to be WP:I just don't like it reasons. 20 pages of talk archive! And really, how many times does Volunteer Marek have to repeat the link WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT before someone starts to scream? He's done it 14 times so far in the active talk page and it is no substitute for actual discussion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, indeed I guess they self-oganized to stick to 1RR. There was some attempt on the action a week ago, but it was suddenly stopped by TParis (who was afraid that an intervention of an American admin could be unwanted).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There may be some tag teaming, hard to prove, I'm just saying the article edit volume is manageable and I can't see any action to take there. As for the talk page, that is a mess, but better the talk page than the article. Being an American (and ex-military to boot), I'm not sure my input is any more welcome. Dennis - 2¢ 14:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Precisely my point, Dennis. I know we have an admin teaching English in China right now. Perhaps they'd be the least biased here. Or an Australian admin? Do we have any sysops from South America maybe?--v/r - TP 15:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Australia lost a lot of people in the incident and imposed sanctions on Russia. China, Latin America, India, Pakistan, or South Africa would be the best locations for an admin willing to do anything there.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I am South American. I think I could help then? → Call me Hahc21 16:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Your intervention will be certainly welcome in any case, but what I mean is that a South American users run considerably lower chances to be accused in affiliation with one side of the conflict than Americans, Australians, Europeans, or Russians.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Apparently a user wanted to report this matter to WP:AE (where it belongs), but changed his mind [32]. Given that, I think reporting this here (or anywhere) was not such a good idea. And yes, I agree with Dennis. My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this discussion. I personally have no problem with an American admin. I would have a serious problem with someone who claims that tag teaming is "hard to prove" when there is very obvious and very serious OWNership by editors who insist they know "the truth" even though there's an ongoing investigation. Do they know something the investigators don't know? USchick (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

If so, how many "tag teams" do you think operate here, who exactly are members of each "team", and what exactly proofs of "tag-teaming" (as opposed to collaborative editing in good faith) do you have? My very best wishes (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of starting a new sanctions request about this. Do you think now is a good time? USchick (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No. I think that casting aspersions is a very bad idea, unless you have evidence to support your claims. I do not really see anything except a few people acting in a good faith. I think you should either remove your comment above (this is my suggestion) or provide your evidence at WP:AE, which would be a proper noticeboard for such case. My very best wishes (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I will think about it. USchick (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the process. To ask for Sanctions to be enforced, can I ask on the talk page or somewhere else? USchick (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ask an advice from any administrator who you think would be knowledgeable and uninvolved in editing pages on Eastern Europe. My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The admins here have acknowledged that there's a problem on the talk page. Can you please provide some guidance on how to proceed? Thank you. USchick (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand this correctly. When it's time to block people, admins have a lot to say, but when it's time to offer constructive advice, there's no one to be found? I bet admins would get a lot more respect if they were wiling to take on a leadership role instead of acting like jailers. Just saying. USchick (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There are three avenues you may want to take. First, if one of the editors behaves disruptively, he or she can be reported here or at 3RR Noticeboard, depending on the situation, or eventually even at arbitration enforcement. I would say there is very little chance for smth to happen - for example, once I was trying to deal with the editor who was adding {{fact}} templates to figure captions, and wanted to get references for the Constitution of Russia (you know, with ISBN etc), and I could only get him blocked from the fourth attempt, and my first attempt resulted in someone lecturing me that this is a proper behavior, and I am attacking a good-faith user. Furthermore, if this is a purely content dispute (and if you ask me, I would say it currently is), WP:DRN is at your service, and then mediation. I am not really looking forward, since you are in minority, and the majority can simply ignore the dispute resolution attempts, but you can try nevertheless. Finally, the most difficult route, which so far nobody tries to take, is to take every single source and get consensus elsewhere on whether the source is reliable in this situation. For example, if you think RT is a reliable source - take it to the corresponding noticeboard, insist that it gets evaluated, and if it is concluded to be a reliable source as far as Ukraine is concerned, info from RT can be added to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that's not a bad idea about the RS noticeboard. Thanks!!! USchick (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

But always do the search. This particular source was discussed numerous times, most recently here and becomes less and less reliable every day. Disputing questionable sources on the RS noticeboard is enormous waste of time. My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is that RT is generally fairly trustworthy, and is most trustworthy where it reports on things that are not directly connected to Russia, and most useful when those trustworthy reports concern news stories that are deliberately under reported (or not reported at all) by media sources in the US (or, in Britain, by the BBC). It quite clearly delights in pointing out the biases and untrustworthy nature of some US and European reporting on some issues, which sometimes means it misses the point in its reporting, emphasizes the wrong things, and gives that reporting an unprofessional and rather amateurish tone. I think the idea that a blanket "trustworthy" or "untrustworthy" label can be given to a major media source that reports on many different subject areas in many different countries is always going to be unsustainable, which is why that particular discussion was called "a giant waste of time". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

People are arguing about what information they want to include, so the argument is not about the source itself. Time magazine is reliable, but there's an entire argument about what the article actually says. Any advice about what to do when editors cherry pick information to support one side of the story and ignore the other side? USchick (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Here is the official advice. You are obviously uncomfortable with editing these subjects. Edit something else ("may wish to restrict their editing to other topics"). My very best wishes (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear My very best wishes, if I wanted to have a personal conversation with you, I would have it on your talk page. Since this is an admin page, I was hoping for admin advice. Still hoping. USchick (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually this page isn't intended solely for admins, the header itself says that. There's no real way to get the advice of admins only, since there's no real reason. Admin have an extra set of tools, but their opinion doesn't count more than that of an ordinary editor. And an admin not acting in accordance with the communities wishes (as expressed by our policies, guidelines and ultimately consensus) will find their actions reversed and themselves possibly even desysoped. And editor who asks for action which is clearly supported by such will generally find an admin willing to take whatever admin only action may be needed, sometimes even if the admin themselves isn't happy about it (although often it's best if the admin has no set opinion). In fact, if you are demanding admin attention when there's no reason, it wouldn't surprise me if some admins are more likely to ignore you because they don't think it's healthy to encourage such behaviour which goes against sensible and expected editing practice. Nil Einne (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. Actually, the article doesn't look as bad as it used to. USchick (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Harassment by User:The Banner

It's been about a week now, since I've questioned his undiscussed move from Karavostasi to Gemikonagi and had it reverted, that User:The Banner has been trying to disparage me, ignoring calls to substantiate any of his claims.

• He accused me of bias for having an IP in south Cyprus (1)
• He reinstated his move and tried to have his favourite version move-protected (2)
• He accused me of having a 'severe preference [for] Greek names', and called for me to be topic banned, ignores requests for diffs of my oh-so egregious offences that'd warrant it (3)
• He's today called for 'my friends' to be topic-banned as well, while continuing to ignore my and User:Dr.K.'s requests for diffs (4)
• He accused me of something-something about emotions, claims I said the move was uncontroversial, once again does not apologise for being caught red-handed (5)

There's more, but this isn't a court of law. I wouldn't ask for him to be blocked, 'cause he's obviously otherwise productive, but can someone bring him back to his senses? This has become very tiring. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked you to leave me alone. You clearly refuse that. I consider your behaviour as harassment. The Banner talk 12:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Really now? Who said you had to get involved above? Nobody called your name, and I can't exactly leave you alone when you keep claiming things about me that are not true. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, you just have to read this. The Banner talk 13:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban and interaction ban for 213.7.147.34

I have enough of IP's 213.7.147.34 continuing attacks and refusal to accept opinions that do not fit his opinions. I think a topic ban of all articles related to Cyprus and a interaction ban towards me are suitable. I want to work in peace and have enough of this guy stirring up the pot. The Banner talk 12:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• See, this isn't how it works. You can't just say things; you'd need to be able to make a case for it. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • See here how mr. IP attacked me in a discussion where I was not involved and after I had stated that the emotions were running too high and that I baled out of the Cyprus mess. The Banner talk 13:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• It is neverproper to be party to a dispute and ask for an interaction or a topic ban. Blackmane (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Not even remotely true. What may be inappropriate is implementing a restriction when you're involved, but asking for a restriction is not necessarily disruptive. Honestly, Banner's placement of this request in a separate subsection is probably the most proper way of starting a discussion about sanctioning 213'; it at least blunts accusation that Banner is trying to derail discussion about his behavior. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I desperately wants to get out of it, even as this means that I have to accept the same topic ban and interaction ban. I accidentally strayed it that mine field, noticed how high the emotions were running and made a runner... The Banner talk 13:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You're not gonna be able to have a topic ban implemented, unless you can provide evidence that such a topic ban is needed. The only one's emotions who were running high were yours; stop retelling this fairy tale. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't <ugly word> care and I don't <ugly word> care about you. Just leave me alone. Go way. The Banner talk 13:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I might've done so, if it weren't for the fact that you 'bailed out' thrice before, only to thrice return to smear me (and others). Stop pretending you're somehow the victim here. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Just read the example above, in which I had to defend myself against an attack by you, after no prior involvement in that discussion. What I want, is that you just leave me alone. You can have that whole cyprus, left and right, north and south, east and west. But leave me alone. The Banner talk 20:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This makes me genuinely sad. Life's too short to be making enemies out of other people. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

True! And the only thing you have to do to avoid that, is leaving me alone. The Banner talk 00:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If you felt threatened by me, then I apologise. Out of (mounting) frustration, I might've been more forceful or combative in my manner than I -- myself -- would've liked. I do feel that I've been wronged by you, but you don't seem to want to make amends. This is the third time you've said to leave you alone, so I won't be replying to you again out of respect -- respect that you've not shown me. I'll reflect on what has happened and I hope you do too. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• A topic ban on Cyprus for IP213.7.147.34 would clearly be completely counterproductive for Wikipedia. The editor has been doing a tremendous work on Cyprus-related articles lately: cleaning up after POV-editing, correcting errors, giving consistency to articles, providing more balanced presentations (yes, that too!) and generally improving the whole field. The Banner has repeatedly been asked to provide diffs for the accusastions against the IP editor. Surely a topic ban cannot be given without a foundation being made? --T*U (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban, no comment on topic ban. Banner has asked the IP to leave him out of it and IP continues to WP:HOUND him. IBAN is warranted. Ivanvector (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It's the exact opposite. The Banner, in all instances, joined a discussion that either I started or I'd previously participated in. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban I see no indication that 213.7.147.34 is a POV warrior; he's participating quite civilly in the discussion at Talk:Karavostasi, and while he has certainly been critical of The Banner, that's hardly surprising given the diffs cited above. It doesn't look as if he has crossed the line to personal attacks, and the observation that The Banner's emotions are running a lot higher than 213.7.147.34's appears entirely accurate.
  I would say it's too early for an interaction ban as well, but certainly at this point not much good is coming out of these two editors interacting. I'd encourage both The Banner and 213.7.147.34 to leave the other alone for a while, calm down and concentrate on building an encyclopedia; they're both very capable of being productive editors.
  The Banner, if you feel there's a pro-Greek bias in Cyprus-related articles, by all means do your best to counter it... but use reliable sources and calmly reasoned arguments rather than claims of bias or POV-pushing. You'll probably find that the editors on the other side will be less critical of you then, and actually respect your point of view - and if the opposite happens, then you'll have grounds for requesting a topic ban. Sideways713 (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Unless you are up against a team, then making a runner is the best option. And that is just what I did. The Banner talk 19:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • @The Banner: Please stop these vague and base allegations against good-faith editors. This is verging on harassment. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Yet another baseless accusation. Just 'cause we're courteous towards each other doesn't make us a 'team', and it's not like we've never disagreed. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban Per TU-nor and Sideways713. That would be completely unjustified and unjustifiable for the IP editor, who as T*U noted, has performed stellar and tedious work in the field of Cypriot municipal onomatology to the point that Future Perfect at Sunrise has told him that it is a lot of work at the talkpage of the Greek naming discussion. I find the vague allegations by The Banner, about POV-pushing without providing diffs, and the request for a topic ban for the IP editor to be pointy and indicative of the dismissal on The Banner's part, of the IP editor's remarkable and expert contributions in cleaning up this topic area both onomatologically and POV-wise. As far as IBan, I think that it is premature, but ultimately it wouldn't harm either of them. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I haven't hunted around to check this out so if there is something clear to support a topic ban please show it, but I have looked at a couple of the links above and nothing stands out as justification. The IP's comments here and at a couple of the pages I saw are a model of good conduct. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per my comments above, just to state it explicitly. --T*U (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bilal Jamal Eddine

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 the user has decided to move his user page into a project page. As it seems like he is using it as a webhost, I am not sure what deletion criteria apply. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted as obvious G11, talk page moved back to his account, softblocked and COI-warned. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:23, 8 November 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.

Sanjay at iac

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.

---

Please can someone indef User:Sanjay at iac. The usual IAC sock/meat farm making legal threats. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- Diannaa (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It's nice to see mop deployment speeding up in this area ;) - Sitush (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably could do with removing talk page access, as we often have been doing for this lot. They're ranting now. - Sitush (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of those diffs in the talk history could do with a revdel. Blackmane (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Access now revoked. For a supposedly anti-corruption body, they're remarkably adept at lying. - Sitush (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Another admin has rev-deleted most of their talk page posts, so we are done for now. Next time I will remove talk page access right from the get-go and save us some work :/ -- Diannaa (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you and, yes, a speedy block that include talk page revocation is the way to go. - Sitush (talk) 22:42, 8 November 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:Kevgood777

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

---

A new contributor, User:Kevgood777, seems to think that the Ronald Reagan article is an appropriate forum for his personal opinions, rather than encyclopaedic content. [33] Earlier edits to the Levi Johnston [34] and John Hinckley, Jr. [35] articles aren't exactly encouraging either. In my opinion this 'contributor' shows no evidence of being here for any legitimate purpose, and merits an indefinite block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Andy that this is not likely to be a productive editor and should be blocked.-gadfium 08:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking into this further, the edits to the Levi Johnston article appear to be a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy - contrary to the 'Crystal Meth Lab' heading, Sherry Johnston appears as far as I can ascertain to have only been convicted of "one count of possession with intent to deliver the painkiller OxyContin." [36] Though it is questionable whether even that merits mention in an article on her son. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Kevgood777 here.

I am willing to discuss the edits I have made. The edits are informative. The Reagan page is not supposed to be a puff piece like Tea Party campaign literature, and that is what it has become. Most of the blurb is plagiarized from the Heritage Foundation website. The edits I have made are factual.

It is not in keeping with the spirit of intellectual discourse to do as the Angry guy wishes, by bullying me into removing edits threatening to block me if I post factual edits that do not advance his fluffy, nostalgic view of the Reagan presidency.

Like I said, I am willing to discuss. I want to be a positive contributor here. I look forward to working with the Angry guy to come to a reasonable solution. The Reagan puff piece as it stands is not an accurate representation of what happened during the Reagan years. I would like to help revise the Reagan article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevgood777 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If you actually think I have a "fluffy, nostalgic view of the Reagan presidency" you clearly don't know the slightest thing about me. Wikipedia is not however a forum for our personal opinions however, and contributors are expected to use neutral encyclopaedic language, and to base content on verifiable sources. Your evident inability to do so speaks for itself, and I see nothing in your response to suggest that my initial impression was incorrect. This is an encyclopaedia, not your personal blog, and if you see problems with articles, you don't 'fix' them by adding hyperbolic sub-tabloid waffle about Reagan having "paraded around the globe bellowing anti-communist slogans worldwide in an attempt to steal the thunder of the already nearly dead so-called Soviet Empire" and the rest. And you certainly don't add headings about 'Crystal Meth Labs' to articles without a source ever, under any circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Kevgood777 here again.

If you dislike the edits I made to the Reagan page based on opinion, then you must also dislike much of the rest of the page, which is mostly yanked straight from the Heritage Foundation website. Educated as you are, you must already know that the Heritage Foundation is a source of highly charged right wing political opinion. Educated as you are, Angry guy, you must also understand that upon reading that page the way it was written before my edits, I have very good cause to assume it is very much OK to post facts in a political slant. The Reagan article before the edits is terribly politically slanted. And that is most certainly why I question your objectivity.

I am willing to discuss.Kevgood777 (talk) 08:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Some pretty awful edits there from Kevgood777. Everybody has to start somewhere, and I will discuss some detailed suggestions for improvement at the user's talk page. If this continues, certainly he should be blocked. --John (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Kevgood777, I'm not the slightest bit interested in your utterly clueless opinions regarding my objectivity (though anyone who actually knew my background would find them hilarious) - if you see problems with an article, the correct way to resolve them is via discussion on the talk page, not by adding your own oppositional rant. And you have still to explain why you referred to a 'Crystal Meth Lab' on the Levi Johnston article. Are you under the impression that libel laws don't extend to the internet? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Rampant BLP violations and unsourced editorializing. If he's concerned about copyright violations, he can take it to the talk page. Otherwise, one more edit like any of those and he needs to be sent away. And before he asks, NO, I was not then, and remain not now, a Reagan supporter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidently Kevgood777 has failed to get the message here - continuing with questionable edits to the Reagan page: "More than anything, Reagan is famous for out-of-control reckless military and nuclear weapons spending programs after the collapse of the Soviet Union was imminent." [37]. No source for this curiously-worded 'fame' (which seems to imply that Reagan knew about the collapse of the Soviet Union in advance, something that not even his staunchest admirers seem to assert...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:50, 9 November 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.

IAC block evasion

Might I suggest that we keep this section open because we're experiencing a lot of block evasion at the moment per WP:LTA/IAC. Perhaps just add a {{done}} for each report, as they are blocked and have their talk page access revoked? Probably best to disable their email also as they have now begun to use that to harass people.

• Juhimukherjee (talk · contribs) is at it right now. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Done by Future Perfect at Sunrise - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive IPs in 2013-14 Thai Political Crisis

In the past few months, a user (very likely the same person) has been making repetitive disruptive reverts on the pages 2013-14 Thai Political Crisis and People's Democratic Reform Committee on the same contents, which are the following:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Democratic_Reform_Committee&diff=633071055&oldid=631447702
  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013%E2%80%9314_Thai_political_crisis&oldid=633070579&diff=pre

The edits that have been reverted by the IPs were reasoned, and have achieved general consensus among us editors of that page. The editor has not specified the reasons for his or her edits. Warnings have been issued to the editor, I have also suggested the editor to use the talk page. The links are listed below:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013%E2%80%9314_Thai_political_crisis#Disruptive_editing
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People%27s_Democratic_Reform_Committee#Disruptive_editing
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:180.183.130.167

Around 5 or more reverts have been made in 2 months, which makes it not fit as an edit war. Another problem is that the IPs change over time, so I am unable to block the editor. The IPs are:

• 180.183.129.73
• 180.183.129.161
• 180.183.130.167
• 185.56.163.164
• 180.183.245.59

As you can see, the IPs have a very similar number pattern, and also do the same thing. It is most likely the action of one editor.

If you require more information, please do not hesitate to let me know. Thank you in advance.

525th MI Brigade

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, a user manually moved an article, and in the process inadvertently severed the article's edit history. Would an administrator please fix this by re-moving 525th Battlefield Surveillance Brigade to 525th Military Intelligence Brigade (United States) over the re-direct? Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done In the future, you can use {{histmerge}} to tag a page for this. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Duly noted and thanks! Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:52, 7 November 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.

Abusive posts on user talk by IP 58.106.19.68

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

---

58.106.19.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Abusive posts diff1 diff2.

Not sure if this is better handled here of AVI, but I have posted here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. Presumably not a newcomer to Wikipedia, judging by their last comment. Acroterion (talk) 02:27, 8 November 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.

Socks editing Mamie Van Doren

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.

---

Mamie Van Doren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just woke up long enough to let my dogs out and made the mistake of checking WP. There have been ongoing problems with the Mamie Van Doren article by a sock. Today they created another account (well, two actually but one has been dealt with already) and this most recent one is adding the same material to the page. Could some admin please deal with this new sock and possibly protect the page? I'd dot all the Is and cross the Ts myself with all the right protection/investigation desks but I just want to get back to sleep. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 20:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The sock blocked, te article protected for 3 weeks (given that the current disruption continued after expiration of the previous protection)--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Dismas|^(talk) 21:56, 8 November 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 talk page comment portion without notification

In this diff, User:Alexbrn deleted a portion of my talk page comment, ostensibly to remove a link which he considered to be a copyright violation, without any kind of notification to me or anyone else. WP:TALK#Others' comments says, "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it.... Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but.... If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[possible libel removed by ~~~~]". Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: .... Removing prohibited material such as ... violations of copyright."

Because there was no explanatory note or any other notification, and because the courtesy link is needed to help resolve a difficult content dispute, and because we have no way to know whether the link in question is a copyright violation or a legitimate e.g. preprint or licensed author copy, I consider this to be a WP:TALK violation by a user with whom I was recently in a heated dispute. Therefore this seems to me to be a clear case of WP:HOUNDING harassment, and so I ask for an administrator to please tell Alexbrn to refrain from such harassment, or at the very least leave a clear notification whenever he might delete others' talk page comments in the future. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Though there was apparently no notification that the comment was modified, the link does indeed look like copyright violation. {{Redacted}} can be used to show that an comment has been modified, and there probably should have been some kind of notification or alert. But I don't think removing a link to an apparent copyright violation is actionable. Wiley-Blackwell charges $6 for temporary access to this content, and I doubt they would let random websites host it for free. Editors interested in academic journals can get free access to some of them through The Wikipedia Library. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

How does a copyright violation look any different from a licensed author's copy or preprint? I always hand edit my publication contracts to retain a perpetual, worldwide, transferable right to distribute anything I publish commercially, and most if not all of my colleagues do too. The assumption that a link to external content is any sort of copyright violation without concrete evidence is mere paranoia. But more importantly, the lack of a notification of any sort is most certainly contrary to WP:TALK and the fact it was done by someone with whom I was in a heated dispute a month ago is infuriating. EllenCT (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This is commercial content not available under an open license. I routinely remove such links from WP as they violate policy ("Copyright infringing material should also not be linked to") and have legal implications. Apologies for not notifying EllenCT however this change made no substantive alteration to her comment. If a user thinks it's okay to link to copyright infringements from WP because they hand-modify their contracts, and that we can assume something's okay unless there is "concrete evidence" otherwise, then I would suggest we've got a problem here.

Add: I see Ellen has now put the infringing link back. Someone should look at this. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I consider it a substantive alteration, as I wrote above. Courtesy links to sources are included when they are available, with the assumption that they are not copyright violations when they are available, just as we make them available to editors at WP:RX several times a day on fair use assumptions. The deletion silently denied the aritcle's editors who have the same fair use right to view the original source the opportunity to read what it says, disrupting their ability to make informed decisions about how best to improve the encyclopedia. I consider the refusal to take responsibility for this willful and silent disruption to be a serious problem indeed. EllenCT (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

IANAL so I'm not going to debate the law. I will however quote you our policy: "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. [...] Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States ...". It is possible (but unlikely) there is a negotiated permission between tobonline.com and Wiley. However the material in question is generally only available under commercial terms and carries a copyright statement. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't think this is a case of anyone "knowingly and intentionally" doing anything. The study is linked from this article, which doesn't give any indication that they have permission to host that content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the point is made by the policy that this is not just made somehow okay by hand-waving at "fair use". In WP policy terms, EllenCT did re-link the copyrighted content after you had commented that it was unlikely to be free. She had, therefore, grounds for reasonable suspicion of it, and chose not to heed them. The link's there now. That's a problem. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

sure Alexbrn could have left something like (Redacted) in EllenCT's comment, but to me that would be further messing with someone else's comment which we should do as minimally as possible. He noted what he was doing in his edit note "redact copyvio link" I would note that it was EllenCT who violated our policy, WP:COPYVIO by posting the link and then reposting the link. It is a good thing Alexbrn fixed it the first time. Suggest an admin remove the link, close, and warn EllenCT not to violate COPYVIO policy again. Could take that a step further and make a 24 hour block for EllenCT to reinforce the importance of the policy. Jytdog (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

That "further messing with someone else's comment" is exactly what is recommended by the WP:TALK policy, for which Alexbrn has apologized for neglecting, and which would have made it perfectly acceptable because interested parties could still find the link in the edit history. If the courtesy link is a policy violation, then so is every courtesy link in references to author preprints, and so is every response at WP:RX. That Jytdog, with whom I have also recently been in heated disputes, has chosen to jump in to this with such specious arguments just proves my point that this is WP:HOUNDING harassment. EllenCT (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Look, I came her a few minutes ago, before I saw Jytdog's specious tag-team pile on, to say that after getting a good night's sleep I feel like life is too short for citing misdemeanors, and I no longer want to pursue this. I'm ashamed that I was goaded into further outrage and I refuse to let the hounders get me down. So please close this. EllenCT (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I just re-removed the link and notified EllenCT. I hope this was OK. If I'm in the wrong I'll be happy to self-revert. Ca2james (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@EllenCT: "Jytdog's specious tag-team pile on" ← could you explain what you meant by this please? An accusation of WP:TAGTEAMING is pretty heavy, is that what you meant? If so, kindly strike or substantiate. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

His trying to justify what you had already apologized for, especially in this context when I've seen him include courtesy links to copyrighted content in his own sourcing. EllenCT (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring

There is an edit war ongoing at the moment involving the following users:

• @TomStar81:
• @MarnetteD:
• @DeletespagesthatfailGNG:
• @50.121.124.125:
• @50.121.125.51:
• @AussieLegend:

The issues include alleged 3RR violations, alleged admin abuse, alleged blocking evasion, and alleged POV pushing. Would someone please look into this and sort it out? It would be appreciated. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I should note here that this is largely an edit war over actions already taken, it appears at this time that the war is contained. That having been said, if anyone wants to weigh in on the actions taken thus far and advise on what more should be done I'd be happy to listen to the advise. I feel that this may be a sock, but I've no proof of that at the moment. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Some background. 50.121.125.51 decided to redirect a series of TV character articles. These have previously been discussed with one article being kept at AfD with another AfD closing as no consensus. As well, the articles have been discussed at the main series article talk page, when it was suggested that if there was a desire to delete these articles they should go to AfD. For these reasons I reverted the changes. Several hours later I discovered an edit war had broken out on several articles, with the IP redirecting articles and/or restoring contested PROD notices, even on the articles that had been at AfD. Fortunately, C.Fred stepped in gave the IP some sorely needed advice and direction, but it didn't seem to help. The IP had made 3 reverts in just over an hour at Midge and Bob Pinciotti so I left a warning on his talk page.[38] The IP made a few botched attempts at AfD nominations and then created DeletespagesthatfailGNG for the sole purpose of creating an AfD page. This done, DeletespagesthatfailGNG started edit warring and breached 3RR at Kitty Forman so I left a warning on the account's talk page, only to find that he had already been blocked by TomStar81. After being blocked, TomStar81 revoked his talk page access after this personal attack. Since then, DeletespagesthatfailGNG has resorted to using IPs to evade the block.[39][40]] However, for the time being, the IPs seem to have gone quiet. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

TheNewSaadia, incivility, POV-pushing, and general inability to cooperate

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.

---

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

Prophecy of Seventy Weeks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

TL;DR: He has called for the article to place religious interpretation and secular academic history next to each other as alternatives "without necessarily casting judgement," and then replaced, neutered, or removed material that clashes with non-critical traditions. He intentionally tried to use language that he admitted could mislead people into thinking that the prophecies in Daniel were written before the Maccabean era. If he's not pushing a non-critical POV, he's doing a terrible job of it. His changes and proposed changes have yet to find any support beyond him, and yet he seeks to unilaterally carry them out. When others have tried to help him by explaining how things are done here, he either ignores it or responds with insults and bullying pretentiousness. Evidence to follow:

His edits include:

• Replacing sourced information about the dating of the Book of Daniel with mostly unsourced claims and a quote from a 1927 religious source to more or less argue 'well no one really knows'
• Arguing that we should change the article to fit a "postmodern" perspective that treats non-critical religious interpretations as equivalent to history
• Edit warring instead of seeking consensus
• Equating secular academic historians' findings to non-criticial religious interpretations -- That's fine for one's personal beliefs, but goes against WP:GEVAL, the very reason why we present evolution as a fact and young earth creationism as WP:FRINGE.
• Arguing that Catholic Biblical Quarterly is a valid source on the history of the text despite the Catholic Biblical Association (the group that publishes CBQ, saying that their purpose is theological, not historical. I've said that CBQ would certainly be fine for the article's "Interpretation" section, but that doesn't suit his agenda.
• Responding to the previous point with arrogant personal attacks ("rank amateur"), more than once. This being a volunteer project that doesn't use original research, most of us are amateurs in a positive sense. To exclude someone as a "rank amateur" for trying to explain the site's guidelines fails WP:CIVIL, however. It's not a matter of how many journal initials we can ramble off, but our ability to actually cite sources and collaborate with others.
• Neutering language in the article create doubt that isn't in the source ("probably" instead of more definite language) and implying that the text is older with "around the time" instead of "in response to" (the source more firmly supporting the latter). He even argued that by "around" he only meant "during" or "shortly thereafter," and said I was being "paranoid" for worrying about intentionally using phrasing he admitted could be misunderstood to include "before" (as in you know, how "around" is used in the rest of the English language when referring to time, to mean "before, during, or after").
• Censoring material that doesn't fit his POV, reaching his third and fourth revert in 24 hours to keep it out (he had previously been warned about 3rr the day before); only begrudgingly restoring the material after I warned him about 3RR again and pointed out that it was actually his fourth revert (once again completely ignoring the multiple reminders to seek consensus for his reverted edits).
• Continuing personal attacks ("paranoid amateur"), and generally asserting that some authority of his trumps policy or consensus

To date, this is the closest to a substantially positive edit I've seen from them. Still, it still fits within an overall agenda to advocate on behalf of the text's historical authenticity, and it's undue weight using a source that fails to discuss how accepted or rejected the idea is.

Multiple editors have explained politely, repeatedly, and in a variety of ways that we do not engage in original research, that we discuss reverted changes before restoring them, that we handle non-critical religious claims and secular academic findings separately or otherwise give more prominence to secular academia, etc. Since this doesn't work with his agenda, he rarely responds with civility, and shows no indication that he'll cooperate except for when it will get him his way. He's demonstrated he might make his POV-pushing more subtle to avoid trouble, but also that he'll still keep seeing what he can get away with and will not become any more civil. I've done my best to be nice to him, but (at least for this topic) he simply is WP:NOTHERE to collaborate, he is here to 'right great wrongs'.

Ian.thomson (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring, and giving a stern reminder on NPA as well. However, let me remind you that we have a policy called "neutral point of view", to which presenting the secular perspective as true and the religious perspective as false is fundamentally incompatible. Do not attempt to POV-push either way. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 10 November 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 Complaint against User:Moxy

I would like to make a user conduct complaint against User:Moxy. I would like to refer you to the following diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moxy&oldid=633177451 . That diff describes six messages I have had with him on his talk page, 3 messages from myself and 3 messages from him.

In summary:

1. Moxy in the past week has made eight reversals of good faith edits by myself, without any talk page discussions. This was mostly to different pages, but they were all in the Help: and Wikipedia: namespaces. This includes 4 reversals in the space of 28 minutes. The four reversals in the space of 28 mnutes especially seemed to me to be inflammatory.

2. I asked him various questions. I was suspious because they were all pages which he had previously edited, in some cases recently. He confirmed what I had suspected in the following exchange: “Would you prefer it if I didn't edit pages you've already edited? - Yes I happen to be the guy that writes and organizes many of the help pages.” This more or less confirmed to me has was unhappy with me editing on pages he considered to be his turf; and it was a campaign of intimidation to persuade me to stop.

3. I informed him I was willing to not take this further if he undid the changes he had made. he refused to do this. Owing to the complexity of all the changes I decided that to go through all the changes in an individual basis would be pointless, since he would merely disagree with me.

4. I infomed him that he had more or less confirmed to me that he had broken two WP policies, namely WP:WIKIHOUNDING and WP:OWN. I believe I was justified in saying this under WP:DUCK. I was civil throughout the exchanges.

The diffs in question:

00:09 9 November 2014 (reverting good faith edits - best we don't keep sending people in circles to basiclly that same information right of the bat. See aslo are best at bottom Will be reverting this in a few places)

00:11 9 November 2014 (reverting good faith edits - best we don't keep sending people in circles to basiclly that same information right of the bat. See aslo are best at bottom Will be reverting this in a few places)

00:25 9 November 2014 (Add link to a more appropriate spot)

00:37 9 November 2014 (lets keep the top simple .....no need for a mini search bar that is lined on ever page. |Fixup bit... We need to minimizes the size of this a per the discussion at the help project. Many of this templates are simply overwhelming and dont help new editors)

Earlier in the week:

01:16, 7 November 2014 (short at bottom as per previous talks...they have zero value for new editors looking for help..and trim as there is more then one search box now ...both have info on how to beside them)

18:28, 3 November 2014 (fix coding so it does not cause all to have to side scroll)

Later:

15:29, 9 November 2014 (more to more appropriate)

15:25, 9 November 2014 (ce)

I am willing to supply any other diffs in evidence that you require. Also, if you want confirmation that the 8 edits undid changes that I had made I will also supply them for you. And any other questions please ask me.

--Mrjulesd (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

From what I see from your description above and the discussions on Moxy's and your talk page, Moxy did not do anything wrong. You made similar bold edits on a few different pages, Moxy reverted them with explanatory edit summaries. Then went to your talk page and explained further why he reverted. You then go to his talk page and ask for further explanation. Moxy gives more of an explanation, but that does not satisfy you, so you threaten to report him unless he reverts to your preferred version. That is where we are at. Moxy followed standard procedure, Bold, Revert, Discuss. You were bold, he reverted and the two of you discussed it. If you don't like the outcome of that discussion, the next part of it is not to threaten to get your way, it is to use one of the dispute resolution options. ANI is not it. GB fan 12:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The evidence speaks for its self.-- Moxy (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@GB fan: OK in that case what would you say is my best course of action? You quoted WP:DR, this is a part of DR, could you be a little more specific please? I felt he had broken policy, but if you disagree I will accept that. By the way, the only "threat" I made was "I may well go take this further", and you're suggesting DR, how is that different? --Mrjulesd (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

While you didn't say where you would take it further, it was fairly obvious since everything you were talking about was your perceived policy infractions. Your actions confirmed that taking it further was trying to get admins to step in. A threat is not a civil way to resolve a disagreement. From your very first post you assumed bad faith on Moxy's part, all 5 of your points are assumptions of bad faith, that also is not a civil way to resolve a dispute. Rather than taking Moxy at his word that he isn't against changes to these pages, just that he believes these specific edits are not helpful, you assumed that his purpose is to drive you away from the pages. Moxy told you that you have made good changes to at least one of the same pages that you believe he does not want you to edit. That does not appear to be someone that is harassing you or has ownership issues. Someone who is intent on harassing would not be encouraging the person they are harassing to edit the pages. I can be very specific where I think you should go from here. You should go to the first step of trying to resolve any dispute, good faith discussion. So far the discussion has been you asking for answers and Moxy giving you those answers. What you have not done, as far as I have been able to find, is explain why you believe the edits should stand. You need to explain how your edits improve the page. You should assume until proven other wise that Moxy is only trying to make the pages as good as possible. Moxy should be assuming your edits are trying to improve the page also. After a good faith discussion the two of you can not come to an agreement then you go onto other forms of dispute resolution. If it is still just the two of you discussing then a good next step is to ask for a third opinion. Also, you do not have to ping me, I am watching this page and this section in particular. GB fan 16:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@GB fan. Thanks for explaining that to me. While I don't really agree, I shall accept your judgement. But I really believe all this could have been avoided if he had discussed some of theses reversions beforehand. Afterwards is not so good. And while it is true I have been bold, I have not been bold with reversions. But anyway, it is valuable for me to have your insights and opinions, and I shall bear them in mind in the future. Thank you for suggestions on my future course of actions, and for dealing with these matters. --Mrjulesd (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

64.183.48.206 has returned as 107.220.86.220

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.

---

64.183.48.206 was blocked for abusive editing. It was thought that he/she was using a second account, 107.220.86.220. The latter account has started to edit two pages that I have been watching with the same crappy and unsourced edits as under the other user name. 64.183.48.206 was blocked for one month this time. He/she has been blocked in the past 107.220.86.220 has been warned before but never blocked. If anyone would just take a look at the two contributions pages, it would be clear that one person is using two accounts to do abusive work. Both accounts need the death penalty, in my opinion. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI, user IDs of the form 123.45.231.54 are IP addresses. Generally IP addresses are not indefinitely blocked because it's very possible for IP addresses to change hands or be used by multiple people (such as in an organization or school). If you already knew this, feel free to ignore me. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought that was the case, Richard Yin. In the case of 64.183.48.206, he/she was warned repeatedly and blocked on a couple of occasions. A comparison of the two accounts (work/home computers?) will show pretty clearly that it's the same person. Hiding behind an IP address should not shield an abusive user from being blocked. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked 107.220.86.220 for a month as its clearly the IP 64.183.48.206 avoiding the month long block i gave them a week or so ago. Mfield (Oi!) 16:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you once again, good sir. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 16:59, 10 November 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.

James T. Struck

There are at least two anons, 75.145.144.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 173.165.0.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who have been inserting nonsense material about "James T Struck" into at least three articles: List of prolific inventors and Poincaré conjecture (these past few days), and Newspapers of the Chicago metropolitan area, last spring. These edits weren't the "obvious" vandalism that get handled by WP:AIV, so I'm reporting here. My guess is this is some known problem. Choor monster (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm. Indeed, same editor, same ineptitude, same interest. Hard to do something about it; I can block the IPs, but it's a bit soon for that and I can't easily say what block length would be appropriate. I suggest you warn them if you haven't already, along the lines of "the game is up; stop this nonsense". If it happens again we can be sure that the IPs are either static or their regular hangouts, or both, and we can block. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The style was of the sort of inept blocked users, so I was wondering if "Struck" seemed familiar. I'll keep on an eye on these IPs. If they strike again, I'll warn. I assume he/she/it has noticed the reversions. Thank you. Choor monster (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Block request, Aschell10

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, Aschell10, has persistently been vandalizing articles over the last several weeks as shown in their Contributions list. For example, [41][42][43]. This User has also been warned repeatedly on their Talk page. Thank you for your time and efforts in this matter. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 11:22 am, Today (UTC−8)

For future refernence the place to report vandalism is thataway. I've moved the report there as turn around time is faster. Amortias (T)(C) 19:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, many thanks. I was not aware of that Noticeboard. Much appreciated! --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:31, 10 November 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.

Tropical Biology Association

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 axed this article awhile back on copyright grounds (the material was copied verbatim from [44]), however the article's been recreated by @Maddy193: and it look similar enough to the old version that I am concerned. Can someone take a second look and advise on what to do from here? TomStar81 (Talk) 09:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. Not instantly obvious that it was a copyvio, but that's because of typos such as 1,800 biologists versus 1,500 biologists. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 10 November 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.

Closure review

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive269#Closure review: America: Imagine the World Without Her. Cunard (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

This is a request to review the close at Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer Here. I questioned the close by talking about a lack of consensus to support closing the Rfc by agreement and told him/her the closing should be inconclusive. According to WP:RFC/U:

"However, where a summary is disputed, all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use. This is because in the absence of a clear consensus one way or another, writing the closer's own view of the dispute as the summary/close has been considered controversial in the past. In case a wording has not been agreed upon, the RfC/U should be closed as if it was being closed due to inactivity (or closed due to other dispute resolution)."

There was no discussion of a summary, resolution, or clear consensus that "all participants" agreed to. According to WP policy, the close should have been due to inactivity or closed due to other dispute resolution, certainly not by agreement. I understand that consensus does not require unanimity, however, all opposed arguments, especially when backed by WP policy, need to be addressed and considered. I explained this to the closer and he/she tried to disregard my arguments as being irrelevant to the scope of the RFC. When I proved that the RFC included determining whether a source could be used within a particular article and that my argument was relevant, the closer offered a new justification of his/her close by using majority opinion. Majority opinion does not determine consensus and does not override WP policy least the policy itself gets changed. When I explained that simply going with majority opinion and ignoring policy based arguments was disallowed, the closer ceased showing interest in discussing it further or trying to substantiate the close with a justification that wasn't against WP policy. Seeing as there is no policy based justification for the close, I suggest that the close be changed to "due to inactivity" or moved to a different dispute resolution forum that addresses the aspect of appropriate uses of questionable sources, and/or whether a source is questionable or not.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The policy cited by the OP has to do with closure of a user conduct RFC, which doesn't appear to be applicable. The RFC was a article content RFC, which has different and less rigid closing guidelines. If the OP thinks that the close was improper, the venue for considering that is WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get bureaucratic about going to WP:AN.--v/r - TP 17:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TParis, that the bureaucracy shouldn't be a big issue. However, if editors are unwilling to examine this here, then I'll relist this on the other AN. Regarding RFC/U, I was mistaken in citing it, however my objection is still justified by WP guidelines regarding closing and the analysis of consensus. There is no clear consensus and the closer even admitted to ignoring policy based arguments which is against article content RFC guidelines for closing/moving discussions. There are also other matters like forum shopping that I didn't discuss with closer, but don't think it's necessary since there wasn't a consensus to begin with.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't really an RFC. Looking back in history when it was open [45], it wasn't transcluded anywhere other than that page, so you never saw ANY input from anyone that didn't come to that page. That is fine for a discussion, but you don't get any "uninvolved" opinions that way. I guess you can call it "RFC", but really it is just a local discussion. I also note that you can go to WP:RSN to get better service when it comes to determining if a source is reliable or not. Not exactly what you are asking for, just saying that when you are looking for "objective opinions", you pretty much have to ask outside the circle of editors that are arguing over it. Dennis - 2¢ 23:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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

User:Levente 2 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.

---

User:Levente 2 has been disruptive due to his very weak command of English - he seems to be a Hungarian kid who really can't speak English at all. See archived ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive860#User:Levente 2

I now think he's being abusive, but I can't be certain. User:Thehoboclown tried to help by posting a message on his talk page, and Levente 2 went quiet. But a couple of days ago at User talk:Thehoboclown, another Hungarian speaker, User:OsvátA came alone to say, as far as I can tell, that Levente 2 was blocked for socking at the Hungarian Wikipedia - see [46] (I'm going on Google translate of the Hugarian, and that's far from perfect, but I think I can get the gist of it). We then had a comment by User:Pallerti - see [47]. As far as I can make out that is agreeing that Levente 2 is trouble. Levente 2 reponded at User talk:OsvátA - see [48], and the translation of that appears to have "motherfucker" and "fucking bastard" in it.

I think it's time to finally block User: Levente 2 - I brought it here rather than AIV or elsewhere, because it's a little complicated and not simple vandalism. Neatsfoot (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree, Levente 2 is a recurrent vandal in huwiki, and in Commons too. FYI: Levente's sockpupetts in huwiki: user:Garb, user:Troodon, user:Garbera levente (https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kateg%C3%B3ria:Troodon_zoknib%C3%A1bjai). Sorry for my poor English. --Pallerti (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree, in Hungarian Wikipedia he would be blocked solely for what he wrote on OsvátA's talk page (the Google Translate version is actually much more polite than the original...) his articles are hoaxes and his Hungarian is almost as incomprehensible as his English. I don't think he could make useful contributions to Wikipedia. – Alensha ^talk 22:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree I can confirm that this user has been blocked on huwiki for extensive sockpuppeting and for numerous dirsuptive edits. His MO in Hungarian is posting copy with orthography that is so poor that it's difficult to believe the mistakes are not made on purpose, as an attempt to be funny. The remarks he left on OsvátA's talk page are extremely foul (essentially recommemding that OsvátA should initiate intimate relations with his prostitute mother, and expressing the hope that OsvátA's eyes will fall out -- it sounds more authentically foul in the original). I also noticed that he had created a page about the Nyíregyháza metro that has since been deleted as a test. Assuming that the page was about a "metro" as in "underground passenger railway system," you should know that no such mode of public transport exists in Nyíregyháza, nor is it envisioned, given the size of that city, so the article was likely a hoax. It's difficult to imagine any positive contributions coming from this user. Malatinszky (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Malatinszky: He also created Nyiregyháza-Záhony railway (which has since been copy-edited to get it into better English). Can you tell us if that is accurate or likely to be a hoax too? Neatsfoot (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That article is not a hoax, but there are some problems. Let me continue on your talk page in a minute. Malatinszky (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

He just vandalized this very page with a profanity-laden message. I've warned him but if he's been engaging in long-term disruption and if his English is as bad as others say it is, I imagine this will do little good. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

According to Google translate, part of that message said "three little bastard fucking your mother". I think this needs a block as soon as possible. Neatsfoot (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Although he was informed both in English and Hungarian that he lacks certain competences (I can confirm that his Hungarian is as terrible as his English), and was advised to learn the rules and improve his skills at first, it turned out that he fails to understand anything and created yet another hoax article about Hungarian greenland that was just speedy deleted. I'd also suggest an action here, the sooner the better. Thehoboclown (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that one was a hoax either. There is a risible fringe theory, popular among certain Hungarian nationalists, that a runic stone discovered in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia is Hungarian in origin, and that this is proof that Hungarian explorers, like the Vikings, must have reached North America centuries before Columbus. Possibly the Hungarian greenland article was a misguided attempt at documenting this theory. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, considering his activity on the commons – he uploaded images like a map of British and Hungarian colonies, though Hungary never had any, or like the flag of Magyar Guyana, that never existed and is otherwise the flag of Suriname with a small Hungarian tricolor drawn in the left top corner with paint or other simple drawing software, and flags of other fake Hungarian colonies – it's hard to believe it was his real intention. It seems he spreads his hoaxes all over the hu/en wiki and commons. Thehoboclown (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is only tangentially on-topic here, but Levente2 has also left a threatening message on OsvatA's talk page on Commons. In that message, titled "You are finished if the block is not lifted," Levente2 threatens to send his goons to beat up OsvatA (and also Pallerti) and to pluck out his eyes. One sentece reads "I've seen you in the streets and I know where you live." I wouldn't take this threat at face value but still, perhaps we should strive for a slightly less confrontational tone in a community-based project, won't you agree? --Malatinszky (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: Whether or not his/her command of the English language is suspect IMO is not relevant here. It is obvious (to me anyway) that his individual does not appear to work or play well with others. Threats (no matter how thinly-veiled) against other editors cannot be tolerated. Perhaps a 30-day time out to ponder the errors of his/her ways might be more useful than a permanent bin? Of course if the disruptive behavior continues after that, send him/her to the land of the elite ranks of the NON-participants. Regards,  Aloha27 talk  13:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no chance of a 30-day block achieving anything - blatantly abusive trolls like this need to be shown the door for good. (And remember - indefinite does not mean permanent.) Neatsfoot (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Neatsfoot. Does anybody here seriously believe that this guy, having been booted from huwiki and commons, having had at least two hoaxes deleted from enwiki, having vandalized this page, having posted threats that might well warrant a police investigation in some jurisdictions, having shown almost no command of the English language, will somehow, after pondering the errors of his ways, return from his 30-day suspension to turn into a useful contributor to this project? --Malatinszky (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have blocked him, for the threats and for lacking the necessary minimum of English competency. I wrestled with that railway article. I will now move it to the title suggested. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:01, 10 November 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.

Active sockfarm linked to Morning277

• There's over 50 accounts in what appears to be a sockfarm investigated in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bert_Martinez. It may be hundreds or more. It is linked by article Warren_Cassell,_Jr. created by one of the suspects User:Caribbeanbio, edited by the blocked sock User:Kishanvkc20 of banned User:Morning277. The edit patterns may match Morning277.
  • Electronic Recycling Association is fully protected due to a content dispute involving some of the suspected accounts and non-suspects. The most active account TheSawTooth appears to be connected but disputes it. (I have given COIN notice to all accounts, but have only notified the accounts above of this). Widefox; talk 22:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure how this conclusion was even jumped to. My account is not related to any of the mentioned accounts. All of my edits (I've been a member for a year) have been centered around Caribbean articles and politics. Caribbeanbio (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Caribbeanbio account is linked to the other suspects by editing these:
      • Intaction [49] also edited by suspects User:Hillysilly, blocked User:Josiah120214, blocked User:IntactKnowledge
      • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sammy_Porter "Keep" voting [50] along with other suspects e.g. User:Hillysilly
      • Warren_Cassell,_Jr. disclosed a potential COI on [51] but that is somewhat tangential to the pattern, the article was also edited by the other suspects including sock of banned User:Morning277
      • Dead Exit [52] the next day by blocked suspect User:Klokus [53]
    • There's more evidence at COIN above how the suspects are linked
    • That appears to be overwhelming evidence. I believe edits made in violation of the Morning277 ban may be reverted, with suspects to be notified here, and measures that behavioural evidence is enough to for admins to G5 and block suspects. Presented here and at COIN for comments. Widefox; talk 01:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I live on the same island as the gentleman. How is that a conflict of interest? I edited those pages, does that make me a sock puppet? I am getting a little perturbed now, as I have made contributions to help but all Wikipedia is doing is frustrating me. Caribbeanbio (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Caribbeanbio socks were blocked here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Caribbeanbio/Archive "I would treat any of their page creations as likely promotional/paid editing." Widefox; talk 15:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
        • At Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sammy_Porter User:Klokus disclosed "I don't work with User:Hillysilly or User:Emilysantoss. I assume they work on the same freelancing site as me and are being hired by the same people" [54] . All the "Keep" votes are suspects.
          • User:Klokus blocked as sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Newzealand123, disclosed who hired them [55] Widefox; talk 02:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
          • User:Klokus disclosed "I was hired off of Fiverr a few days ago to make edits to User:Americanpatriot1/Veronica Grey ‎and also the Madison McKinley" [56] (recreated as Madison McKinley Garton)

Summary several paid editors hired via Fiverr.com (Fiverr) https://www.fiverr.com/gigs/wikipedia/#page=1 (matching account names and articles here). Offwiki well coordinated mix of meats and socks - paidpuppets "paids"TM, unknown if hired direct by clients or subcontracted by a "Paidpuppetmaster". Overlap of clients both with Morning277 and each other. Similar to a DDOS attack, Redundant Array of Inexpensive Editors (RAIE) or maybe "flies" buzzing around the same stinking articles. Widefox; talk 03:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC) upd Widefox; talk 13:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not know any one else on wikipedia and I am not related to them. I am pro recycling so I have rewritten a neutral ERA topic but they are not telling me what sentence I need to change. Even one editor who filed Conflict of Interest report has withdrawn his report and he is saying he agrees with me. Now only Widefox is having concern. I do not live in US or Canada so I do not know these users. My purpose is to rewrite recycling topic so that people know more about recycling. I deleted blog reference and added simple facts and background of recycling. I am willing to correct if concern is raised on any sentence I write. --TheSawTooth (talk) 08:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence linking articles/accounts detailed Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bert_Martinez

• TheSawTooth account made 10 minor edits (and a draft) then almost exclusively edited Electronic Recycling Association
  • At same time as User:Cristine nickol (who advertises paid editing with the same accountname on https://www.fiverr.com/gigs/wikipedia/#page=1 ) [57] [58] [59] and User:Emilysantoss [60] and User:BiH [61] and the other 5 accounts and 3 IPs listed at COIN.
    • Another tie of related accounts with one fiverr paid editor was editing Marko Stout - a screenshot of which is used in an paid editing advert at https://cdnil1.fiverrcdn.com/deliveries/3084347/v2_680_459/proofreading-editing_ws_1410193484.png?1410193484 (avoiding linking to the exact account in case that is outing).

That overwhelming evidence links a bunch of accounts with certain paid editing accounts and same articles at the same time. They appear to be meats with the same clients, so SPI may not find much (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Newzealand123/Archive has more info). Widefox; talk 13:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• I am working on sandbox subject unrelated to ERA. I am also working on Operation Zarb-e-Azb there a user thinks I am his enemy. Why this bullying everywhere? --TheSawTooth (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The unanswered questions are: Has TheSawTooth been paid for editing? Do they advertise paid editing on fiverr? Have they disclosed that per the TOS Paid contributions without disclosure, or been asked (or communicated on or offwiki by any method) to edit ERA?

A full disclosure of previous IP edits (as claimed) and/or any other accounts would help clear up any unlikely coincidence (as claimed). Widefox; talk 13:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The answer is No! My writing is my personal opinion or data from references. Proof is that I improved controversy heading in ERA to double length, used only facts name of equipment and event from primary sources and I am working on other topics too. I do not remember my IP addresses if I did I would not tell my IP address even then for my privacy. Where is your proof? Just because some noob edited at same time with me and actually against my edit? I am not as experienced as you but you should not take advantage of that when I make account and write my first full topic. Leave me alone. --TheSawTooth (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to add this, but this legal threat followed by this revert a little while later is the thing I found most suspicious and drove my (admittedly; inappropriate) edits on the talk page. Nikthestunned 14:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not live in Canada so it is not me. He said "our" so he is from ERA. I am neutralizing this subject for first time and some users want to bully me to stop my writing. Any admin can check my location. Nikthestunned was obsessed with ERA users who warned him of legal action so this is a bad faith accusation I am not ERA. I am pro recycling. --TheSawTooth (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• I blocked over 300 Morning socks in just one incident report over a year ago, lost count of total socks blocked. Unquestionably, they have many thousands of unblocked accounts, they are all over the globe, isn't a single person. It's complicated. Admin have to use their best judgement in discounting any of those socks in any discussion, as the "user" (for the sake of simplicity) is banned. Reverting is obviously fine, but be careful who you claim is a sock unless you are willing to file at SPI or at least provide evidence. Dennis - 2¢ 15:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Gilliam

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.

---

Dear User:Gilliam,

You have violated the Digital rights act stating, "Allow individuals to access, use, create, and publish digital media or to access and use computers, other electronic devices, or communications networks." This is unacceptable towards the values and interests of Wikipedia. You have incorrectly disallowed users to help shape Wikipedia as it is today to even something better. Among the thousands of users you have blocked, disallowing students, librarians and probably even historians is outrageous. Sorry to inform you of this, but something has to change. Yours sincerely, User:cod8 — Preceding undated comment added 00:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Since we're already here, I'll point out that Cod8 (talk · contribs) is currently engaging in edit warring and disruptive edits on Pavlova (food), which he is insistently labeling as Australian despite the sources. I have absolutely no clue what the original complaint is about. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Presumably this is related to the edit warring by cod8 on Pavlova, where they and a number of IPs have been seeking to include Australia as the home of Pavlova. No comment on the content, but this edit warring is ridiculous. This is about as malformed an ANI as they get. I'll be dropping the ANI notification on Gilliam's page. Also going to ping a few other editors who have been involved in dealing with the edit warring IPs and cod8. @MelbourneStar:, @HiLo48:, @Gadfium:, @Moriori:, @Grayfell:. Blackmane (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me Blackmane. I have just again reverted Cod8's latest edit to the Pavlova article, and pointed him at WP:3RR on his Talk page. Someone appears to not be learning. HiLo48 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Cod. Thank you for raising this concern. Of course, I am not Gilliam, but I wanted to clarify a thing or two.

When editing, it is very important to realize that Wikipedia is a privately owned organization, which means that we mostly have the right to create our own policies. If a person is disruptive to the project, and is not helping to further our mission to build a free encyclopedia, they can be blocked. Blocking is not intended to be a punitive act against a particular editor, but rather an act to protect the project as a whole against vandalism and disruption. If we never blocked editors, the unfortunate fact of the matter is that we quickly be overrun by trolls and vandals. Are unjust blocks ever made? Certainly. Can they be reversed? Of course. In fact, we provide multiple ways to appeal a block.

For a helpful resource concerning "the right to free speech on Wikipedia", I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Free speech.

Thanks, --Biblioworm 01:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I have learnt what iv'e done wrong and intend to fix my editing processes. Extremely sorry for inconvenience I have caused, hope this is no issue. Thanks User:Gilliam for your input this is helpful for the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cod8 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cod8: Does that mean that you're going to stop editing Pavlova (food)? If not, you're likely to be blocked. You've already continued to disrupt the article after a level four warning (enough to get you blocked right now), edit warred in violation of 3RR (which is also enough to get you blocked), and filed an incomprehensible ANI complaint against someone with whom you've seemingly never interacted. You really need to consider your next action carefully. I suggest you start by reading WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:EW, and WP:POVPUSH. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, NinjaRobotPirate has a point--this is all pretty sophomoric and has to stop. I see that HiLo48 has just reverted, and I hope this is the last revert; if another one is necessary a block will follow. My dear Cod8, is that clear? Now, let's move on and fight over something else. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 10 November 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.

Misuse of 3O

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.

---

• Nellyhan (talk · contribs): a WP:SPA whose only article edited is Ahn Sahng-hong
• Mischief7 (talk · contribs): an editor registered Nov 2013 with about 15 edits. Mischief7 responded to a '3O' request by Nellyhan.
• Ahn Sahng-hong (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch (ASH): an article on the deceased, self-proclaimed messiah and founder of Witnesses of Jesus Church of God which split into two groups one being World Mission Society Church of God.
  

The ASH article has the potential for being a contentious article as it contains criticism of ASH which seems to be what all this is about. There are numerous removals and restores of criticism and contentious material.

Nellyhan made a 3O request directly to Mischief7 instead of posting the request on WP:3O. Besides avoiding the random editor selection, the choice of Mischief7 seems highly unusual given Mischief7's edit history.

ASH article recent history

Essntially, Nellyhan removed content from ASH, was reverted by Sam Sailor (talk · contribs) 1 2. Nellyhan reverted SamSailor 1 and removed more content from ASH 2 3. I reverted Nellyhan's 3 edits 1, where the article stands at this time. After discussions on talk:Ahn Sahng-hong and my suggestion that Nellyhan open a ticket on WP:DR, WP:RFC, or WP:3O, Nellyhan made a direct 3O request to Mischief7 who posted talk:ASH repeating Nellyhan's criticism of me, but not concerned with Nellyhan's removal of sourced content. Mischief7 then replied to Nellyhan on Nellyhan's talk.

Nellyhan seems to have read my user page and BRD, but misunderstood WP:3O?

Mischief7's history

Mischief7 after being inactive for nearly a year, (last edit November 2013} edits Vicky Vale at 27 October 2014 19:22 about 45 minutes after Nellyhan edits my talk page at 27 October 2014 06:36. The next day, Mischief7 creates an article in the user's sandbox which is declined and moved to Draft:Aether. Then, at 02:44, 29 October 2014, Mischief7 receives a "3O" request from Nellyhan 3O request who, less than two hours later, posts on talk:ASH at 04:25, 30 October 2014 Mischief7's edit to talk:ASH. Interestingly, Mischief7's concern's seem to reflect Nellyhan's.

Conclusion / request

Both editors seem to take my statement that "I have not edited the article in at least a year" (I had only checked the latest 500 edits) that have edited before under a different username and that I am a sock and am lying. Interesting similarity in bolding on this in talk:ASH.

Would it be possible to get another set of eyes on this? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

For a starter, I fully protected the article for a week, but unfortunately I do not have much time to figure out the details of what is going on. I hope someone will find some time. Feel free to remove protection if needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Certainly looks very fishy. I'd like to hear from one of the suspected editors on why he or she was specifically singled out for the 3O opinion. I want to assume good faith here, but I can't find any logical reason (beyond, maybe the editor randomly picked someone who came up on the recent changes list) that doesn't involve some kind of SPA or improper collusion. I was thinking maybe they had interacted in the past and so Nellyhan just picked an editor they were familiar with (which would still be an improper use of 3O but would not have the same canvassing or SPA issues) but this does not seem to be the case.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the intersecting articles that both editors worked on [62] you basically found nothing, so from that point of view, there is no reason to think that Nellyhan and Mischief7 knew each other at all. That doesn't explain why it wasn't filed at WP:3O, but they weren't editing buddies. Dennis - 2¢ 18:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There is some significant socking going on here. Nellyhan is  Confirmed to Vanessaliam (talk · contribs), Maintain1 (talk · contribs) and Willsturn (talk · contribs). On the other side of the coin Mischief7 (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed to Thomathe81 (talk · contribs) and is  possibly related to the first group of socks, though via direct socking or meat is unknown.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not surprised; behaviorally it's 100% guaranteed that they are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets of each other. Before seeing Ponyo's CU info, I left a pointed question for Nellyhan on their talk page, but events have overtaken me. I've collapsed the "3O", although if someone want to delete in instead I won't care. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Whoa. What's all this mess here. First of all, Nellyhan is my recent ID, and Vanessaliam is my old ID. I didn't even use this ID to edit this article. As for Maintain1 and Willsturn were new IDs that I've created because I was having problems logging in. Notice I haven't done anything with those IDs. Mischief7 - I don't even know him or her, I just picked him randomly from the ones who I gave welcoming message when I used Vanessaliam. It makes me wonder why Jim1138 added some other info. rather than only reverting my edits, and I asked him why and he said that he edited a year ago, and I don't see him editing a year ago, or ever since the article was created. Who is Jim1138 a year ago? Is he a socket puppet? -Nellyhan (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is 199.47.73.100 from New York reverting my opinion? Are you all together or what? Do you own this place? Floquenbeam told me to reply. -Nellyhan (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

So, if I reply, everyone is going to delete? This is totally ridiculous.-Nellyhan (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

First things first! I was sent a 3O. Didn’t know that there were designated 3O's. That aside, I just answered what was asked of me. I don’t know Nellyhan. I was requested a 3O and when I Iooked into it, I thought something fishy was going on. This sock or meat puppeting you accuse me of…is this an automated response every time someone asks a question? I’m still curious as to why Jim1138 (a patroller and someone who’s a part of the vandalism team) is reverting as well as adding things to the said article and saying he edited a year ago when there's no evidence of him doing so. Shouldn’t Jim1138 be playing a neutral stance instead of reverting said article and adding things? Isn’t that a case of sock and/or meat puppeteering? I wrote what I did because to me it was clear that Jim1138 was lying and abusing his power. That’s the point!Mischief7 (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I am restoring this section where the above two users have added their comments to the archive. Sam ^Sing! 13:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ponyo, are those matches something that needs "fixing"? I don't see any blocks, and I did some recent edits from at least one. Wasn't sure if they were left unblocked for a reason. Ping me (I don't watch here much now) if you need someone to do the paperwork and button pushing, I just don't want to jump in if you had something else in mind. Dennis - 2¢ 22:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I didn't leave them unblocked on purpose, must have just been busy and assumed someone else would do the needy.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I'll get a mop... I've got a few minutes to kill anyway, might as well do something useful. Dennis - 2¢ 22:12, 10 November 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.

Talk:Dreams for Kids missing

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

---

The talk page for Dreams for Kids, Talk:Dreams for Kids, seems to have gone missing. There's no deletion transaction for it in the deletion log [63]. This article was mentioned on WP:COIN in connection with a claim of paid editing at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#SavvyMedia. Is there anything special going on that required deletion of the talk page, or is this a technical problem such as a botched move or a database error? John Nagle (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Just looks as if never existed, no deleted version history there, nothing. Mfield (Oi!) 06:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but as I recall, creating an article does not automatically create a talk page. Someone has to create it, by posting an initial entry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

After six years of editing on the article, and some controversies, it seems surprising that there's no talk page. That's why I'm looking for it. John Nagle (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The article has no main namespace redirects and its history doesn't show any moves within the main namespace, so the talk page must never have been created anywhere. Graham87 08:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

i just created it. that wasn't hard.  :) it is bizarre that no one has ever discussed anything on that article! Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, so nothing funny was going on. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 18:14, 10 November 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.

Could you block Camelbinky for determined personal attack please

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

---

Camelbinky (talk · contribs) put in a personal attack in [64] on 7th November, I removed it, they stuck it in again in [65] and another person removed it. Today they stuck it back in again [66]

Could you block them for a while thanks so they know that sort of thing is unacceptable. Dmcq (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

At no point in the history of Wikipedia has anyone ever been accused of a personal attack (legitimately) for simply telling another editor to stop doing what a very well known essay WP:DICK tells you not to do. Wikipedia discussion pages are full of people telling those that get bitey to stop. At no point was anything personal about Dmcq said. I didn't call him a dick, I said he needs to stop acting like a dick and linked that to the appropriate essay.Camelbinky (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Well, Dmcq, I won't ping you since you seem to disallow that, but I find your response to Scottperry a bit asinine. I see nothing blockable in Camelbinky's remark, though I do appreciate Eric's attempt at civility policing. Can we move on and find something better to do? Motion to close this thread. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Camelbinky, I felt your language was a bit harsh, but nothing blockable, especially not the link. I agree with Drmies, so I'm closing the thread. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 19:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Well I suppose then you pair then don't mind me saying that what you say is typical for fecking eejits. Mind you I didn't say you were fecking eejits, just that you act like them, and I'm sure you wouldn't mind me repeating this a few times over a week or so. More to the point what I said to the OP of that thread insulted nobody, it told them it was not a good idea to raise the same subject in a whole lot of different places, the place they were raising it was inappropriate, and I said to them exactly how to go about doing what they were trying to do. I see nothing asinine in what I said and if you could say how I should have responded better please be constructive and say how. As to pinging there is no point raising people's attention specially to a place they are already contributing and when the response is not special to them. Responses should address the subject and not people in most cases, putting in pings for people implies a private conversation where there is none. It should only be done where the person may not be looking but probably would want to see.

I see the lack of action over personal attacks as destructive of Wikipedia. If people want that sort of crap there are plenty of stupid forums on the web for it. Somebody with a bit of intelligence will very often just leave a place where they are treated like that, they have plenty of better things to do with their time. Dmcq (talk) 00:32, 12 November 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.

Iranian airmen

CFFan116 here. I am concerned about an IP user 70.27.192.197 who has been reverting my edits on the articles belonging to two airmen of the Iranian Air Force who saw combat service in the Iran-Iraq war, Jalil Zandi and Yadollah Javadpour, without proper discussion. He insists that the articles are written "well enough" despite only being Starter class on Project:Iran and using phrases such as "most successful F-5 pilot ever". The issue has spilled over into my talk page. CFFan116 (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that there is no discussion at all at the talk pages, and all communication between you is via the edit summaries of the reverts. May be you could start the discussion and propose changes you want to make. If there is no response within several days, you could revert them indicating that the discussion has been started at the talk page. If even after this they do not engage into discussion, measures could be taken.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I've tried. He's being unreasonable and uncooperative. What now? CFFan116 (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I semiprotected the first one for two week. For the second one, they actually seem to have been engaged in the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

He appears to have started editing using a registered account, Seaeffel. They behave too much alike to be different people. Maybe you should block editing from the IP address completely. Also I don't think this is going to get anywhere. It's hard not to see how the way the pages are written aren't giving praise to their subjects. And they contain simple grammar mistakes like "A F-14" which he refuses to fix even if he says he stands for well-written articles. What do you think? CFFan116 (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Error fixed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I semi-protected another article for 10 days as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

115ash at Asian American

Article:

• Asian American (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Involved editors

• RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115ash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wtmitchell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Palmeira (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tlqkfshadk12345anjtlqkf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor 115ash, has continued to attempt to change the lead section and infobox of the article Asian Americans against the established consensus built in 2012. The editor has been asked to stop, and has been invited to discuss changes to content on the talk page on multiple occasions, by more editors than just myself. Continued editing without significantly engaging in talk page discussion is seen by myself as disruptive editing. An attempt to resolve this at WP:DRN was rejected.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

And I would note that the DRN was rejected because 115ash has not participated in the talk page discussions - their refusal to discuss(or belief that as soon as they have made a comment they have consensus for their position) is an issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well consensus can change but it looks like it hasn't really. I agree that changes to the introduction and the pictures at the top of the page (which I imagine can be quite contentious) while ignoring any actual attempt to justify their editing is disruptive. 115ash needs to either engage in actual discussion and attempt to compromise or sanctions until that point is made may be required. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I participated in the talk page. 115ash^→(☏) 13:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@115ash: no, you left single sentence statements on the page and then re-instated your preferred version of the info box, despite no other editors on the talk page agreeing with you or your proposed version. That is not "participation" and certainly not following consensus.. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@115ash:, the editor in question has not provided a policy or reliable source based reason for the changes in the infobox. The editor was shown the archived consensus building process which lead to the current state of the lead and infobox, after the editors changes, the editor was explained the reason for the current state of the lead and infobox, and continued to change the lead and infobox to the format they preferred.

If changes are requested, discuss it. Thus why I kept referring the editor to WP:BRD, instead the editor continued to edit against consensus.

As I stated in the talk page, there is a consensus to add opposite sex ethnicity representatives to the infobox, but not to expand the infobox past the 9 largest ethnicities within the scope of the article, and the three different political individuals.

Consensus may change, and I had stated what would be the case if the ethnicity of Nepali Americans had consensus to be included in the infobox (a population of 59k)(a mere fraction of the 3.79 million Chinese Americans, or 3.4 million Filipino Americans) on 5 November. Yet the editor in question continued to make changes to the article to include a Nepali American in the infobox (in place of a Japanese American).

As stated in the talk page, this is WP:UNDUE.

Therefore please stop editing the lead section and infobox. Please discuss requested content changes on the talk page.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Tlqkfshadk12345anjtlqkf

This editor appears to be a WP:SPA. Can this please be checked?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I just changed some images. As regards Tlqkfshadk12345anjtlqkf", WP:CHK can check it. 115ash^→(☏) 09:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

User:75.83.189.188 edit-warring, possible NLT

Edit-warring by

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

at

2 bore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Was originally unexplained blanking of content, headed for a block as simple edit-war/vandalism (and warned by multiple editors as such), but now has asserted:

"Copyright, Trademark, Patent violations. Wiki nor any users have permission to use deleted Photos or data."

when removing a GFDL image and numerical data or other objective factual claims. I noted that:

"facts (data) are not copyrightable; image is free-licensed (GFDL)"

Because they aren't (stated multiple times at WP:CFAQ); and that's the long-standing tag on commons:File:2-Bore Cartridge.jpg. In response, another revert to his preferred version (without that image and data), explained as:

"I'd check with your counsel DMacks. Regardless, Mr. Dingley's edits are not based on fact or any mastery of the subject matter."

That's a legal threat IMO (even original claim is too?--he's not asserting ownership of them, merely accusing us of violating various laws). But regardless of his new claimed basis, WP editors are not required to be experts, merely to cite sources, which his disputed content does. That leads us back to edit-warring at best. DMacks (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I also notified Andy Dingley, as he was specifically called out in relation to possible legal wording in the editor's comments, but not all the other editors who merely reverted him once as a simple unexplained-blanking concern. DMacks (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

What the heck is an "enigmatic historical two bore"? [67] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the editor's grievances are, they have slammed well past WP:3RR, maybe when their block lifts in 24 hours they can explain better what their issue is. They clearly have no understanding of copyright/licensing but I doubt whether they even perceive that to be an issue, rather it's more likely an attempt to try and win get their way. Mfield (Oi!) 04:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• A 2 bore is a very obscure super-sized firearm. There is a report of a Victorian one (a report that isn't beyond challenge as to accuracy) and a handful (literally just two or three) modern gunsmiths who have made them on the basis of, "because they can". These have good evidence for them, albeit the sources are a little on the WP:PRIMARY side. A "biggest shoulder cannon ever made" is also an obvious magnet for fiction.

I don't know what this IP is after. At first I thought they claimed such guns didn't exist and were merely fictional. Now it seems they're claiming to be the owners of trademarks and design rights to the real weapons and "defending" them from exploitation by WP. They may also be simply childish / mad / simple vandals. Without some better hint as to which direction they're actually coming from, it's hard to know how to answer them. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Stating that something is copyright etc. (even if wrong) is not a legal threat. Suggesting that you need expert help to understand copyright (even if wrong) is not a legal threat. I really wouldn't worry about this IP, either they will start acting sensibly or they will be blocked/banned in short order for repeated 3RR/vandalism. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC).

Disruptive IPs in 2013-14 Thai Political Crisis

In the past few months, a user (very likely the same person) has been making repetitive disruptive reverts on the pages 2013-14 Thai Political Crisis and People's Democratic Reform Committee on the same contents, which are the following:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Democratic_Reform_Committee&diff=633071055&oldid=631447702
  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013%E2%80%9314_Thai_political_crisis&oldid=633070579&diff=pre

The edits that have been reverted by the IPs were reasoned, and have achieved general consensus among us editors of that page. The editor has not specified the reasons for his or her edits. Warnings have been issued to the editor, I have also suggested the editor to use the talk page. The links are listed below:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013%E2%80%9314_Thai_political_crisis#Disruptive_editing
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People%27s_Democratic_Reform_Committee#Disruptive_editing
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:180.183.130.167

Around 5 or more reverts have been made in 2 months, which makes it not fit as an edit war. Another problem is that the IPs change over time, so I am unable to block the editor. The IPs are:

• 180.183.129.73
• 180.183.129.161
• 180.183.130.167
• 185.56.163.164
• 180.183.245.59

As you can see, the IPs have a very similar number pattern, and also do the same thing. It is most likely the action of one editor.

If you require more information, please do not hesitate to let me know. Thank you in advance. Hethokrilliondata (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sandstein: Bullying

First, let me provide you with some intorductoyr remarks about where this incident has arisen from. I made several edits to the page Game of Thrones (season 5), and a few other of the actors pages citing a fansite for the show I fekt the site would be fine to include as the site's predecessor was included in previous years, I soon learnt that this was not the case, but I still argued it because I felt that if one was Ok, the other would be too, I now know this to be wrong, but at the time I didn't.

Only one user took particular umbridge at these references:Special:Contributions/Sandstein. I was eventually given a warning from Special:Contributions/Sandstein, which I accepted, although when I tried to convince him of my point of view rather than acknowledging my points, which I think woud have been the appropriate thing to do to defuse the conflict, he accussed the site of being "trash". I was absolutely furious about this, as I felt that however 'reliable' the source may, or may not be, this was not the kind of behaviour i expected from an administrator-someone I should be looking up to. [[1]] "This is, in Wikipedia terms, absolute and utter trash in terms of sourcing, and if you continue to add such trash to articles you will very likely be blocked from editing Wikipedia."

I now acknowledge that I made a huge mistake. Rather than letting the situation calm down, I edited more pages with the source. I deeply regret my actions, although I fet it was, in part, due to how Sandstein had behaved in the first instantce. This led to an arbitration enforcement request, which was overseen by Special:Contributions/EdJohnstone. As I realised I had made some big mistakes Icame forward about why I had edited in such a way, and promised I would never use the site agaain. As you can see Sandstein was very dubious of my account, and didn'tt really listen to what I had to say, unlike EdJohnstone who gave me a chance.

[[2]].

The following day (yesterday) I found myself being linked to this talk page[[3]]. I was immediately accused of undoing my own edits, and using these accounts as socks. I am absolutely disgusted, and upset that I could be accused of such a thing on pure speculation, and conjecture. There is no proof that I have anything to do with it, because I don't. Having someone watch my every move has caused me a great deal of distress over the past couple of days, and I decided that I would refrain from editing Game of Thrones-related articles, because I would get accused of doing something I hadn't done whatever I did.

And then it comes to today when I received a notification that Sandstein had undone my undo of his edit for the article Breaker of Chains[[1]]. I had made my original undo three dyas prir, because the scene in question is highly controversial, and I thought a neutral statement was much preferred to the aggressive language Sandstein had used.Today I find it has been undone, ostensibly because of my 'disruptive' edits in the past. It seems bizarre that it has taken Sandsten three days t undo my undo, and I begin to wonder if it is because I did not receiive a ban, which Sandstein was hoping for. It seems malicious, and deeply hurtful to undo my undo, without consulting me on my talk page first as to why I had made such an undo (if it wasn't already clear from the edit description.

Overall I feel that Sandstein is abusing his powers as an administrator as he has a very authoritarian style, and never listened to what I had to say. I accept that I made my mistakes, but as an administrator Sandstein should know a lot better. I now feel intimiddated by Sandstein, and unsure if I shoukd make any further edits at all without receiving repurcussions from Sandstein for thinsg I have not done. I feel he has bullied me, and that in no way imagianble should he remain an administrator of Wikipedia. He has called my integrity into question, and I'm now calling his into question. I will not allow him to bully me any more.

Apologies if this is a bit of a ramble, but I am so upset about this that I have typed it out as quickly a possible, so I do not break down from all the stress it has caused me, I will ot be bullied by anyone,even if I'm not faultless. I am happy to elucidate all the points I have madePiandme (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Piandme: you admit to understanding that the source is unacceptable, yet you continued to insert it anyway after being warned because you were angry, correct? That's called disrupting to make a point, and it is very unwelcome behaviour. Sandstein's opinion of the site is correct in Wikipedia terms - we can't use it, it's garbage in terms of reliability. That's not a comment on the quality of the site itself, it's simply not appropriate to use as a source here. Now, you've been warned about discretionary sanctions in this topic area. You've also recently been sanctioned for sockpuppetry. It is pretty normal here for other editors and especially admins to pay extra scrutiny to your actions in light of past misdeeds. Only a long history of constructive editing and staying out of trouble can solve that. Personally I don't see any evidence of bullying here. Ivanvector (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back so quickly Ivanvector! I was expecting it to take a lot longer. I take your point on board, and agree with them to a large extent, but the ramifications of my misdemeanours was dealt with as I mentioned. The ony reason I included that section was for some context. The main part of my argument is after this dispute was resolved, when Sandstein accuses me of using socks to undo my own edits, and the frankly malicious undo to the Breaker of Chains article, without trying to resolve the problem first. These actions have crippled me, and left me shaken and hurt. I made mistakes, and i admit to them, but Sandstein seems determined to start up conflict when I had decided to stay away from Game of Thrones articles (which you can see from my edit history), As an administrator he should have known better and that is why I have decided to pursue this because someone like him doesn't deserve to be an administrator, because like me when I made those foolish edits, he thinks his edits are more important than mine. I am very upset about this which is why I came as soon as I saw what he did to the Breaker of Chains article]]. Piandme (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

When Sandstein reverted your revert he left an edit summary indicating that he believed your revert was part of your recent pattern of pointy edits. It isn't uncommon for a problematic user's recent contributions to be scrutinized for additional bad edits, and for them to be quickly removed. If you can edit constructively going forward, you have nothing to worry about. I've seen the community come down on problem editors like a bag of bricks, and this is far from it. I would advise you against continuing to revert that edit, though. Speaking from some experience, editors with recent histories of misconduct who come back here to seek remedy against their accuser often find themselves sitebanned. Ivanvector (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This unfounded complaint appears to be a reaction to WP:AE#Piandme, where Piandme was warned against, among other things, BLP violations and disruptive editing, such as (as in this case) reverting random edits by me merely because they objected to my warning. I'm not sure that they are here to build an encyclopedia.  Sandstein  11:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I have a request. Sandstein, Piandme, could you maybe talk to each other - away from the noticeboards - and tell each other what you are afraid of and/or angry about, and what you expect of each other going forward? You both seem to have concerns about each other, and they both seem in good faith. I see no reason why you couldn't work this out together. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Cancina5645 makes advocacy for including original research

User:Cancina5645 has stated upon his own user page "This is Wikipedia, and we can accept original research, because we know it is true if the individual did the correct research." This would be in itself an act of defiance, but he also practices what he preaches, see e.g. [68]. He has been warned long ago about about this, see e.g. [69]. He claims that he joined Wikipedia in 2009, so he should be familiar with the WP:NOR requirements. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what should be done about it, but something has to be done, I am beginning to see a pattern of inserting original research and even defending it as the right action. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

We permit people to advocate for things not currently in line with consensus; if that weren't the case, consensus could never change. See {{User:Jeandré du Toit/DatePref}} or the various userboxes that say "IP users should have to register before editing", for some examples. I assume that your talk page link refers to this edit, wherein Cancina5645 supplied a nonexistent ref name, perhaps thinking that it had been used. This obviously isn't a behavioral problem per se (it's easy to make this kind of mistake), and anyway plot sections in literature articles are weird, as apparently it's normal to permit these sections to be simply summaries of the books.

In other words, judging by what you've provided, I see no reason for sanctions. However, I'll say something different if you can supply diffs demonstrating original research or other problematic actions. Nyttend (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

At Special:Contributions/Cancina5645 there are several examples of inserting original research. I could provide diffs from there, however, the idea is that the editor gets the idea that it is not acceptable to insert original research. So, I don't advocate blocking him, but only that he understands that such conduct is problematic, like a serious warning (he received at least three warnings about it, see his talk page). Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If he continues or resumes posting OR he is likely to end up sanctioned in some way. Your observation speaks his desire to continue or resume posting OR, and maybe even the likelihood. Sanctions are not going to happen unless and until he does though. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC).

Copyright issues from User:Irmovies

Looking at this users talkpage shows a whole host of articles tagged for copyvio problems. They just revert the bot notice from the article in question (example). I don't know where to begin with this to be honest. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I have reduced the Taraj article to a stub to remove the copyrighted material. I did the same for Trial on the Street and Kianoush Ayari (another article where the editor remove the bot notice). An admin might need to revdel the previous versions. I had a quick look through their edit history and there doesn't seem to be anymore obviously copyrighted material apart from Fish & Cat which is already tagged for speedy deletion, though I might have missed something. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I did miss a few. Copyrighted material removed from At the End of 8th Street, Hush! Girls Don't Scream, Shahab Hosseini and Cinema of Iran. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• I revdel'ed the edits at Kianoush Ayari. If others need it, you can ping my talk page. I'll be on and off Wikipedia all day (at work), but these are easy enough to clean if caught early, like this. As for the behavioral aspects of the case, I'm hoping the user will come here and explain, or be explained to. You might try a stern warning regarding copy/paste copyright/etc on his talk page. Sadly, many new editors never "get it" and end up getting blocked because they can't get beyond the idea that anything you can copy is ok to copy. Dennis - 2¢ 14:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both. Hopefully they'll learn from their mistake(s). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This user has now recreated the previously speedy deleted page Fish & Cat as Fish & Cat (2013 film). Copyrighted material was removed by Reddogsix [70] then more was readded by Irmovies [71], which I have now removed. Dennis, or any other admin who is about, could this user now be blocked please. They are clearly not getting the message. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC) Hi In the have me been insulted here, simply. But you do not understand your personality and human effort Brigadier human character into question. I just tried to get better, but you do not see. I've compiled source. No copyright Freedom here is, I work hard and I am positive...Irmovies (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You've just reinserted a copy and paste portion of text from IMDB to the very same article you were told not to. WP:CIR. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Basically all your article space edits today are re-adding the copyright text, or recreating articles deleted for copyright issues. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown - This user is now just re-adding all the reverted copyright text, despite the number of warnings on their talkpage not to. WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDNHT apply. Appreciate if someone can block this user, and quick. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeffed. MER-C 12:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Based on their reply, I think we all knew where this was going. Communication is an important thing. Dennis - 2¢ 13:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Good block, but reading that statement above makes me think that english is not this editor's first language. Not sure if that changes anything, but it might factor somehow. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Similarly incomprehensible comments elsewhere would seem to confirm your view. I had already suggested on the user's talk page that if he/she didn't understand English it would be wise to stick to editing a Wikipedia in his/her own language. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Preppy12 and IP accounts on Christian Serratos

This account and a few IPs that all geolocate to the same area (presumably the same editor) have been repeatedly removing all prose references to a TV show this actress had a recurring role in. There has been no good rationale given, either in edit summaries or on the talk page, for removing what is arguably her breakout role. Instead, there have been bizarre personal attacks on another user (1 2 3) against User:Greg Fasolino who has obviously not made any of the edits this user speaks of. There are also disingenuous edit summaries given for removing the contested information (1 2). I considered just going to AIV for a block and semiprotection, but this edit was genuinely helpful, albeit with another bizarre accusation in the edit summary, and if my suspicions regarding the user and the IP accounts are correct, was likely caused by himself. Also, the article was semiprotected after the first barrage of IP edits and these restarted about a week after the protection expired. Perhaps some sort of rangeblock is also in order? If this is a matter felt to be handled at AIV I'm happy to go there instead Cannolis (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Preppy12 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) also made this edit, in which they claim that they were "assigned" the page.--Auric talk 00:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Unlikely, but maybe it's a school assignment? In that case, this should be referred to the education program noticeboard somehow. Epicgenius (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Doubtful, given the very strange personal attacks that have been made and the counterproductive edits. I'd think that anything posted under an educational program would be seen by his/her instructors. Cannolis (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Now he's posted a rambling post on my talk page (diff) in which he refers to "her team". (now he takes things down that her team places up) and uses the plural "us". I think this is starting to look like a competence issue. --Auric talk 13:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Could there also be some sort of COI or paid editing concern? The assigning, team, and "us" pieces make it hit a few alarms in my head for a shared account of some sort that is possibly being paid and/or has a COI. - Purplewowies (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

COI from someone with some sort of personal relationship is not impossible, paid seems less likely. The English writing level of this editor ("do harmful against the law type of things") seems to be rather basic, and I'd think a PR professional would be a bit more savvy. My money's on insane fan. Cannolis (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Vishnumohankerala

Appears compromised due to edits. Jeremy Sallis (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think that the account is compromised? The account was created only this morning, and the first edit was only 6 minutes later. I see no evidence that the account is no longer under the control of the editor who created it. You may believe that the edits are unconstructive or even vandalism, but nobody has yet given any comments or warnings regarding this on the user's talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

What's more suspicious is, why is the OP's account so new and yet they come here for help at the first chance they get? The Jeremy Sallis account was also created this morning. Epicgenius (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed... Jeremy Sallis appears somewhat familiar with how things such as WP:AIV and WP:SPI work. Is it zeal or is this someone we should know? --Kinu ^t/_c 18:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

nota per gli amministratori EUPHYDRYAS e BUGGIA.

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.

---

Unnessecary rant

Gli interventi che ho fatto su Chiesa Cattolica e Papa sono condivisi da milioni di persone (anche cattoliche9 e non sono soltanto mie personali opinioni. Si vede che il Vostro fondamentalismo non vi consente di valutare con serenità e di avere "buonesenso" solo Voi. Scrivete "discussione" ma non consentite la discussione se non è "politically correct" nei confronti dei potenti. Eppure non dovrete ignorare che una discussione non è mai su cose certe ma su cose opinabili (altrimenti è solo presa d'atto). Vi faccio comunque contenti: non interverrò più su Wikipedia per cui attuate pure il "blocco perpetuo". Salutatemi, se potete, anche l'utente Shivanarayana (dogmatico come voi). Un distinto saluto di commiato. FABRIZIO ANSELMI (come vedete non temo di firmarmi e non mi nascondo dietro pseudonimi come voi...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.18.166.137 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 12 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Questa è la Wikipedia in inglese. La Wikipedia in italiano è qui. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:57, 12 November 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.

Goldman Sachs is one of the largest donor to Wikimedia

(NAC) Content dispute, not for this board. Talk:Goldman Sachs is where one wants to go regarding this. Epicgenius (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Hallo to all. I wrote and insert in the article [Goldman Sachs] that "Goldman Sachs is one of the largest donor to Wikimedia Foundation, since 2012. "
A neutral and factual remark.
Somebody had removed, few minute later. Not repositioning in the article but removed it. I write it again, and somebody, again in few minute, removed it again (not repositioning), with the comment "Why is this notable?". I think that it is important to spot this large contribution, made by large giant enterprise, like Goldman Sachs. Do you think it is relevant, to know it, for better awareness about the concept of indipendence and neutral orientation (on the subjectt itself) and defend it? Thank you for you attention and patience. I belive it is an hot subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.201.180.5 (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

References

First, sign your name on your post. Second, provide a diff or article or this will be quickly be closed as non-actionable. Epicgenius (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And consider talking at Talk:Goldman Sachs. This is a content dispute. Closing, but if an admin wants to reopen this, they can undo my edit. Epicgenius (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Hayatgm (second nomination)

Hi, Hayatgm was first reported to ANI by Richard Yin at WP:ANI#CSD tag edit war between myself and User:Hayatgm because he kept removing CSD templates from articles he'd created. I first noticed the user removing an AfD template in this edit, and I warned him accordingly. User has since removed a PROD template from Javed Hayat Kakakhail in this edit without resolving the lack of sources that led to the article being PRODed. (There are notability issues too, there is a non-English poem with no context to explain it, etc.) In fact, I believe that this article might be a recreation of Javaid Hayat Kakakhail, which was twice deleted, once for unambiguous promotion, and a second time for copyright infringement for including the non-English poem. (See this edit as evidence.) Like Richard Yin, I too suspect a WP:COI. My feeling is that the user is trying to memorialize family members or something, as they've created about a dozen articles about people named and related to "Hayat". Most have been deleted. Requesting administrative intervention. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

User has also removed maintenance templates inappropriately, for instance here, where they are removed without addressing issues about tone or presenting the non-English jargon in a clear way, and they have yet again removed a speedy deletion tag here. It is becoming clear that the user is only here to promote their specific agenda, not to contribute constructively to a global encyclopedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I've taken the user to WP:AIV. --Richard Yin (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Richard Yin. I'll comment there. I suppose I don't know what will happen to his articles, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: User received a 48 hour block. I think it would be advisable for admins to keep an eye on him when he returns, since much of what he's been contributing is problematic. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible legal threat at Sara_Lilly

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. While patrolling via Huggle, I came across this edit by the IP 92.232.69.130 and here's the text of such. Source for HMMA nominee finalist awards 2012 http://www.hmmawards.org/2012program.pdf These comments surmount to slander and will not be tolerated legal advice is already being sought since all work is evidenced. This feels like online bullying and harrassment that is unjustified. If further comments arise each individual will be legally contacted. and Links http://www.hmmawards.org/2012program.pdf www.saralillyofficial.com with links to iTunes and Strawberry Girl site which is TradeMarked globally....photos of fashion week event with designed clothing. Videos of live performances including LGR, POK, SKY. iTunes / Amazon / LGR can all be evidenced and there are videos....photos etc. This is online slander and also online bullying that is unjustified and will result in legal action if further unwarranted comments emerge. Use a laptop and you will find all evidence.

I believe that this is a legal threat and as a result I have reported it here. Tutelary (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for the threats. Mike V • Talk 21:56, 12 November 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.

Well-meaning but clueless IP 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.

---

Hi there. Editors working in the area of New Zealand history and the New Zealand land wars of the mid 19th century are currently trying to help a long-term IP editor (currently 122.62.226.243; who often signs messages as "Claudia" so I will use that name and feminine pronouns when discussing her) improve her contributions. Although she appears to mean well, and is certainly widely read in the subject, her contributions are poorly (or not at all) referenced and many are very point-of-view in tone and content. She has previously been mentioned here which gives additional background.

I would appreciate if an Administrator could perhaps take Claudia under his/her wing and help her improve her contributions to Wikipedia. I do not want her blocked but would much appreciate if she could knock off the sort of comments she has made here [72], here [73] or here [74] about editors who have been trying to help her, or about mainstream historians who disagree with her favourite (controversial) historian.

Thank you all for your time. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

"Dinosaur Dave" from Invercargill is the editor who has been previously warned about "knee jerk " reactions to edits. He reverted an recent edit of mine without following any of the normal rules of Wiki. Subsequently an independent editor decided the original edit was fine. Dave made no effort what so ever to justify his "instant delete" whereas I had added good clear, detailed information and references and backed up the edit with further details and background on "talk" of that topic. Obviously he does not think rules apply to him! He has previously owned up to making impulsive emotionally charged edits or responses to edits and was advised by an experienced editor to change his ways. Apparently,judging from his knowledge, he is a very misguided old man.Im guessing he is angry he got caught out! Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

"Claudia" (IP 122.62.226.243) is engaging at a slow-mo edit war at Pai Mārire: See [75], [76], [77], [78] despite an extensive discussion on this in 2013, which this editor has chosen to ignore. This editor is a classic example of a disruptive editor who refuses to accept consensus and insists on inserting POV material either without sources or, frequently, fictional sources. They have extensive form, have previously been banned and frankly deserve a long-term ban. BlackCab (TALK) 06:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hold it right there. — @BlackCab, you have just made a very serious charge: "This editor is a classic example of a disruptive editor who refuses to accept consensus and insists on inserting POV material either without sources or, frequently, fictional sources." You need to either (a) redact and apologize or (b) show diffs demonstrating the use of "fictional sources" by Claudia — and if the latter is proven, Claudia should be out of here on a permaban without another word said. Faking sources is the most serious form of vandalism imaginable, it undermines public perceptions of the validity of the entire project. We can differ about whether this or that person is tendentious or inadvertently pushes a POV. But faking of sources is a matter that is black and white. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You made the same charge previously on the talk page of "Claudia from Hamilton" (122.62.226.243) HERE: "You have also on several occasions simply invented 'sources'..." This needs to be settled once and for all. If Claudia from Hamilton is fabricating sources, she should be tossed from the project for having violated the trust of its participants. If she has not fabricated sources, BlackCab needs to be sanctioned for falsely making this grave accusation against another editor. Carrite (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The point I made was that this is a sentence -the OPENING sentence from well respected source. -You have chosen to go off topic to deflect attention from this point. Previously there was discussion about the name of the organization but no editor raised the point that the leader himself called the church Hauhau. I did not ignore the original discussion-I was part of it. Yes, we reached a good consensus back then but this is NEW information that was not part of the original discussion. I totally reject I am a disruptive editor. This is not a slow-mo edit war- it is trying to get editors to actually discuss the point at hand! My addition is small and does not change the article apart from making it more accurate in a minor but significant detail.Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

A series of reverts by ONE editor of the successive edits of SEVERAL editors, without bothering to discuss it on the talk page, is edit warring. 07:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The edit history of Māori culture clearly displays a trail of edit-warring by the IP editor: instead of sensible discussion the IP editor deals out juvenile comments denigrating the intelligence of other editors.[79] This is long-standing problematic behaviour by an editor who refuses to accept consensus. BlackCab (TALK) 07:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm a long-term member of WP:WPNZ and I'm broadly in consensus with User talk:BlackCab and User:Daveosaurus over the disruptive behaviour of Special:Contributions/122.62.226.243. I bought the issue to WP:ANI previously (linked to above by User:Daveosaurus) but there was no resolution, and problems have continued since then. Non-local editors should be aware that due to the reconciliation process discussed at Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements, historical sources (pre-1980s) about New Zealand, and Māori in particular, need to be handled very carefully, even when they appear to be authoritative tertiary sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

To add to the above: a lot of what was taught in NZ about the Māori before European contact has been exposed as 19th-century fabrications. See Stephenson Percy Smith for some background on this - and that article is being kind to Smith. A lot of people aren't very happy to find out that Everything They Were Taught Was Wrong, hence the popularity of some modern commentators who seek to disparage more neutral readings of history. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I recommended that this case be brought here. It has been brought to the attention of this and similar boards several times previously - see the very first link in this thread, and the links within that ref - but no one has come up with any firm course of action. I am running out of patience, but I am an involved party as I have tried to give advice over many years to the parties concerned. If ANI cannot handle this, should we take it to Arbcom?-gadfium 08:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If you think this is a case of long-term edit warring, there should be one or two specific articles where you can document that pattern. If admins are convinced that someone is fighting against consensus, they might issue a final warning. If the person is using multiple IPs then WP:SCRUTINY might also be a concern, though nobody has so far suggested that the use of IPs is deceptive. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Basically, this problematic editor is in a permanent state of denial. She says above "I totally reject I am a disruptive editor" but the compelling evidence proves otherwise. She has been blocked four times for disruption.

Since she starting editing with this IP she has been taken to task about her editing by users Transcendence, Moriori, Amtalic, Black Cab, Gadfium, Daveosaurus, Drmies, Sue Rangell, Rudolp89, Darkwind, Adabow, DI2000, Stuartyeates, Winkelvi, Mufka, Irondome, DerbyCountyinNZ, Bradshaws1, Epipelagic, Jim1138, Dennis Bratland, JoeSperazza, I dream of horses, Andrewprout and countless times by Sinebot and Bracketbot.

She has been criticised for agenda pushing, OR, ongoing poor formatting and spelling that others have to fix, changing other people’s comments at talk, lack of sources or poor sourcing, edit warring, refusal to get the point, incivility, 3RR etc etc etc. The evidence is there for all to see in her talk page. I agree with User:Black Cab who recently wrote "This editor plays a game of brinksmanship, provoking and taunting other editors while carrying out a deliberate campaign of misinformation and distortion in articles." I also think this comment from User:Irondome was spot on.

Seems to me a one month preventive block would be beneficial for the project, with the proviso clearly stated in the block notice that if when she returns to editing she just once disrupts the project she will be instantly indeffed - no ifs, buts, or maybes. The ball would then be in her court. I am an admin and would block her but might be considered involved. There are other admins here, but also involved. Moriori (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

(Link corrupted) What User:Irondome wrote on the user's page was -- "Page stalker here. I have had a run in over the Dieppe raid article in the past with one of you. The one that goes on and on. It is like dealing with a bizarre cluster of multiple personalities. Luckily I never got involved with the ongoing NZ-related pages chaos that appears to be going from bad to worse in absurdity. I watch the related fall-out a bit. Tip. Why dont some of you take responsibility for your statements and contributions by signing in properly. Then you will be taken seriously, and not as a bizarre babble. What is the most scary is that you may actually be just one individual. Oh the horror!. We are all allowed at least one nervous breakdown per life, and you may be having yours if you are one person. No worries, couple of months or whenever then sign in properly. The slate will be clean then mate. One of you might have the makings of a good editor :) Good luck Irondome ". Moriori (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I also support Moriori's proposal.-gadfium 02:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• The last block of this editor was in July, 2013 for one month. Since the problem has continued unchanged it is reasonable to escalate the block. I suggest a new block for one year due to the long-term pattern of edit warring. The block needs to be long enough that they can't just wait it out, which is what happened in the past. My assumption is that the block could be lifted if the user would agree to create an account and promise to follow Wikipedia policy in the future. As an uninvolved admin I am in a position to issue the block if it's appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ed. In answer to your first question: Māori culture [80] and Pai Mārire [81] are two articles where her recent behaviour has been particularly bad. In the latter, she insists in as often as possible referring to the religion in question as "Hauhau" - a name used dismissively to refer to it by the settler press of the day, in the same way that Chinese gold-miners were referred to as "Celestials" or "Mongolians", and Catholics were referred to as "Papists". In the former, the last couple of months' activity in Talk:Māori culture demonstrates the difficulty of trying to deal with her.

I don't know what tools Administrators have to deal with problem editors such as Claudia, but it has definitely got to the stage where she needs to either shape up or ship out. Shaping up would be my preference, but the last four or so years' of encouragement have had little success. If not a full block, I'd suggest a topic ban from any Māori subject whatsoever until her editing and interpersonal behaviour improves. (She does have other interests she can practice on, going by her editing history). She has in the past refused to create an account, giving reasons which seem to me to be illogical; but at the very least she should start properly signing her posts, and stop making rather creepy allusions to other editors' family members, or disparaging their nationalities. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors have shown kindness and patience in trying to get "Claudia" to lift his/her game, without success. The editor, however, continues to show an attitude of defiance and ridicule. In this discussion at New Zealand land confiscations the IP editor ridiculed me as an Australian "who has a limited knowledge of this topic" (In fact I wrote this article). At that article I had removed a slab of opinionated material; Claudia repeatedly reverted [82][83][84] to reinstate personal comment and highly dubious claims. Discussion gets us nowhere. A one-year block sounds good to me; editors at non-Maori pages seem to have the same difficulty in getting this person to discuss or collaborate. BlackCab (TALK) 04:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston, please take a moment to glance through this archive from the IP editor's talk page—noting the IP's dismissive responses—and tell me if you can see any improvement since then. BlackCab (TALK) 08:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow so much to answer! Firstly let me say the information above about Hauhau is factually incorrect.The founder of the movement HIMSELF called his church Hau hau.This is not "me " claiming something -it comes straight from the Encyclopedia of Nz on Line on the Page about Te Huamene-I have made this point 3? times recently and it has been ignored !Anyone can look it up and see I am correct. At the time of the lengthy discussion many months ago?? this point was never raised. It is true that the church or organization was called Hau hau by the European media in NZ and by government at the time. It is an inference by the editor that this was a term in the pejorative sense. The analogies used are mischievous. The name Pai Marire was later used by followers( up to this day).It translates as "good and peaceful" You can hardly blame them for using this name now because the actions of the originals were severely misguided ,some would say barbarous(murder and cannibalism were not common in NZ among Maori at that time).

Disparaging ???(looking at the heading to this section- Pot -Kettle- Black!!In all cases where questions have been asked about an edit I have responded at length and often in exhaustive detail. In a recent case about 1 month? ago an independent editor accessed that my edit was correct despite what I would call an "orchestrated" or band wagon attack on that edit by several of the above "complaining" editors.In other words a n independent editor with no axe to grind found I was correct and the others were wrong. Maybe this accounts for their recent more aggressive attitude?

As for my "behaviour " please check the talk page on Maori Culture -the recent exchanges of views. In every case I have answered questions in detail. One editor replied but did not address ANY of the points I made but introduced a red herring. Neither of the other 2 bothered to read or respond. Previously they complained that I did not engage in "discussion"in talk. Well I have done that in spades. Now, rather than answer questions or engage in a proper discussion they simply want to ban me. It is clear from many of their answers they have what I would call narrow ,"conservative" views of things that happened in the past. NB I have learnt that where I am inserting a piece of information I make sure that it comes from a wide variety of sources so they cant say "its made up" or "POV" or offends some other obscure wiki rule. I find it strange that their was no reaction AT ALL to the edit I made 10?days ago in Maori culture about Maori newspapers, but all hell breaks loose when I insert a section about tax that is very similar and just as valid.Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I had forgotten about the edit I made about 2? years ago re Dieppe Raid. It is interesting that although my edit was debunked back then( see the rather nasty remarks made by Iron dome) the current article now has a detailed section covering all the points I made. Words like"compelling" are used! Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"Claudia"'s response here is fairly typical: it's everyone elses's fault that no one agrees with me, so I'll just go back into the article and insert what I know is correct. Her discussions are rants that rarely touch on the issue. There is just no collaboration, no concession, no acknowledgment of deficiencies. BlackCab (TALK) 04:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Since the editor can't be bothered to create an account, and since there are too many affected articles to semi-protect all of them adequately, I Support EdJohnston's well-reasoned, uninvolved proposal of a one-year block, since one-month blocks have proven ineffective, with the offer of repeal as per the rest of EdJohnston's proposal. Softlavender (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, since English Wikipedia and the WMF can't be "bothered" to make the logical and obvious rule that all editors must establish accounts and sign-in-to-edit, it's pretty hard to condemn somebody for breaking rules that do not exist, isn't it? The issue to me is whether "Claudia from Hamilton" is faking sources. If she is, she should be out of here on the speediest rail imaginable with no return possible. If she isn't, Black Cab should kindly stop making false accusations and we should deal with the edits, not the editor. Carrite (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what was meant by 'faked' but to give you a recent example of the use of sources, the IP editor re added this content apparently based on this webpage (not that the URL wasn't given, but in a textual ref). Te Ara is an authoritative source (at least I've never seen it challenged and would support it if it were). The article addition includes the text "From the 1830s it was one of the 5 most common trade items and when plants became available it was grown by Maori for their own supply." but the source says "Along with muskets (firearms), gunpowder and alcohol, tobacco had become a standard trade item by the early 1800s. It was used by Pākehā to pay Māori (including children) for provisions and services, or given as a gift. Chiefs who signed the Treaty of Waitangi were given tobacco, sometimes by the cask. Once plants became available, Māori grew tobacco in their community gardens." There are three significant issues here, (a) mangling of the date, (b) mangling of the number of items and (c) 'standard trade item[s]' vs 'common trade items'. Bear in mind that this was a re-insertion of this content, so the editor had already been made aware that there might be issues with their contribution and should be being extra careful. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

See the comments of BlackCab above about "fictional sources" and "invented 'sources.'" I'm not speaking of misinterpreting sources, which can be an error made in good faith, but allegations about the fabrication of non-existent sources by Claudia from Hamilton (IP 122...etc.), which is clearly intimated. Carrite (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

To Carrite: I am completely uninvolved in these articles and in this situation, but my concern is that if it is the case that this is a longterm highly disruptive editor across many articles, which seems to be the case, regardless of faked sources or not, the longterm widespread disruption and the refusal to collaborate or learn the most basic of Wikipedia policies (evidenced in small part here by a refusal to sign posts), merits a lengthy block, since by what I'm reading nothing else has worked. Alternatively, a very lengthy topic ban could be imposed (don't know if that can be instituted for IPs), and then if that doesn't take, a lengthy block. Softlavender (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Faked sources: Carrite asks for supporting evidence of my accusation of faked sources.

January 2013: At Invasion of the Waikato, IP editor added a fake citation of Michael King’s "Te Puea" book, complete with page number [85]; (I deleted it, she reverted) [86]. This was discussed at Talk:Invasion of the Waikato#Unsupported claims. She made no defence of that citation.
May 2013: At Talk:Parihaka#Squatters, an issue is raised over the IP editor’s citation [87] of Michael King’s "Moriori" book (without a page number) to support what turns out to be a highly dubious claim. I explicitly asked the IP editor three times to name the page where King made such a statement. She did not, and King’s book nowhere made such a statement.
October 2013: At Talk:Māori King Movement#Maori bank I challenge the IP editor over another highly dubious claim for which she cites "King Potatau. Pei Te Hurinui Jones. p 230-231". [88] I asked the editor to detail what Jones wrote at those pages. The IP editor said they couldn’t find the book. Another editor (Gadfium) located two editions of the book; neither had any relevant material at those pages. Even as I attempted to extract from the IP editor some detail over the veracity of her edits, she added similar material at King Country [89]

In each case, direct, civil requests on the talk page for supporting material are met by long-winded explanations of the IP editor's unique take on New Zealand history. BlackCab (TALK) 22:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• With respect to the Jan. 2013 diff above, running a Google search for the rather unique number inserted by Claudia from Hamilton of "314,364 acres" returns turns up THIS cite to Whatiwhatihoe: The Waikato Raupatu Claim by David McCan, pg. 57, which specifies a confiscation of 1,217,413 acres and a return of 314,364 acres between 1865 and 1868. One might criticize Claudia from Hamilton for ugly footnoting form in the diff you cite, but the accusation of fabrication of a source seems beyond the pale. More to follow. Carrite (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Claudia cited page 21 of Michael King's Te Puea book to support the statement. King made no such statement. The citation was invented. False. Fake. BlackCab (TALK) 00:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• With respect to the May 2013 diff above, the insertion may well be tendentious or dubious, but as no specific page is cited and the book exists, one can chalk this up to sloppiness rather than conscious intellectual dishonesty in my opinion. It could easily have been a good faith effort to attribute an idea without doing the legwork of finding the cite. Removal seems justified. Carrite (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The book exists, the statement does not. It was invented. Fake. BlackCab (TALK) 00:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• With respect to the Oct. 2013 diff, the Google Books version of the 2012 edition of King Potatau is unpaginated; it seems that first edition was 1959 so presumably there are multiple editions. Running an internal search for the word "bank" doesn't seem to turn up reference to the burning incident, but if some other phrase were used in lieu of "bank" that would be a bad search. This one seems the most dubious of the three, particularly since there are two footnotes stacked for the claim. Carrite (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• The second Oct. 2013 diff is marked by multiple stacked footnotes (which is a red flag to me) and a very sloppy footnoting style, although there is no doubt from even a cursory search that King Tawhiao went to England in an effort to meet with Victoria in 1884. Which you know, I'm sure. The fine detail about the trip ("elephant named Alice," etc.) seems inappropriate for the article, even if sourced properly. Carrite (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

If you'd like to read the thread I cited above discussing the October 2013 edits, you'll see Claudia of Hamilton was relying on sources that had been thoroughly discredited by one of the sources she cited, and scrabbling to invent others. You seem hell-bent on justifying dishonest, opinionated editing that causes only grief for other editors. Wikipedia is better than that. BlackCab (TALK) 00:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I just want to make sense of what is the real problem here. Carrite (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I have tried as best I can to give Claudia the benefit of the doubt - that she is merely being sloppy and borderline incompetent rather than deliberately deceitful - but the end result is the same. Over the last year or so BlackCab has put a vast amount of work into fixing the messes Claudia leaves behind her, so I can quite understand the level of exasperation shown. (My spare time is almost non-existent at the moment so any involvement I have had with Wikipedia lately is mostly just reverting obviously bad edits).

Claudia, if you're reading this: You are skating on incredibly thin ice at the moment. You need to accept that you fall short of the required standards, and that your content and interaction must improve substantially if you are to remain an active editor. If you're not prepared to do so, you need to find an alternative outlet, such as a blog or a personal web site. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sloppy is a given. The footnoting style, incomplete as it is, absolutely can not continue, nor the thoughtless errors in punctuation. I'm not persuaded that there is a permabannable falsification of sources going on here. I do appreciate that Claudia is making messes and has a bee in her bonnet about "left wing historical revisionism," although I'm not seeing at a glance the sort of skewed POV editing that one would expect of someone spouting such a line. A tough call, from my perspective. Carrite (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No skewed POV editing? try this for size or this, or this, or this. Welcome to the world according to Claudia. BlackCab (TALK) 08:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

In Carrite's defence, it's not all that obvious how bad the edits in question are unless you've got at least a basic understanding of the subject. (I'm assuming that Carrite is here as a neutral observer, as seems to be the case.) For example, in that last diff, the Kūpapa were loyal to their Queen in the same way that Benedict Arnold was loyal to his King. Describing the Kūpapa as "loyalists" and the Kingitanga as "rebels" is, quite simply, not NPOV. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Some formal suggestions for Claudia from Hamilton

1. You are apt to find the editing experience at Wikipedia to be more friendly and less combative if you register an account and use that religiously. It is humanizing and IP editors are treated scornfully as a class. I strongly urge you to pick a name and go through the quick registration process.

2. You indicated once on your (IP) user talk page that you have vision problems. You need to solve this issue so that you are not causing work for others by bad spacing around commas and the like. Please do that. Type size can be enlarged on your screen, if necessary for you to see more clearly.

3. While you are clearly interested in history and knowledgable, your footnoting style not only leaves much to be desired, but it is absolutely imperative that it be corrected. Please use the following style: Author Name, Title of Publication: In Italics. City Published: Name of Publisher, Date of Publication; Exact Page Number. There are various FLAVORS of correct footnoting that are used at WP, but these minor style variations are tweaks on presentation of this central and essential information. You will run into severe problems at WP if you do not provide complete, full, accurate footnotes for every potentially controversial assertion.

4. Do not under any circumstances use more than one footnote for one assertion of fact. Your work is clearly going to be scrutinized by others interested in the same field. ONE FACT — ONE SOURCE. Pick your best source for each assertion; use multiple footnotes for different parts of a single sentence, if necessary. "Stacking" footnotes is both intellectually sloppy and indicative that a segue sentence or unsourced narrative may be being "fudged."

5. Please sign all your posts by typing four tildes ( ~). Best regards, —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR USA /// Carrite (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou Tim for your very kind practical help and support. Big up to Corvallis! I tried to follow a footnoting style of an editor I believed was doing it correctly but when I looked at other articles there did seem to be a whole multitude of "styles" as you say. I will try to follow 3 above where all the information is available. My computer skills are pretty basic (no pun intended)so I have just tried to copy what is all ready in wiki. I came to the digital age very late(some might say too late!). I value my privacy as does my employer. I find it interesting that you say IP editors are treated "with scorn". I'm not sure why vilification of a "class" is necessary! Shall I start wearing a yellow star? I wonder how far some editors are prepared to go in this hounding? I note with concern that when I have flowed the rules (ie using talk)others have not and are not being held to the same standard. I have already mentioned the failure of some of the above editors to engage in any form of discussion or to answer questions. I cannot see the logic in just using just a single source. Often 2 or 3 sources make slightly different points. Frequently when I have added 2 references it is because they do not say exactly the same thing ie one may have written information ,the other may have stats. I have taken to doing this because I have been accused of "making things up", lol. Recently I did an edit that was about a paragraph long and contained information from about 4 or 5 different sources,one of the editors above simply deleted it saying:"no sources".To me this is beyond mischievous! It was patently untrue.This from one of my most pointed critics!I will be away out of wifi range for sometime now(late spring in NZ-good time for tramping)) so thanks again for being so constructive.~~Claudia~~

A few ideas for resolution of this matter

This seems a case in which Claudia from Hamilton either needs a mentor or a proofreader. I don't know if her editing is inevitably disruptive — this is something that the NZ history people are going to need to figure out. If it is a case of disruptive, POV editing, then a formal set of diffs need to be prepared demonstrating that her participation is irredeemably disruptive. If we're dealing with an editorial competence issue, that needs to be demonstrated. I don't think this is an "incident" so much as it is a chronic issue which has been brewing for two years. Claudia needs to make improvements, certainly. Carrite (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The evidence presented here is sufficient to demonstrate why Claudia of Hamilton needs to be banned. You are now suggesting NZ editors remain stuck with an editor who refuses to collaborate, immediately reverts any edit of hers, will not intelligently discuss issues and constantly complains that mainstream historians are a bunch of dolts who know far less than she does. She has already been banned and has learned nothing. So thanks for nothing. BlackCab (TALK) 01:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Poll: Longterm block

Please give your !vote in response to EdJohnston's proposal, copied below:

The last block of this editor was in July, 2013 for one month. Since the problem has continued unchanged it is reasonable to escalate the block. I suggest a new block for one year due to the long-term pattern of edit warring. The block needs to be long enough that they can't just wait it out, which is what happened in the past. My assumption is that the block could be lifted if the user would agree to create an account and promise to follow Wikipedia policy in the future. As an uninvolved admin I am in a position to issue the block if it's appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Softlavender (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support one-year block with WP:STANDARDOFFER. I'm willing to take the word of the involved editors Daveosaurus, BlackCab, and Stuartyeates, and, if I'm not mistaken, the apparent combined frustration of Irondome, Transcendence, Moriori, Amtalic, Gadfium, Drmies, Sue Rangell, Rudolp89, Rudolp89, Adabow, DI2000, Winkelvi, Mufka, DerbyCountyinNZ, Bradshaws1, Epipelagic, Jim1138, Dennis Bratland, JoeSperazza, I dream of horses, and Andrewprout, that this is a longterm extremely disruptive editor who refuses to either cooperate or be rehabilitated. I don't see anyone familiar with the situation rising to her defense, and the situation has apparently gone on way too long even despite month-long blocks. Softlavender (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support one-year block. She won't learn. BlackCab (TALK) 02:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support one-year block, or longer. Reading all of this leaves me dumbfounded and depressed. The stubborn refusal to even sign posts is just the start of it. A truly intractable case. Once again it's time to say Enough is Enough. Jusdafax 02:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support one-year block, unless Claudia agrees to avoid editing subjects relating to Māori or New Zealand history, with any administrator authorised to administer the block should she not stick to this agreement.-gadfium 02:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support have reviewed above situation and believe a block is the best way forward to prevent wasted time for all. Agree with offering Ed's offer if Claudia is for it (but have doubts that will solve the problem). Ruby 2010/2013 04:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support one-year block of Claudia (I assume this is of the person, not the IP? I don't want this to start up again once her IP changes) with any unblock contingent upon acceptance of either a complete topic ban of anything to do with Māori topics, or a complete ban from reverting any other editor. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support one-year block. Remove block on firm promise to change specific behaviours. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support one-year block. Agree with Stuartyeates that the block be removed on promise to change behaviour, but also ask that the block message clearly state that if on her return she disrupts the project she shall be blocked indefinitely. Moriori (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support one-year block. In all honesty I think this is the only real alternative :-( . Andrewgprout (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support block. It's the best way I see she might learn to be a more constructive editor. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 22:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Editors hoping for a post-block attitude adjustment by Claudia of Hamilton might like to consider her response when last blocked in 2013. [90] "I always endeavour to improve", but as usual, everyone else's fault. BlackCab (TALK) 00:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I fully understand the frustration of the editors involved, named in the post above by Softlavender; i really had hopes that the time Carrite took to type out some useful points would be paid off by a little understanding and adjustment by Claudia, but her post immediately below his seems to void that hope. Nevertheless, i cannot support this option, at least yet. I would far rather see Claudia mentored ~ required by the community to take a mentor if she is not willing to of her own accord ~ and led to an improvement in her editing. It is my belief that the community we all make up is capable of finding solutions better than merely saying (even after much frustration), "Go away!" Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 07:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Claudia's behavior, past and present (see my comment and link immediately above), suggests it is highly unlikely this will have any impact. The editor has a very clear agenda that involves denigrating respected New Zealand historians and using this encyclopedia to disseminate her own theories and perspectives on history. Just how will LindsayH suggest Claudia be compelled to be mentored, and what will long-suffering editors be required to do when this inevitably fails? Go through this whole laborious process again? What will be the trigger for a new ANI? BlackCab (TALK) 11:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, i suppose that my suggestion is that Claudia be told, "You must be mentored, by XXX user, who must see and approve your edits in advance of your committing them; XXX will be looking to ensure you are meeting the goals of the Project, that you are not displaying either disruptive or tendentious editing patterns, and that you accept consensus. If you do not accept these conditions, you will be blocked. In addition, if you bypass XXX, you will be blocked on his request ~ or that of these [named] editors ~ without any warning, nor another ANI/AN process." That's as clear as necessary, i think, and requires no further trigger for another ANI report or more drama. Fair, BlackCab? Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 12:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine in theory, but in practical terms a very unwieldy process that I doubt will work and will just result in more time-consuming work for a small bunch of editors left to police it and argue the case (again). The time has come for a meaningful, lengthy block. BlackCab (TALK) 22:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

True, and that's what the consensus indicates. I wonder if LindsayH had Carrite in mind for XXX. That would be interesting, because Carrite previously told another editor "If it is found you have fabricated sources, I would support a lifetime ban." Moriori (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment I think it's instructive to read Claudia's talk page and its two archives. Softlavender (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to this on principle, but I'd need to know who is going to be doing the mentoring. Such as mentor would need to have almost infinite patience (to use the carrot), be an Admin (to use the stick) and have at least a basic understanding of NZ history. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support long term block. Having read the two archives, Carrite's good faith not withstanding, this is an editor who just doesn't seem to get it. Two years of the same behaviour is just incredible. Much of Claudia's edits revolve around her recollection of various books that she has read and what looks to be sythesis of various sources. Unlike Origamite, I don't hold the same level of optimism. Also the lack of signature for two years is just really annoying. Blackmane (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It's even longer - about five years I think - it's just in the last two years her IP has been stable. Prior to this it changed every few weeks or months. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:23, 13 November 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 indef for confirmed sock of indeffed user

Batman1601 has been blocked indefinitely by Ymblanter. De728631 (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Hi, per this SPI report, user Batman1601 is a confirmed sock of indeffed user Avenger2015 and thus should also be indeffed, please. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:16, 13 November 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.

Bribery but not enough

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

---

So what is the going rate for restoring protected articles to a prior state? I really don't think that $500 is quite enough. This has to do with G Force Pakistan which is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G Force Pakistan. It was up for full protection but by mistake I used semi-protection. Later I saw the error and fixed it. By then the article had been reduced in size. Should I have returned the article to the state it was in when I semi-protected and what, if anything, should be done about Gforcepakistan4? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the account. I will accept no sums of money less than $100.000 to unblock. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

$500 is just insulting..-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll give you a million dollars to edit the page, then. Are you satisfied?

On a serious note (I only have $1,000,000,000,000 in my Nigerian bank account), it should be kept as is. Otherwise, if the article is changed back, it may signal partiality toward a certain page version on the part of the admin. Epicgenius (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I had figured they needed blocking but wasn't 100% sure. As for the protection there is the argument that I should have fully protected it in the version when I first saw it but I'm not bothered either way. But I would certainly want more than they are offering. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:45, 13 November 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.

Canvassing

Dammst has been WP:CANVASSing for this AfD. He is an SPA and has posted multiple bad-faith WP:SOCK accusations. [91] and [92]. I think this merits a disruption block, but that's my opinion. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 19:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Did they only canvass this one user?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. Have a look at their contribs. They've posted the same notice on 21 users' pages, preferring admins, and including Jimbo. Ivanvector (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless they have some deleted contribs, which us plebs can't see, their entire contribs history is the canvassing and attacks at the AFD. Agree with Origamite that a block or at the very least a final warning is needed. Blackmane (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I apologise FOR BOTH. I didn't know you call this way if I send this to so many admins. I shouldn't have attacked the users but maybe I am right. I didn't offend anybody, I didn't post the notice to spam. Dammst Dammst (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, sounds like a problem, but @Origamite:, I for one sure would have preferred that you link to this "canvassing" discussion from my user talk page instead of just deleting what he wrote there without explanation; initially, my first thought was that someone on the other side of a dispute was trying to suppress a request for help. Clearly that's not the case, but just reverting didn't tell me that. - Jmabel | Talk 22:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

My intentions are 100% good, Jmabel. I explained there how we are abused. There's no kickboxing record on the internet and all the people are checking Wikipedia. Meanwhile some users that don't care about this sport are deleting everything. The work. It would be ok to delete if they would know anything about kickboxing. 2-3 people can do that and nobody cares about us. This is in the advatange of the Wikipedia and of more people than 2-3. Dammst (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Jmabel. I was rollbacking from his contribs, since I knew it was spam and don't have that much time today. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 22:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Dammst, your argument seems to be that of righting great wrongs. You might do better at arguing for a keep vote if you use policy and not assertions that someone does or doesn't care about something. Deletion discussions are based on policy, not care or usefulness. The deletion discussion was founded on the observation that the article's subject might not be notable; the way to refute that is to find reliable sources to establish its notability. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Just in case it comes up, I have commented in the AfD after seeing the discussion here, and subsequently posted a notice about it on a relevant WikiProject. I am doing so as neutrally as I can to seek comment from editors more familiar with the topic area. If this comes across as bad-faith canvassing, I apologize, that is not my intent. Thanks. Ivanvector (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't be a kick. --NE2 21:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ivanvector, what you did and how you did it were perfectly fine. "Canvassing" is gathering people who you know will agree with you, so you can skew the result your way. What you did is notify people who know the topic and policies and may have differing opinions, and you didn't put in your own opinion in the notification. In short, good job. And Dammst, you've voice your concerns, it is probably time for you to back away and just let others have the same privilege. You have had your say. Bouncing around and calling other editors sockpuppets without providing any evidence is not smart. If you make a habit of it, there will be consequences. Listen to Purplewowies, who explained it better than I can. And Blackmane, there are no deleted contribs, just the unusual history. Dennis - 2¢ 22:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that Dennis. That does make their history unusual indeed. Blackmane (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Gforcepakistan4

Already in section above. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

This is a ban proposal of the above user because we at Wikipedia don't accept bribes so to make sure this user isn't blocked without proper discussion I am proposing that we discuss to enact a ban in addition to their indefinite block as per policy. As well as the evidence above as linked to by another user they offered someone money to stop reverting their vandalism here. Gabriel Turner (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see the section above. Amortias (T)(C) 23:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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

User:Slackfsj999

This goes to vandalism noticeboard. BTW it's blocking indefinitely, not banning indefinitely, which is very separate. Epicgenius (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Am proposing that we discuss banning this user indefinitely for creating a vandalism only account. Gabriel Turner (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This is better suited for WP:AIV, however I doubt it would succeed there. This user's only made two edits, there's still a chance of them turning around and becoming a part of the community. demize (t · c) 01:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Consider this closed then. Gabriel Turner (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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

What a mess

Matt200055 has made some unusual edits, had been warned and the situation was apparently settled. However, I noticed edits to some of the same articles from AntiMatt200055. I somehow believed that Matt200055 was blocked and using an obvious sock to evade the block and opened a sock case. Recognizing my mistake, I undid my reverts of AntiMatt's edits, CSD'ed the sock case and place a note on the two talk pages.

Matt has now state both accounts are his, with AntiMatt being a kind of "backup" account, in case his other account is hacked. I do not think this is an acceptable reason for a second account, but that is easy enough to resolve.

Jeffro77 disagreed with my second thoughts and removed the deletion notice from the sock case and made some fairly pointed accusations on Matt200055's talk page. I tried to use "helpme" for an admin to step in and address this, but -- duh -- needed to specify "admin helpme". (Having corrected the tag, I haven't heard back.) Now WilliamJE is apparently upset about an AN/I I was involved in here. While WilliamJE was blocked, an anonymous editor started the AN/I case in his defense. I mistakenly believed the IP was WilliamJE. That hurt his feelings. (Apparently, the IP was a sock of a different blocked user.) WilliamJE has joined in on the talk pages about the current issue, seemingly in a delayed response to the February AN/I and sock cases.

Now Pinkbeast has made a rather cryptic comment about 162.157.225.132 at the sock case. As the IP's comments have been hidden, I really don't know how this fits in.

1) The sock case does not seem to be necessary. Unless there is some acceptable reason for the second account, I think it is merely a matter of Matt abandoning the AntiMatt account and possibly a note there. If there is something hidden in the IP's history or something I'm missing, I could be wrong. (There is a note of an AN/I case on the IP's talk page, but I don't see a case anywhere) 2) Jeffro77 probably needs to step back from Matt a bit. 3) I have no idea why WilliamJE's comments would be in any way helpful in this situation. I removed the comments as personal attacks (unrelated to the current situation and clearly assuming bad faith: "SummerPhD likes making Sockpuppet allegations that both lack evidence and are totally wrong.") WilliamJE asked me to bring it here, but I am not here for that reason. Whatever.

Any assistance in resolving this FUBAR of mine and the resulting cluster---- would be appreciated. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. It's not particularly complicated. The ANI has been archived. The archived discussion is linked at the sock puppet investigation. It explains the relevance of th IP editor. Will explain in more detail when not on mobile device.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, [[93]]. Searching the archive for "162.157.225.132", I didn't find it. My bad. I looked at [the edit] and (obviously) connected the timing and a substantial A ha edit to Matt. I didn't notice it was Jeffro's page. Warnings to Matt at the time (all of 4 days ago) were appropriate. I still think his secondary account (while unusual) is a misstep based on ignorance of our policies. YMMV. If anyone feels continuation of the sock case is necessary or any further action is needed re Matt200055 = AntiMatt200055 = 162.157.225.132, have at it. I feel it is not a major issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's probably not worth continuing the SPI since the editor subsequently confirmed the named accounts are both his (albeit with an unlikely explanation), and SPI investigators will not confirm IP users as a matter of policy. It's quite clear that all three are the same editor, dispite the editor's asinine challenge to 'prove it'. A further warning about retributive editing and attempting to game the system is probably in order.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Summer can't keep his facts straight plus falsely accuse people of socking. I wasn't blocked at the time the ANI case he links to above was started. Secondly, within the last month he started another sockpuppet investigation that proved to be wrong. Here it is[94]. Yesterday he accuses me of personal attacks because I point out his blundering and reverts posts of mine to another editor's talk page. His conduct speaks for itself, please note his response to an administrator here[95] after he was advised to say sorry and there should be talk of WP:BOOMERANG before he accuses another editor falsely of sockpuppetry....William 11:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

"Summer cant keep his facts straight..."? Let's start with "her". My mistake, you were not blocked when the AN/I case was opened. It had been lifted several hours previously. The Fortherecord23 sock case was "fairly obvious", but failed after a check use.[96] I do not in any way regret starting that. If you'd like to talk about a boomerang for a sock case from early February, please do: This would be an appropriate forum for that. The talk page of a completely uninvolved third party would not. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

WilliamJE, since the editor in question has already confirmed he's the same individual as the other named user account, your previous grudge against SummerPhD is entirely irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't irrelevant. Summer has on multiple occasions accused people wrongly of sockpuppetry. Her behavior, which includes her deletion of my posts to another editor's talk page, needs to be examined and sanctioned if warranted result in her getting blocked and or prohibited from starting anymore SPIs....William 14:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for people to be wrong about SPIs. If they were always right we wouldn't need SPIs. If there is an issue with deletion of your posts, then please provide diffs. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC).

To put it a different way, if there really are some problems with false sockpuppetry accusations from SummerPhD, you're going to need some good evidence for this. Clearly asking for a boomerang when the accusations were correct i.e. the "boomerang" already hit and got stuck on its target before it had a chance to return, isn't going to cut it. (Even if there's something else, you'd need to be looking for the boomerang coming from a different direction, it's clearly not going to come from the direction you'd expect if it didn't hit someone first.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Here it is[97]. Unfortunately its been deleted (I'm sure it can restored if necessary), the reason it was deleted was its absurdity. He claimed I was socking through an IP address based on a discussion going on at my talk page where not one of the half dozen participants (not counting me and the IP, Kumioko by the way was the IP) thought socking was taking place. The sockpuppet allegation had one single purpose- to attempt to intimidate me. Her reactions afterwards, check this[98] and this[99] threads on Summer's talk page, further validates what I say. Instead of apologizing, she accuses me and the IP of paranoia. When an administrator says an apology would have been a wise course, she comes back with the ludicrous statement-"Speaking of which, 108.48.100.44 has been blocked for personal attacks". No entry on their block log[100] for that.

Here is my talk page edit[101] which Summer reverted[102], then another[103] she did the same to[104], besides a notice[105] to me on my talk page not to make personal attacks. Please note what she says in the edit summary of one of those reversions. That my edits were good faith. Under what right does can an editor revert good faith edits to a talk page other than their own and how is a good faith edit also a personal attack when a second almost identical edit is said to be that?

Summer will make bad faith SPIs. I can bring this up anytime she again accuses someone of sockpuppetry without evidence....William 13:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No comment on the talk page issue, but you implied a pattern of very poor sockpuppetry accusations. A single incident isn't going anywhere and isn't worth discussing in itself, no matter how poorly SummerPhD may or may not have handled the aftermath. Also I stick by my earlier point. It's fairly dumb to bring this issue up in the context of a sockpuppetry accusation that turned out to be true. You're basically damaging any case you may have from the start. If you really believe there is substanial wrong doing, it would make far more sense to start a new thread rather then hoping for a boomerang which makes no sense. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's another sockpuppet investigation[[106]] where Summer turned out to be totally wrong and had no evidence. This was linked up above by me. No comment on the talk page behavior. No problem at all with any of Summer's behavior, just mine. Summer has clearly proved once she will use an SPI in an abusive fashion. Why should she be able to continue doing so?...William 14:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Um that was CU endorsed, so I don't see how you can claim SummerPhD had no evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW, may be SummerPhD should have clarified better (although it doesn't look like anyone asked them), but they appear to be more or less correct. While the IP 108.48.100.44 was never blocked itself, 108.45.104.158 who appears* to be the same editor with a new IP as 108.48.100.44 was blocked for personal attacks (then multiple times for evasion, it seems fairly obvious who they are). *=same ISP range, same geolocation, non overlapping editting pattern of 108.45.104.158 starting as soon as 108.48.100.44 stopped, and even in the same thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Nyttend abusing his tools. In fact rereading your earlier comments, it sounds like you know who the IP is so you shouldn't be surprised that one of their many socks or IPs they used was blocked for personal attacks. So I don't get why you brought up the issue at all. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC) P.S. I had a brief look at the removed comments and while I'm not sure it was wise for SummerPhD to remove them, I'm also not sure it's wise for you to be bringing them up, particularly since you are the one first brought up a boomerang, so I guess you're well aware of the concept. Nil Einne (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is preposterous because she wrote specifically 'IP 108.48.100.44' not the other IPs. And anyway her behavior after maliciously accusing an editor of sockpuppetry is relevant when judging her use of SPIs....William 14:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's preposterous for you to make a big deal about them not clarifying that 108.48.100.44 was only blocked under a later IP. I don't get the relevance of your second comment. I never said behaviour wasn't relevant, simply that a single poor SPI, no matter what their behaviour afterwards, was not sufficient to establish your claim of repeated poor sockpuppetry accusations. Anyway I'm done with this thread, you've demonstrate time and time again that you're bringing up silly stuff, first with the silly suggestion for a boomerang, then when you made a big deal about them not mentioning that 108.48.100.44 was only blocked under a later IP, then when the next evidence you had for their alleged poor sockpuppet accusations is a case which was CU endorsed yet you said there was no evidence for the sockpuppetry accusation. (It doesn't help that even the comment deletion, while perhaps not ideal behaviour by SummerPhD, seem to show worst behaviour on your part.) I suspect I'm not the only one who's stopped paying attention having read your complaints, presuming there was anyone else still reading this thread. I suggest you think much more carefully about the evidence you bring to light if you want your complaints to be considered in the future. In fact, it may be helpful for you to reread Jeffro77's comment as I'm not sure you understand the difference between an incorrect sockpuppetry accusation, and a poor let alone malicious one. Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Let's not forget they may not have even noticed that 108.48.100.44 had changed IP. If you're discussing something with an IP, and they suddenly change to a fairly similar looking IP in a discussion, it can be quite easy to miss. Then if you check out the newer IP's contrib and see they are blocked, you will just think of the IP as being blocked. It's hardly unusual to then go back to their own talk page, and copy and paste the older IP and say it was blocked without realising you have the wrong IP. Of course ultimately when you are dealing with a changing IP it's also hardly unusual to just mention one of the IPs, when you mean another variant of the IP or the user behind the IP in general. As I suggested in my first post, I may likewise understand you not knowing of the new IP and thinking that the IP was never blocked hence why my comment was initially more tempered. Except that since you apparently knew who this IP was, you should have realised they may have been blocked under a different IP and so SummerPhD could easily have been nearly correct. The final straw for me was when I pointed out that the IP was blocked under their later IP, rather than simply accepting that it was at best just a minor referencing error, you still treat it like it's a big deal. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Summer probably should not have removed those comments (though there is a case for doing so), however the edit summary (Summery?) assumed good faith, and quite reasonably asked you to address any problems over her SPI reporting here, or directly with her. Summer can make a convincing case that your comments were wikistalking, personal attacks and assuming bad faith. I agree with Nil Einne, the best way forward for you is to walk away, the second best is to put together an independent thread, with all your accusations, supported by diffs, and a suggestion of what administrator action you want. From experience the best (from your viewpoint) you are likely to achieve is a polite note left to Summer advising her to be exercise restraint in removing talk page comments, the worst is a formal caution for you over WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC).

• I'm not sure if the Matt-Antimatt situation has been resolved, but I'm going to leave a note for WilliamJE. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

SPI backlog

Hi, SPI is still a little backlogged. May I please ask an Admin to take a look at the following report and make the appropriate decisions about who or who not to indef? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soy Hermoso. And if you can help with some of the other reports, that would be appreciated as well. Much obliged, thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

No pushing any case to the front of the line! SPI backlog noted. Doc talk 03:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Conflict on Ghazal Omid involving the individual the page is about

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 edit using STiki. Noticing that the user and page name were the same, I investigated further and discovered multiple discussions on User Talk:Ghazal Omid regarding this page and edits the individual wishes to be made. From looking on her talk page, it would appear she wants her picture changed and isn't sure of how to do that. She is being rather aggressive towards other editors who have been trying to help her. In order for this discussion to be more controlled and hopefully not escalate further, I'm bringing it here. demize (t · c) 01:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I left a comment. Hopefully it does not rub the wrong way. Epicgenius (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This issue appears to have sorted itself out, and I believe this discussion can be closed and left to be archived away. demize (t · c) 04:56, 14 November 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.

Need assistance with a Wikihounder

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

---

If you look at the bottom of my talk page you will see that I'm being Wikihounded by another editor. I want it stopped and I want it stopped right away.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VoiceOfreason (talk • contribs) 04:09, 14 November 2014‎ (UTC)

(Non-admin comment)Sign your posts please.Weegeerunner (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment)Oh, and you are in no way being wikihounded Weegeerunner (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) User:Winkelvi posted a single warning to your userpage about test edits, and then responded rather pleasantly to your accusation that they were stalking you. From my perspective, your reaction to the warning was uncivil and, honestly, out of line. Please keep in mind that an important principle here is civility. A single warning does not amount to stalking, nor to Wikihounding. demize (t · c) 04:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You aren't being hounded. You should read WP:BOOMERANG, this essay offers good advice.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The person searched other articles I had previously commented on and tracked my contributions for the sole purpose of harassing me. If that's not Wikihounding or cyber stalking then I don't know what is.96.41.210.1 (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I could file a report for the personal attacks from the editor making this report. But, rather than responding in a retaliatory manner, I'll just mention that scrubbing personal attacks doesn't truly remove said personal attacks:[107]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:44, 14 November 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:Byates5637

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. There's an ongoing problem with Byates5637 regarding the reiterated deletion of reliably-sourced news ([108]) from the James S.C. Chao article.

The entry being deleted has to do with news reported a few days ago by The Nation that one of the cargo ships operated by Chao's privately-held shipping firm has been detained in Colombia. This verified incident, however, is both notable and relevant. Notable because they involve 40 kilos of cocaine (worth $7 million wholesale) and the impoundment of a Panamax-size cargo ship, as well as an ongoing investigation, by the Colombian Navy; and relevant because Chao's shipping firm, Foremost Maritime Corp., was founded by the subject of the article and is still privately held by him and his family.

Byates has switched arguments numerous times during our Talk Page exchanges, but he began by asserting that this news shouldn't be mentioned because they've been "covered in a small handful of far left opinion sites which border on being tabloids." I doubt most editors consider The Nation (the most detailed source), El Tiempo (the largest paper in Colombia, and hardly "left-wing"), the Baltimore Sun, and the Louisville Courier fringe sites or tabloids.

I should add that I wasn't the only editor to add news of this to the article ([109]). I find his description of these news as something from the "far left" good reason to believe Byates would like to revert addition of these news for reasons of personal/political preference.

Numerous attempts to resolve the dispute at Talk:James S.C. Chao have failed.

Thank you. Nononsenseplease (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Recommend that you try the dispute resolution noticeboard as this is a content related issue that is beyond the purview of ANI. Blackmane (talk)

I'll try. Thanks for your time. Nononsenseplease (talk) 05:32, 14 November 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:Dayosllc

Am requesting that as per this vandalistic diff by the blocked user to their own talk page that they have their talk page withdrawn. Gabriel Turner (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(non-admin closure) If it's a vandal, then next time, go to WP:AIV to do this. This noticeboard is for general requests only that can't be solved at the other noticeboards. But I don't think this is actionable. It is only one edit. They should have TPA revoked only after a series of such edits. Epicgenius (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A bot removes all blocked users Gabriel Turner (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I know. But this noticeboard is less active than the other. If you do not use the {{vandal}} template when reporting the user, the bot will not remove it. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

RTG

I want RTG (talk · contribs) to be interaction banned from me. He has done nothing but insert himself into disputes where I have been involved and show zero actual knowledge of the disputes at hand or the policies he's claiming I'm violating. After a day out I came back to my talk page to this after dealing with this nonsense two weeks ago and everything closed off in here two months ago. He has done nothing but pester me and demand I get punished for what he thinks are policy violations when every time he has been wrong on his interpretation. I want him to leave me alone for the rest of his or my tenure on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I got dragged into the drama when he pinged me from your talk page. I'm not sure what possessed him to respond to so many conversations in such a hostile manner. When I dislike a person, I stay far away from their talk page. Maybe RTG can offer an explanation for that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think RTG has flown the coop.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Correction, I just found this edit he made a few hours ago where he is doing the exact same shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban. At the least, an interaction ban seems reasonable here. An editor should be able to edit in peace without having commentary about him/herself inserted constantly. Five comments in three days is starting to look like wikihounding. There are better solutions than hounding an editor, but RTG does not seem interested in them (or explaining this behavior). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  And he's still complaining about the fact that he didn't believe that the Instantnood sockpuppetry case should have been held at all. This is ridiculous. He's edited after I left the message and has yet to comment here. I will send him another message.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban given the obviously retaliatory thread RTG opened below. Ivanvector (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• If RTG voluntarily agreed to leave you alone, would you agree to do the same? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  I don't go out of my way to be an asshole to him. There's really no reason for me to be formally banned from him, despite his claims below.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  Really though, wouldn't it need to be a two way ban? If it were just him banned from interacting with you, then you could comment to him and he would be prohibited from commenting back. If he were able to comment back to you, then why did we have the ban again? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

  It has always been a standard part of one-way interaction bans that if the non-banned party initiates interaction with the banned party, that automatically creates an exemption for the banned party to respond. Obviously it would be extremely unfair otherwise. But with this proviso, there is nothing ipso facto wrong or unfair about one-way bans. Not saying that I'm advocating one here myself, just saying as a matter of principle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk page abuse by User:Nansjsjd

(non-admin closure) Not actionable as of now; re-report only if this happens repeatedly. Epicgenius (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Well as per this edit they appear to be too angry to want to appeal their block so am proposing that an admin block them from using their TP. Gabriel Turner (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Well, "fuck your balls" is such a dumb attempt at insult that I don't think there's much we need to do. Edgar181, I think it wuz your balls being talked about, so I'll leave them in your court. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me. Blanking it and otherwise ignoring it would have been fine with me. Someone can revoke talk page privileges if Nansjsjd comes back to do anything like that again, but otherwise just let it go for now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Ayurveda

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Ayurveda

 – NE Ent 23:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive 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.

---

I would like to report User:Volunteer Marek for disruptive editing at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. The user refuses to discuss content and prefers to engage in endless bickering that doesn't lead anywhere, to the point where other editors and admins refuse to read the walls of text on the talk page. The article is only 4 months old and has 21 pages of archived talk pages, where starting on page 8 Volunteer Marek is stifling any meaningful discussion by saying "already discussed" and refusing to say anything more. When asked a specific question, I get answers like "Do you see the words "At" and "best" up there?" and nothing more. Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#BRD Let's discuss Here are two examples where after lengthy bickering, attempts to discuss content were completely ignored Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Conflicting claims and Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Untold Story Documentary. First argument was that the article is about the crash, and not about the investigation. My attempt to resolve this issue by taking the investigation portion into a new article, resulted in an edit war where he called me "daft" [110]. In addition, sources are being cherry picked to support whatever VM wants them to support, and even a report in Time Magazine was cherry picked to support whatever VM decided was the "truth" like in this example. Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Reliable sources for this article This behavior is very disruptive, and it's not happening only in this article, there are numerous complaints, but you're probably already aware of those. USchick (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note: this editor's actions are also being discussed at WP:AN3 (here) and WP:NPOVN (here). Ivanvector (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Which editor? USchick or Volunteer Marek? HiLo48 (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Since it as at AN3 shouldn't they be able to handle that?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, and at WP:AN3 it looks like the user who reported me (there was no 3RR violation) is going to get WP:BOOMERANGed. Likewise in the WP:NPOVN discussion, my position has pretty clear consensus, with two users engaging in a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. One of these two just got blocked for a week. The other is the one who filed the spurious 3RR report. Volunteer Marek  19:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What form of dispute resolution have you used?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a standard "they won't let me push my POV on the article!" request. The reason I said "already discussed" is exactly because it *was* already discussed. USchick did not get their way. So they've been trying to resurrect discussions over and over and over again per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

I called them "daft" because they were being daft. First they made this "cute" little personal attack [111]:

"Dear Volunteer Marek, as the owner of this article, I appeal to your Excellency for the humble permission to move the investigation section of this article to its own page. Pretty please with a cherry on top. Your most honorable servant of all time"

Then, they tried to pretend that the above comment, the obnoxious addressing me as "your Excellency" and the WP:POINT (failed) sarcasm where meant in earnest (with another personal attack of "I feel sorry for you"):

"I asked as nicely as I know how. If you consider that a personal attack, I feel sorry for you. "

Now, does anyone here seriously believe that that comment was USchick "asking as nicely as they know how" in good faith? Is anyone here that naive?

Rest of the claim is nonsense too. There's no cherry picking, USchick just doesn't agree with reliable sources. They have not engaged in good discussion, just a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. In one case they misrepresented the position of another user (not me) and accused them of racism. The user rejected a source USchick wanted to use because it was based on a fringe conspiracy site. USchick pretended that the user in question was rejecting a source because of racism. This wound up at AN/I with USchick almost getting indef blocked (they backed off). Yet, couple days later USchick was back on this article's talk page claiming that the source was being rejected due to its origin and that "consensus at AN/I established the source is ok" (or something like that). Basically, very little this user says has any resemblance to reality.

I should mention that this is like the third or fourth time that USchick has tried to being me to AN/I. Nothing happened each time, because the requests were spurious. This is essentially a form of harassment. Volunteer Marek  19:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The AN3 is about a different article. On this article, I tried an RfC where one admin said, "Keep comments as succinct as possible: no-one is obliged to, nor should we be compelled to, read a treatise." Another admin recused himself because he was worried about a threat to his children in real life as a result of this article. I would like to see some proof where I "tried" to bring VM to ANI. USchick (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)" Another admin recused himself because he was worried about a threat to his children in real life as a result of this article" - you BETTER NOT BE IMPLYING that I had anything to do with this! Holy crap, that's is one helluva dishonest bullshit low blow insinuation! I expect you strike that and apologize. Volunteer Marek  19:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If there is a legitimate threat to an admin that has come from wikipedia it should be investigated. Are you suggesting VM did this?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

They are sure as hell doing their best to insinuate I did! That is the most dishonest bullshit I've seen since... well, since USchick falsely accused another user of racism. I demand that USchick be blocked for making - or implying - such a serious accusation against myself. This is preposterous. I will not have myself lied about like that. The admin in question was talking about the controversial nature of the topic, and I'm pretty sure that they were referring to possible threats from the pro-Russian separatist side. Volunteer Marek  19:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The admin was concerned about the nature of the discussions taking place. As a government employee, the admin was concerned about his children's safety. No it wasn't about VM, but it happened during the RfC in question. I'm describing what happened when I attempted dispute resolution. I will look for what he said exactly. USchick (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Having read the discussion on the talk page, I agree with Marek's assessment of the situation. Indeed it does seem as though multiple editors have tried to explain rationales for particular edits that USchick disagrees with, and USchick is not listening and relentlessly flogging the dead horse. I notice there is an Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions tag on the talk page. Has USchick been alerted? Ivanvector (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"I notice there is an Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions tag on the talk page. Has USchick been alerted?" - Yep.  Volunteer Marek  19:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Here is a link to the previous discussion where USchick accused another user of racism [112]. Here is the accusation [113]. Here is administrator's User:TParis response to USchick: "If that's your response, I'm tempted to block you right now. You literally called someone a racist. Are you actually saying that you expect someone to not accuse you of slander for that? You didn't at all say "discounting Malaysian sources simply for being Malaysian is racist". You said "your racist friend". That's about a person, not sources. Seriously, your next reply needs to acknowledge how you escalated this issue dramatically and how you retract your accusations and in the future you will address the edits and not the editor"

This is more insane accusations along the same lines. The implication that I had anything to do with some hypothetical threats on someone's life really take the case. Can someone explain to me why a user like USchick is still allowed to edit wikipedia?  Volunteer Marek  19:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The mentioning the admin and their concerns for their safety here, when they don't involve VM, is highly inflammatory and certainly not helpful to your cause.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I was answering what happened during my attempt at dispute resolution. VM was involved in those discussions, bud did not make a direct threat. I will find the exact link where the admin said he felt threatened. Give me a minute please. USchick (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"But did not make a direct threat" WHAT. THE. FUCK. As in "made an indirect threat"??? You little shit. Stop lying about me. Volunteer Marek  20:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

|} Sadly, the whole Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 article is a disaster area at the moment. Unfortunately there is not yet a final, formal report on the incident. This has left space for a group of rather dominating editors, strongly representing Wikipedia's western systemic bias, to fill the article with all sorts of speculative and politically motivated statements about what might have happened, mostly representing a view that is anti-Putin, anti-Russian and anti-Ukrainian separatist. Volunteer Marek is one of them. I would like to suggest a bold solution. A strong Administrator needs to step in and remove every speculative statement from the article, no matter who it's from. If the ONLY content about the cause was what has so far come from the official inquiry, all of these dramas would disappear. HiLo48 (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I just had an edit conflict with that hatting action, and I must say I have probably never seen a less helpful hatting. That won't make the problem go away. HiLo48 (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is where my previous attempt at conflict resolution ended. Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 19#Aware of ARBEE where the admin said: "I'm sorry, there isn't a chance of that happening even if everyone here agreed. All I need is some wacko with a blog fully of conspiracy nuts to suddenly enter the picture and make wild threats toward my kids. Or someone in Russia prints some paper about how the US Gov't is in charge of the Wikipedia article on this and then I get in trouble for giving the appearance of government endorsement/involvement in what I do on Wikipedia. Just not interested in my hobby turning into a nightmare. Thanks anyway for the vote of confidence.--v/r - TP 22:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)" USchick (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't seem relevant to an ANI against VM.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

They're just forum shopping. They're running out of forums. So now here. Volunteer Marek  20:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Where I have written "rather dominating editors" above, I had originally written "bullying editors". I changed it in the interests of peace and diplomacy. I might change it back. HiLo48 (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with HiLo. USchick (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

COMMENT: I have reopened this thread because the hat was not wisely applied. The last edit before the hatting was from an editor attempting to find information he had been asked for by others. He said " I will find the exact link where the admin said he felt threatened. Give me a minute please.". When he returned he found himself shut out. He surely has the right to provide the information and present it with the request it refers to. Moriori (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• There are a number of noticeboards. You could also consider making an RFC about content instead an RFC about a tag. The RFC about the tag leads me to believe that someone feels that there is a NPOV issue. You could take that to the NPOV noticeboard.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

There was a question about what have I done to resolve the dispute. If you review the 21+ archives, you will see that any attempt is met by VM's histrionics similar to what caused the hatting above. An admin refused to enforce ARBEE by saying: "I've changed my mind. Reading through some of these talk page comments, I see that there are accusations about western media and western governments, particularly the US government, of a conspiracy for a new world order and some other rubbish. Being that I work for the US Government during the day, I don't need to be caught in some conspiracy bullcrap and accusations of being an arm of the US Government on Wikipedia (not saying the accusations have happened, yet). So, I'm out. Some other admin can enforce WP:ARBEE.--v/r - TP 20:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)" followed by the comment about being afraid for his children. USchick (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a disruption issue, just like outlined in my original complaint here. If the disruption stops, I believe we can negotiate content. USchick (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

STOP lying. You are once again trying to insinuate that I had something to do with TParis statement. Rubbish. You say "If you review the 21+ archives, you will see that any attempt is met by VM's histrionics similar to what caused the hatting above.". You then follow that up with " An admin refused to enforce ARBEE by saying...". You are very clearly trying to imply that User:TParis refused to enforce ARBEE against me because they were afraid of something I might do. THIS IS UTTER AND COMPLETE BULLSHIT. I had NOTHING to do with TParis' choice or statement. You are trying to imply that they were about to enforce some ARBEE action against me, but then changed their mind. Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. STOP lying. In fact it was *you*, or some of your friends on the talk page, who was about to be sanctioned - *that* is why you were given the ARBEE notice [114] - when they changed their mind. And given how deceitful you are, and how scummy you are acting right here, I can't say that I don't understand why they got afraid. Volunteer Marek  20:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be clear, Volunteer Marek had nothing to do with my decision - at all. I made it after reading some of the conspiracy nuts theories and having an impression through news stories that conspiracy nuts like to bully people online. I'm not calling anyone here a nut. I'm specifically referring to off-wikipedia sites. Wikipedia is a hobby and I don't need people who take this stuff way too seriously to decided to target me. Entirely 100% my own concern having been influenced by no one. No threats have been made against me. This was a preemptive decision.--v/r - TP 20:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I was asked a direct question here at ANI. I answered it. My answer was blanked by VM [115] followed by a personal attack. This is the kind of disruption that led us here in the first place. USchick (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• USchick has now implicitly accused me of threatening an administrator's children three times. This. Has. Got. To. Stop. It is as bad, if not worse, than the time they falsely accused someone of racism [116]. Why is this person even allowed here? It's beyond tolerable. Volunteer Marek  20:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Here is link to relevant discussion at this article talk page. I think this has nothing to do with VM, but with a number of POV-pushing SPA who currently edit these pages (one of then just reported VM to 3RR). My very best wishes (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I explicitly accused VM of disruption. For the record, there is no "implicit" accusation. USchick (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Then strike your comments and apologize. Volunteer Marek  20:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I answered a direct question. Then I clarified more than once that this is not against you VM. It has also been clarified by the admin. I think it's clear. USchick (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors wanting to see Volunteer Marek's ownership of the article on grand display need look no further than here, from just a few minutes ago. HiLo48 (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You are proposing to remove reliably sourced text simply because you JUSTDONTLIKEIT. You've brought this up half a dozen of times if not more. Other editors - not just me, but quite a few editors - disagreed with you. Yet you keep on and on and on and on about it. After awhile it gets extremely tiresome to repeat the same thing. That's not "ownership", that's simple frustration and exhaustion with tendentious, tenacious, stubborn POV pushing. Volunteer Marek  21:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Here in this thread I am proposing nothing about the article. I am encouraging others to look at your editing style (see the topic of this thread). I think you have satisfactorily reinforced my point with that post. HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

And here is another fresh example. It's either ownership, bullying, just plain rude, or a combination of any of the above. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Is any sensible Administrator watching? This bad behaviour is happening right now. Easy to see Please do something. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Will you please stop wasting my and other people's time? There's nothing wrong with my "behaviour". You are demanding that we remove well sourced text from the article because you JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I'm saying no, that's against Wikipedia policy. You call that "ownership" and "bullying". No. It's simply following Wikipedia policies. If you don't like Wikipedia policies then that's your problem. But will you please stop making this demand over and over and over and over again, and demanding that we discuss it over and over and over and over again? Other editors (again, not just me) disagree with you. You're wasting their time. That's where *your* behaviour crosses the line from being merely irritating to being disruptive. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  22:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• New idea I'm tired of seeing these things swirl down the sewer drain to an endless sludge of negative reinforcement and negative corrective actioning. Let's try a new strategy. Would any of you four volunteer to give your 'opponent' a sincere and thoughtful compliment? The idea is to find a common ground that you can build a foundation of cooperation on.--v/r - TP 22:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that Volunteer Marek believes he is doing the right thing. There, does that work? HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That's like someone else saying they suspect that you believe you are doing the right thing on Christianity articles. Would you take that well? Can you find something that you appreciate VM for? Perhaps you guys can share appreciation that you both dedicate hours and effort to a shared goal of developing a world-wide free encyclopedia?--v/r - TP 22:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate VM for his efforts on the Euromaidan article. USchick (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is silly. It's a distraction that won't solve the problem. It's not about what I think of someone else. It's about someone else's behaviour. I have provided diffs above demonstrating that behaviour continuing even after this thread began. I have described long term problems with the article. It's terrible. A neutral Administrator with some guts needs to take action, now. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Great idea, TP, I hope the editors take you up on it. Just a question - who is the fourth? This seems to be a dispute between Marek, USchick and HiLo. I'm quite fond of their relentless passion for this project. Ivanvector (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I presume it's Herzen. I think Herzen is acting in good faith and means well. Hey, I even stuck up for them when they got reported for something or other. Volunteer Marek  22:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh good, I thought maybe he meant me. Of course you can say nice things about me anyway if you really want. Ivanvector (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a great idea. It's a distraction that won't solve the problem with either the editor behaviour in question or the article. It's just more evidence that we lack Administrators with guts. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's evidence we have some admins willing to employ creative solutions to defuse conflicts. Ivanvector (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Because no Administrator has had the guts to do anything sensible about that whole article before now, it's a little too late for that sort of nonsense. The fuse has been burning for too long. Admins have the tools do something about it. It's time they used them. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether it is I who was meant, but it is true that Volunteer Marek very kindly intervened on my behalf after Stickee aggressively referred me to AN3 on a technicality. – Herzen (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I cannot regard behavior like this as being good for the encyclopaedia, no matter how much the editor cares and how bloody hard he works. Do we have an ethical Administrator here with any courage? I am here to make a great encyclopaedia, not for a love-in HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Look HiLo48, what you are asking is for some (naive) administrator to come into the article and help you enforce your own personal POV. Despite the fact that the consensus on the talk page is and has been against you. You are asking for some (naive) administrator to come into the article and empower you to remove some text, which is sourced to reliable sources, simply because you personally don't like it. You are asking some (naive) administrator to come into the article and help you violate one of Wikipedia's pillars, WP:NPOV. You are asking some (naive) administrator to come into the article and act as your own personal thug/enforcer so that you can do what you want.

Do I really have to explain that it is *this* kind of attitude, not anything I might have done or said, that is problematic here? Both in terms of your dedication to disregarding Wikipedia policy (in fact, a pillar) in pursuit of your POV, *and* the way you're trying to go about it. I've been critical of administrators as a group before, but even I don't think any admin would be that naive. Volunteer Marek  23:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Long term editors all know there is not point in correcting some articles because they are owned by a click of editors that just use wikilawer excuses to to revert. Has WP now evolved to a point, that a ownership patrol is justified and warranted to encourage these current owners to follow the spirit of WP and not to just delete whatever article corrections these owners disagree with -regardless of however good the reference!? I have noticed that these clicks appear not to have proper jobs, as they are on WP 24/7. It almost appears to me that, their only outlet in life to be noticed. They may not have any deep insight to the subject but being able to own a WP article gives them a feeling that they are important – they have found a reason to justify their existence on this planet. However, they don't seem to understand that there is a difference in science, between healthy skepticism (where doubts and contradictions in evidence, is all-meal for-the-grist) and pseudo- skepticism (that they actively promote), where they demand extra ordinary evidence whist not providing their own extra ordinary evidence and so anything that feels wrong by them is deleted and supported by their other pals that stalk the same article. Finding that they don't have to walk out their front door to find friends, the birds of a feather flock to together and they support each other even when the don't understand the issues themselves. So they collectively promote blind ideology. They may disagree with my analysis but on what evidence? Come on. A lot of us here, have had to oversee employees. We value those that show good judgment. How many editors that own article would we employ? Maybe this is why they have the time to stalk WP 24/7? It is easy to cherry-pick to support one's own POV, yet many editors desire only to improve WP period. We need to bring some of these article ownership clicks back into line. I firmly believe that one of the great strengths of WP is that anyone can edit it to 'improve' WP, by bringing to it the benefit (without any personal reward) their own expertise. These clicks however appear to worship their own ultracrepidarianism. Some long term editors may record a a few essays by editors explaining why they where leaving WP. One puts in a lot of work to improve an article only to have it all reverted because the click that owns the article prefers to believe Fox News or wherever source that gave then their 'true insight'. It has left many an editor thinking why should I bother? And since these clicks can afford the time to stalk it 24/7 they can wear the productive editor down through attrition. WP, I think, now needs to address these little clicks that take over some articles and wast so much productive time.--Aspro (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Ultracrepidarianism, eh? I've definitely learnt a new word today. Thanks. (I'm not game to try to pronounce it yet though.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Marek's history in this topic area is poor. Here are some particularly glaring examples from a few months back: [117] [118] [119] [120]. Not surprisingly, the edits to RT similarly reveal that same POV-pushing tendency Marek exhibits: [121] [122] [123]. Marek has a long-standing history of POV-pushing on Eastern European topics as a former member of EEML (under a previous username). This editor should not be anywhere near these topics as his desire to push his POV is clearly more important to him than policy and sourcing. Note that these articles are subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

None of the linked edits are problematic. In fact, they represent consensus. We still believe in consensus, don't we? *IF* there is some problem with my edits, please feel free to file an WP:AE report. That is the venue for these things. Why aren't you filing an WP:AE report? I would really like it if you filed WP:AE report. Please please please. The chances that you'd get blocked (per WP:BOOMERANG) by User:Sandstein or User:EdJohnston are pretty good. Unlike AN/I they don't put up with nonsense over there. Volunteer Marek  23:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a topic ban for Eastern European articles will be considered? USchick (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a topic ban from Eastern European articles for USchick is LONG OVERDUE. USchick has falsely accused another editor of racism. Then they lied about the resulting AN/I discussion on the article's talk page - specifically, they claimed the AN/I discussion established consensus for the use of a conspiracy website based source, whereas in fact the whole AN/I discussion was about whether or not USchick should get indeffed for falsely accusing others of racism. Might be worth mentioning that the slandered editor, User:Geogene has left Wikipedia since. I don't blame them. THEN, USchick has repeatedly implied that I had somehow threatened an administrator's children. They offered some weaselly "clarification" - since the implication is both offensive and false - and then repeated it anyway two more times. On the article talk page USchick, as pointed out by uninvolved User:Ivanvector ("Having read the discussion on the talk page, I agree with Marek's assessment of the situation. Indeed it does seem as though multiple editors have tried to explain rationales for particular edits that USchick disagrees with, and USchick is not listening and relentlessly flogging the dead horse.") has tediously engaged in ongoing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Their presence in this topic area has been nothing but a complete time sink for other editors. They have also misrepresented sources and derailed discussions but that's sort of par for the course in this topic area, so never mind on that part. Volunteer Marek  23:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Two wrongs (even if that IS the case here) don't make a right. HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If there are complaints about me, I would appreciate a separate thread. This one is about my complaints. Thank you. USchick (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

USchick you are mistaken. This complaint about him by you is where his complaints about you should be discussed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, in that case, if a ban on me is to be considered, I would like to request my own section where people can praise me before I get banned. Since we already have a section for VM along with all the attention he's getting at the other notice boards. lol USchick (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You know what? I actually had a WP:AE report on you half written up, since, really, your behavior here has been nothing if not despicable. Then I saw that someone hatted this discussion and I thought "ah screw it, let it go, not worth the effort" and I didn't file it. Then somebody unhatted this discussion and we got more of this crap. And now I'm regretting I didn't file the Arbitration Enforcement request.  Volunteer Marek  00:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@USchick and Volunteer Marek: Do either of you have a problem taking this to some form dispute resolution? Can you agree in principal that you would take it there this situation not withstanding?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Considering that this problem has been shuffled around at various notice boards, even though the articles in question are sanctioned, and so far nothing has been done, I would like to have more information about the proposed dispute resolution and what we can expect to happen there. In addition, since i'm not familiar with the process, can someone please explain why HiLo's proposal for admin intervention at the article is not being considered? Thanks. USchick (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

In principle I'm not opposed. I would like some kind of show of good faith from USchick which signals that I am not going to have my time wasted. Some more. Striking the false insinuations about how I supposedly threatened some admin's children and apologizing would be a good start. Volunteer Marek  00:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's some more bad faith editing from Volunteer Marek. Put-downs like that NEVER help build a great encyclopaedia. Come on Admins. Show some courage, please. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Saying that an RfC is vague is a "put-down"? Stickee (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about??? There's nothing wrong with that comment. It's more substantiated than all of your comments put together. It's not bad faith. It's criticism. Criticism, in the real world and on Wikipedia is ok. You guys seem to have coordinated an RfC so vague that you're basically asking for a carte blanche to do whatever it is you want with the article, Wikipedia policies be damned. I've been on Wikipedia since 2005 and that is the most vague RfC I've ever seen. Quit ban-shopping please, it's unseemly. Volunteer Marek  00:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I know you're both not really that stupid, but I'll clarify for those who really need it. VM paraphrased USchick's post with "This is just "let me removez some stuffs plz lol" kinda request." That is mocking another editor. It's very rude. It isn't making this a better encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's see how many other outside discussions VM can drag into this discussion. Isn't there a policy against that? USchick (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

USchick, that's kind of easy. What reasonable things would you like to see on the part of VM for you to take dispute resolution with them and for VM what reasonable things would you like to see. Just as a random example, could you two be as brief as possible when taking part in this dispute resolution. 300ish per response. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason I'm here is because VM cherry picks sources to support his version of the "truth" and no amount of people being reasonable has been successful in turning this around. This is outlined very clearly in the 21 archives of the article discussion page. Just like I linked above, even Time Magazine was cherry picked to support his version of the truth. He is not the only one with this mind set, but he's the only one who is extremely disruptive. I don't mind people disagreeing, but this is ridiculous. USchick (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I already stated this above. USchick could start by striking the comments where they engage in pretty transparent insinuation that I had something to do with threatening an administrator's children. They could apologize for making such odious suggestions. Volunteer Marek  00:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

VM coercing an apology likely won't accomplish anything. USchick, So are you indicating that you do not wish to seek dispute resolution.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying but please try to think of it from my perspective. Those comments by USchick crossed a line. At best they were, as you yourself put it, "inflammatory". Look. I understand disagreeing about content. I'm fine with arguing about sources. I'm even fine with users calling each other "POV pushers" or "propagandists" or whatever. I've been on Wikipedia a long time and that kind of thing does not bother me in the least. But USchick did insinuate that I had actually threatened an administrator's children, and as a result that administrator left the article. When called on this bullshit they backed down and said I made "no direct threat" (my emphasis). Which was of course another way of insinuating that I had somehow made an indirect threat. When their comments were criticized and scrutinized by others they said "well, this wasn't about VM directly". Or something like that. And then they repeated the very same insinuation again with the comment about histrionics.

Also, I saw what USchick did to the other user, Geogene, whom they falsely accused of racism. That user has since left Wikipedia (there was an unfortunate side show where Geogene used the word "slander" to describe USchick's action - which it was - and some nit picky AN/I denizens jumped on them for supposedly "making a legal threat", because you know, they heard on some TV show that "slander" is a legal term). In other words, USchicks bullshit accusations were not an isolated incident. There's a pattern here.

I understand the importance of assuming good faith. But it gets a little hard after awhile. What is more important than assuming good faith is acting in good faith. I need to see some indication that USchick is acting in good faith. That these previous ... "incidents" were just "accidents". Bad choice of words, misreading of a situation or something like that. And if that's all they were, then an apology is both called for and easy to give. Volunteer Marek  01:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I would LOVE to get real dispute resolution. Before we go there, let's find out what we can reasonably expect please? I'm not interested in going down a rabbit hole. USchick (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. WHERE THE HELL ARE ALL THE ADMINS? USchick has politely raised several issues. I have now posted here the diffs of several examples of bad faith editing made by Volunteer Marek SINCE this thread began. Not a word of response from an Administrator to the posting of those diffs. Now, what's the first word in the name of this nticeboard? I ask again - WHERE THE HELL ARE ALL THE ADMINS? And what the fuck are they doing? HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"Politely" my ass. What's so polite about falsely implying that someone threatened an administrator's children? What's so polite about falsely accusing others of racism? Maybe there's not a word of response from admins because they see it for what it is. Despicable behavior by a user and his buddies who want to push their POV on a controversial article so they're ban-shopping their asses off. And quit shouting. You're no more important than the rest of us and neither are you saying something more profound. Volunteer Marek  01:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I can understand the frustration that the absence of administrators causes, but I feel the need to remind you to keep this discussion civil. Administrators are volunteers too, and they can't always be around; just take a look at the admin backlogs for some proof of that. There's no need for profanity, a simple reminder that this discussion needs attention will do. demize (t · c) 01:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That's bullshit. The Admins volunteered to be Admins. They sought the power. They need to bloody well use it WHEN it's needed. I swore to get attention. It's worked before. I've got a little attention, from you. Earlier polite attempts to get Admin attention DIDN'T work, so you're talking crap. The problems with the article in question are not new. It's fucking obvious to me that too many Admins are scared to touch it. Only the POV pushing ones are willing to get involved. Our Admin system sucks. HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it's needed. To stop you from trying to ban-shop because you can't get your way in a discussion and the consensus of users on a talk page prevents you from POV pushing. HiLo48, it's obvious. You have a particular POV on this topic which does not happen to line up with reliable sources. It's frustrating. So you want to - and keep proposing and demanding - that reliable source be removed from the article in question. Other editors, who don't have a problem with reliable sources disagree. So you come here and TYPE IN ALL CAPS IN BIG BOLD LETTERS BECAUSE YOU THINK IT MAKES YOU SOUND MORE SERIOUS (is there a "big^2" mark up? I'd like to use that here plz) and demand that anyone who disagrees with you is banned from an article so you are left to push your POV in peace. Sorry, not how an encyclopedia works. Volunteer Marek  01:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The admin are chilling with their martinis and relaxing trying to break a new Guinness World Record of most admins inactive from WP:ANI in a single day. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This admin is watching Cal-USC while perusing this board. Cal-USC, that's boring West Coast stuff. Neither team is ranked. I couldn't care less. If an SEC offensive linesman farts every defensive coach in the PAC 12 runs for cover. Yet it is more exciting than watching a couple of the usual suspects yelling at each other, and then at the poor schmucks "who sought the power". BTW, just to go through the motions, I clicked on some diff that was apparently irrefutable evidence that Marek should be blocked. There was jack shit there ("fuck all", for those who speak alternative English). I don't mind blocking Marek; I don't mind blocking HiLo, I don't mind blocking USchick (I don't know them, I think, but they sound like a razor and I don't like shaving). Who else did you want me to block? I get $10 per block from the WMF, $20 for an indef, so I don't mind.

There was an admin here who tried an unorthodox tactic to stop you bitches from bitching. I doubt they'll try that tactic again; it's wasted on you all. But I do have a recipe to lessen your frustration with lack of admin interest in this here ANI thread: don't post on ANI. Get each others' Twitter handles and have it out there. Or, you just try to improve your own behavior and forgive the next person some of their behavior, and try to assume a little good faith. Or maybe you stay out of some discussion for a day or two. Or whatever. Since I haven't seen anything that yet calls for a block, and this is ANI, and you didn't accept the peace pipe passed around by TParis, someone is going to close this shortly, I don't doubt. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to go down a rabbit hole. I'm asking to ask some reasonable things of VM during the proposed DR and I'm asking them to do the same. You agree to this and they agree to that. If either of you violate said agreement that would be bad faith negotiating. If you violate the agreement then they come back for the topic ban and if they violate it you comeback for the topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Where are we going? Link please? Can I see some examples of previous discussions? Who is going to enforce it? Will it be better enforced than the sanctions already placed on the article? And can someone please answer why HiLo's proposal is not being considered? Thanks. USchick (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't see why USchick should do this. Nobody is doing anything about VM's unreasonable and incredibly rude editing on the article's talk page SINCE this thread began. USchick has been very polite. Why doesn't anyone have the guts to do anything about VM now, based on an obvious bad attitude? HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I just want to say that I have noticed a pattern in VM acting in disruptive ways when it comes to articles involving the recent fighting in Ukraine. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes and we've had disagreements before so you're jumping in here. Substantiate, file a WP:AE report or go away. I'm getting tired of being picked on and harassed. Volunteer Marek  01:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Enough. This is previous ANI tread, and this is previous statement by USchick. @USchick, perhaps admins do not want to help because you "have a serious problem" with one of the best of them and accuse people of "tag teaming" without a shred of evidence? My very best wishes (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't there a policy about dragging previous arguments into a new argument? I believe you are in violation of policy. Why was this comment not made on my talk page? Please, with all respect in the world, GO FLY A KITE! USchick (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

What policy are you talking about (any link?) and what kite? My very best wishes (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• To all participating involved parties: Please read WP:ANI Advice #'s 10, 12, and 16. The "Nuh uh's, you said blah!" aren't inviting outside participation.--v/r - TP 01:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

USchick we can actually figure out in a minute where to go. Right now lets see if we can an agreement on how you to communicate when you get there. You say his behavior is the issue and he basically says the same for you. So lets see what reasonable things it will take for you and what reasonable things it will take for VM to go somewhere and talk.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

My issue with VM is cherry picking sources AND disruptive editing where I attempt to discuss content, and everything but the kitchen sink gets thrown at me. Just like here. USchick (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

One more time. I have neither "cherry picked sources" nor engaged in "disruptive editing". Hell, I didn't even write most of that article. I'm not the one who choose the sources that went in there. The article was written by a number of editors and it reflects general consensus. My only fault here has been that I've opposed your attempts at removing reliable sources from the article according to some POV WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your "attempts to discuss content" after, the fourth or fifth time got tiresome as it became obvious that you were not trying to discuss things constructively in order to reach consensus but rather resurrecting old issues which had been covered in detail previously. Again, for the sake of some POV WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In other words, this accusation, like the others is completely unsubstantiated and complete bullshit. It's not as serious as your other false accusations (see above), but it is still completely false. Volunteer Marek  02:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly the problem. USchick repeatedly casts aspersions about you and other editors and admins [124] here and elsewhere, but does not provide any proofs (his links above do not prove anything). He/she must either provide their proofs on a more appropriate noticeboard, such as WP:AE, or be restricted from doing such things in the future. My very best wishes (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

See the top of this thread with my original complaint for specific examples I provided. USchick (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Right. The top of the thread where you're complaining that I object to the following comment by YOU: ""Dear Volunteer Marek, as the owner of this article, I appeal to your Excellency for the humble permission to move the investigation section of this article to its own page. Pretty please with a cherry on top. Your most honorable servant of all time"' and then when you tried to pretend that that was actually, really, no seriously, why don't you assume good faith, a good faithed, sincerely meant, "nice" comment I said "don't be daft". Volunteer Marek  02:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you already said that in your first comment. Would you like to rehash the entire argument again? USchick (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, these are links I am talking about. In my opinion, they do not prove anything at all, except a legitimate content dispute. If you disagree, file an WP:AE request, but be prepared to be sanctioned yourself if AE admins find you guilty of misconduct. My very best wishes (talk) 02:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. USchick (talk) 02:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I will be unavailable starting now until Monday, I hope that's ok. USchick (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason why not, in my view I feel this whole section has accomplished nothing but bickering between the two sides. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

My attempt to get Admin action here simply led to abuse, even from Admins. That's not helpful. Today I posted Diffs of bad behaviour from VM. Nobody has said there was anything good about those diffs. (Except of course VM.) They have just been ignored. And I have been attacked for seeking intervention. I say again. Our Admin system is stuffed. What is the point of AN/I? HiLo48 (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You want Admin attention? Can an admin please give HiLo48 some attention?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Already done: "I clicked on some diff that was apparently irrefutable evidence that Marek should be blocked. There was jack shit there. ('fuck all')" - Drmies (admin). Stickee (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That's apparently not acceptable. I think they want blocks. Speaking of that message, Drmies This was actually already closed once I believe. Oh and do not feel bad about your unranked team. I think in Texas highschool football is big.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily asking for a block. What can we realistically expect here? I listed my concerns at the beginning. Is this disruptive editing or not? Is it going to continue? Is cherry picking sources to support one version of the "truth" ok on Wikipedia? I made an accusation and VM denied it. Now what? I'm simply asking people to be accountable. I will have limited access, so if I'm not back until Monday, it's not because I don't care. USchick (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

What I see at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 is an article on an unsolved mystery in a politically charged location that contains an awful lot of speculation. This is mainly speculation by people outside Wikipedia and reported in reliable sources, but it is a very selective set of those sources. It's a set that gives an extreme slant towards the western view of things as previously presented in propaganda that was going on over the area for long before the plane crashed. There is a dominating group of editors, of whom Volunteeer Marek is one of the major players, who insist that speculation from anywhere else is unacceptable because the sources are Russian, or biased, or almost anything else that rules them out. The suggestion that all speculation that's not part of the formal enquiry be removed is also rejected, with equally nasty argument, and with the half-baked justification that "it's sourced, so it belongs in the article". It's a crappy, unbalanced article. Volunteeer Marek's style in defending the status quo is one of considerable aggression and rudeness. It is not one involving polite discussion, and has not been for a very long time. Hence my rejection of the alleged olive branch from one of the weak Admins here. The biased shape of the article reflects Wikipedia's systemic bias. Those who are part of that bias, of course, are unlikely to recognise it. I think USchick was brave in bringing the problem here, because that same systemic bias dominates here too of course,. This is one of those sad situations for Wikipedia. Nobody should be proud of that article. Nobody should be proud of the behaviour used by some defending it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is not the appropriate place for this discussion. But it's here so... let me address it. First I have *never*... ever ever ever, claimed that a particular source is not reliable because "it is Russian". This is some excuse you invented. You're projecting your own prejudices onto others or something. What I have pointed out repeatedly on the article talk page (at least a dozen times by now) is that what determines whether a source is reliable or not depends on whether it satisfies the criteria outlined at WP:RS. Specifically, whether it "has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". The sources you and a few others want to use, don't. Some of these unreliable sources happen to be Russian, some of them are American, some of them are Australian, whatever. What makes them unreliable is not their "national origin" but the fact that they are a set of conspiracy websites, opinion pieces from some crazy fringe authors, personal blogs, propaganda outlets and the like. You - or was it User:Herzen, I can't remember - think that the exclusion of such crap sources constitutes "Systemic Bias". It doesn't. It constitutes adherence to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. If you think that these sources are a suitable basis for an encyclopedia, then Wikipedia is not the place for you (and there's nothing wrong with that). At any rate, it's height of absurdity to claim that my edits are "disruptive" because I am insisting that we actually follow Wikipedia policy, while your (and USchick's etc) edits are kosher because ... you demand the right to remove reliable sources from the article on a whim.

And USchick wasn't brave about anything. They were block-shopping under a bullshit pretext, like you are doing right now, and making extremely offensive and odious personal accusations to boot.

Oh, and the article is fine, thanks to the effort of numerous editors. I'm actually pleasantly surprised that the Wikipedia process has worked reasonably well in this case, given the circumstances.

Anyway, I'm done, enough of my time wasted, can someone close this (again)? Volunteer Marek  07:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. You have well summarised the approach you have been taking at that article for months. I find it unsatisfactory, and unpleasant. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I read through this earlier, then voted in an RFC on MH17 page. I have to agree with HiLo48 that 'Volunteer Marek's style in defending the status quo on that RFC and earlier, is one of considerable aggression and rudeness' unbecoming of good WP editing. I believe to transform this article from strong POV to NPOV would require some VM free time, say a week, with a protected status afterwards. Thank you. SaintAviator lets talk 07:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is currently about as NPOV as it's going to get, given the controversial nature of the topic. That's the thing though, isn't it? You and your friends don't like that's it's fairly neutral, you want to turn it into a POV piece which adheres to your version of WP:TRUTH. You don't like the fact that there are editors (not just me) who strongly object to your agenda. That's is why you've filed a ridiculous, ill posed, vague RfC which is basically a demand for a carte blanche to remove anything you don't like from the article. That's why you want to remove reliable sources from the article under one pretext or another. That's why you want to add non-reliable sources like articles or blog pieces based on crazy conspiracy website to the article. No. Volunteer Marek  07:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You overuse the 'We' thing. There is no conspiracy against you, no need to become paranoid. I dont know these other editors and have not added any refs at all. Is that your problem, why you are so anti social? You see a conspiracy against you. Marek take a break, before someone gives you one. Thats not a threat, thats reasoning as its clear you are 'over the top'. SaintAviator lets talk 07:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again. The fact that, having said you were done, you came back to yet again rudely attack another editor's post perfectly demonstrates your attitude. You appear to need to have the last word. You cannot allow the possibility that others might read something sensible in another editor's post and begin to wonder. Domination with buckets of words is an interesting strategy for someone who said they were done. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"You appear to need to have the last word.": You've made 24 comments here. Only 6 less than Marek. Stickee (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok point made. I'll have the last word then. I'm new. IMHO Marek needs a block on the MH 17 article. Hes aggressive, paranoid and disruptive. I dont know why, I dont want to know why. It just is. SaintAviator lets talk 07:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Stickee - I'm quite happy to respond to your comment. I have done very little work on the article or its Talk page in the past couple of months due to time pressures off-Wikipedia. As mentioned earlier by someone else, VM and some others seem to suffer none of those inconveniences and have been lucky enough to be able to work almost full time on that article. So right now, I'm really a very long way behind and am very much in catch-up mode. HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I will take this opportunity to thank User:Volunteer Marek for the editing at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. It is really quite an effort to keep that article free of fringe theories and POV editing - and I can see how the repeated attempts (often from largely SPAs) to introduce such matter can strain the patience of an editor. After contributing elsewhere for a while, I should probably go back to MH-17 and lessen the burden of User:Volunteer Marek. Lklundin (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

And there's that implication again that those of us who disagree with those whose views currently dominate the article are somehow associated with SPAs. No evidence that anything has been done about these alleged SPAs. Just shotgun allegations and more mud thrown. Not helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. The only SPA I know of who edits the MH37 article is Tlsandy, and he tag teams with user:My very best wishes, who wrote above that users fed up with the behavior of editors who act as if they own this article "accuse people of "tag teaming" without a shred of evidence", and also that "a number of POV-pushing SPA currently edit these pages", whereas, as I said, the only SPA I know of has tag teamed with My very best wishes (with these edits). So that is what is going on here: editors who want to go on owning the article falsely accuse other editors of doing what they themselves are actually doing. This behavior has gotten totally out of control. – Herzen (talk) 09:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• What? I made only one edit (three consequential edits) on this page during last nine days. You received a warning from admin for regular edit warring on this page [125] and continue edit war right now [126]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

What I was warned about was engaging in a slow edit war (a concept I was not aware of) with your SPA tag team buddy, Tlsandy, who was also warned about engaging in a slow edit war. I have consistently engaged in sustained Talk discussions before making edits and am not a SPA, whereas Tlsandy aggressively makes changes to the article without even once justifying them on Talk. (The only posts he has made on Talk was to a thread he himself created bashing Russia.) That you have not once expressed unhappiness with an SPA's disruptive behavior, but have repatedly made personal attacks against me shows that you are so heavily invested in one side of this conflict (both in the sense of the actual conflict in Ukraine and the sense of the continual conflict in Wikipedia on the Ukraine related pages) that you could not hide your battleground attitude even if you wanted to. – Herzen (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Suggest close - As with most AN/I discussions that involve HiLo as a party, this is just going around in circles.--WaltCip (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know I had that much power! HiLo48 (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break (Disruptive editing)

I'd like to suggest a course of action here. Clearly, these three editors (I'm referring to Volunteer Marek, HiLo48, USchick) are involved in a passionate POV war with each other and are so entrenched that it's not going to be resolved without outside intervention. To move beyond this, I propose a "closed neutrality review" (which I think I've just invented). How I propose it works:

1. Full protect the article. We tag it as being under review (similar to {{Work in progress}} but with a more appropriate message). This prevents disruption while the review is in progress.
2. A panel of uninvolved volunteers will review the article as it exists now for neutrality, based on our content policies. I propose a panel of three, because small numbers are good for discussions, and odd numbers are good for "breaking ties" should the need arise.
3. The panel will discuss and suggest changes to the article on the article's talk page. This is important: no other editors may comment on or disrupt the review while it is in progress - any and all comments made by editors not part of the panel will be removed immediately without discussion. Not to be hostile, but to allow the panel to work undisturbed. Creating a /NPOVreview subpage might be a good idea to facilitate this. I think some discussion is needed on allowing {{edit protected}} requests during this time - there are pros and cons.
4. When the review is completed, say in a few days' time (because we all have IRL stuff going on, but with some hard deadline) then and only then other editors may comment on it, and changes which have consensus will be made to the article at that time.

Would this satisfy everyone? Ivanvector (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Support - this seems like the best way to solve this dispute. It should be effective. demize (t · c) 15:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment - It is not clear (to me) if the proposed 'uninvolved volunteers' are to be uninvolved in this ANI discussion or uninvolved in the editing of the article leading to this ANI. Lklundin (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Support. Do we have any idea who the panel would consist of? --Richard Yin (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With a few exceptions, the editors commenting here are the editors working on the article. I meant to say I will nominate myself, as I am pretty sure I have not worked on that article and generally steer clear of Eastern Europe articles. I commented on some editors' conduct in this thread but I don't think I've commented on the article itself up to this point. My only concern with myself is that I don't have a lot of free time over the next few days. As for others, I think "uninvolved in the topic area" is more important than "uninvolved here", but the makeup of the panel would be subject to consensus anyway or this whole thing is doomed from the start. I especially want to hear what Marek, HiLo and USchick think about this. Ivanvector (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - quite simply put, you, nor AN/I in general do not have the right to impose such a draconian restriction. Not even admins at WP:AE could do this. For something like this to be implemented, it'd have to be ARBCOM. Even there, it's questionable whether they have the power to do something like this. It's completely opposed to Wikipedia policies and spirit. It would set an awful precedent. It would also be completely unworkable. It would also be completely unnecessary. Volunteer Marek  16:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but while this is a good intended suggestion, it's simply not workable in practice. Over the years, I've seen many proposals such as this, and never has one been implemented. Here are the problems:

1. Why does the article need full protect? There's no edit warring on it. There are some occasional reverts but it's actually fairly mild and much much less than other articles of comparable level of controversy. USchick's (and couple of others) agenda here does not involve edit warring over the article - they know they'd loose that battle because both consensus and Wikipedia policy is against them - it is simply an attempt to remove people they don't like from the article, period. Not for edit warring, not for violating any Wikipedia policies but simply for ... nothing really, except they don't like'em.
2. Who are going to be on this "panel of uninvolved volunteers"? What makes you believe they will have any kind of competence in regard to the subject matter? Why should editors who've invested their time and effort in the article be shut out from the process? That seems like punishing good deeds. It's completely wrong headed.
3. It seems you're also proposing that regular editors are not even allowed to comment on the article talk page. There's no way that's gonna fly. In fact, it's completely against Wikipedia spirit, it would violate several Wikipedia policies, and AN/I simply does not have the jurisdiction to impose such an absurd and draconian restriction. Not even admins at WP:AE, working with discretionary sanctions, could do something like that. Possibly, maybe, this would be within the powers of ARBCOM, though even there that'd be a very big "MAYBE"
4. What makes you think that these "uninvolved volunteers" would come to a consensus?
5. Here is the basic truth. The situation is actually FINE RIGHT NOW. There's no need to invent insanely ridiculous restrictions which set a very dangerous precedent to solve it. There's nothing to be solved. The article is pretty close to neutral. There's not much edit warring. The article uses reliable sources. The only issue is that editors who disagree with reliable sources keep bringing up the same old issues over and over and over and over and over and over and over again to the talk page and demanding that these be discussed again and again and again and again and again and again (basically, since reliable sources don't support you, and Wikipedia policies don't support you, all you've got left is trying to tire and wear others out)
6. I very strongly resent the suggestion that I'm in any way "passionately involved in a POV war". All I'm doing is pointing out that it would be against Wikipedia policy to remove reliable sources from the article and replace them with fringe conspiracy crap according to somebody's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's not "POV war", that's Wikipedia policy. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary (diffs, etc) I request that you strike that accusation. Thanks.
7. (Added later due to ec) We already have mechanisms which are suitable for dealing with any potential problems. These are discretionary sanctions, and enforcement at WP:AE by admins like User:Sandstein and others. If you really think that there is some kind of bad behavior going on here, file a WP:AE report. That's what that page is for. But you have to provide specific evidence of misbehavior and support it with diffs. Not some vague "so and so is being disruptive because I don't like'em" like this request.
8. (Added later due to ec) There is no restriction on other editors coming to help out on the article. Anyone can edit, right? If you feel there is a problem with content (as opposed to behavior), please, come and help out. Join the talk page discussion. Make your points. Have your say. Add reliable sources to the article. Nothing is stopping you. We don't need a "panel of uninvolved volunteers" - we already have volunteers, and anyone else can come and volunteer too. That's how Wikipedia works, right?

 Volunteer Marek  16:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Well, we know what Marek thinks. I'll reply to this in a moment. Ivanvector (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You say that the situation is fine, but this rather large, heated discussion on ANI suggests otherwise. From my observation of the situation, this solution may be the best one, since it forces both you and User:USchick to take a step back from the article and lets an uninvolved third party decide if, indeed, the situation is fine. demize (t · c) 16:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggested the protections and restrictions so that the panel can work free of the kind of disruption displayed in the huge thread above. Such nonsense would be very counterproductive to a neutral review, just as it's extremely counterproductive in general. I'm sorry you dislike the allegation of POV warring but I will not retract; it is quite obvious to an outside observer that this is exactly what this is - a POV war, and you're involved in it. You're defending the article against an undue POV (in your view) which is admirable, but you must see how the ongoing disruption (from everyone) is not helping the article, yes? What I'm suggesting is you step away briefly to allow an uninvolved review - if it is "fine right now" there won't be much work to do, and you can continue to review any changes before they happen. Ivanvector (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

We have WP:AE, that's the venue to take any potential problems to. Also, the proposal is extremely vague and ill-defined. Where you gonna get these uninvolved volunteers? What qualifications are going to be considered? What does "uninvolved" mean in this context? What mechanism will be in place to ensure that they actually do something and do it on time rather than just dilly-dally for months, while the article (and the talk page!) remains shut out for the rest of the community?  Volunteer Marek  16:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support The authority to do this comes from WP:CONSENSUS. This sounds like a great idea and if it is effective then we can codify it and implement it in other articles.--v/r - TP 16:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This proposal means creating an editorial board, specifically for this article. But even in scientific reviewing, where editorial boards are a common practice, the members of editorial boards are always recognized experts and never anonymous people. We have no idea who these members/reviewers are going to be. Moreover, the requirement that other users can not comment goes far beyond and contrary to the letter and spirit of wikipedia rules and practices. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I've been following this article (actually just the Talk page, really) for months, mostly out of sheer fascination. I haven't added anything, though, since it's in a part of the world I'm not as familiar with. Having read every word on the talk page for at least 12-15 archives now, I must say I agree with Ivanvector's assessment of the situation. There's been a wide-scale POV war, with almost everyone on the talk page seeming to fall onto one side or the other (with varying degrees of passion, and with a few notable exceptions). I support the proposed solution. It's innovative and has the potential to be very beneficial and neutral (assuming the editors on the "panel" are able to sufficiently detach themselves from the politics of the subject matter). IrishCowboy (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I'm not at all convinced anything in the article needs changing, and I think the protestations from some quarters that sections that appear to criticize Russia or its proxies should be removed, space given over to conspiracy theories and perspectives expanded, or both completely fly in the face of WP:NPOV, WP:GEVAL, and WP:FRINGE -- but more importantly, I know the editors who want those changes believe they must be made just as passionately as I believe they should not. And for all of the ambition and complexity of this proposal, which (lest we forget) involves rounding up three uninvolved volunteer editors with nothing better to do than to go over a Wikipedia article they ostensibly don't care about the subject of with a fine-toothed comb for several days (while hoping they are 1: a representative sample of the Wikipedia community, and 2: sufficiently knowledgeable and evenhanded about Wikipedia policy to apply it fairly and uniformly without any blind spots), I honestly don't see any scenario in which none of the major "combatants" at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 feel the need to loudly express their outrage over not getting their way after the process has concluded. (When I started writing this comment, FWIW, I was going to !vote to support. But I just can't justify it. I admire the ambition, but I think it would be a wasted effort, unfortunately.) -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't import the POV-pushing that goes on in the MH17 discussion into ANI. As I have repeatedly pointed out, if Time magazine and the prosecutor heading a major investigation take a theory seriously, it is not FRINGE. Yet some editors are so convinced that they know the truth that they continue to treat all theories but one as FRINGE and a "crazy conspiracy theory". – Herzen (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• If TParis is for it I shouldn't be against it. However, I don't see exactly how CONSENSUS allows for such an editorial board, but I'm not opposed on principle. In contrast to what I saw elsewhere in this thread there is some edit warring going on in the article, adding to the uncomfortable atmosphere--see this one, for instance. But much of this has to do with the investigation, and I can't help but think that if editors took NOTNEWS more seriously we'd be saved a lot of trouble, since much of the fighting seems to involve day-to-day announcements and developments. We should take the long view, but how we mandate that, I'm not sure: if an admin starts ruling on those kinds of things then they'd have to rule on content. One solution would be to ban the involved parties from the article and its talk page, but that's draconian. Drmies (talk) 13:46, Today (UTC−5)
• (edit conflict) Oppose – This type of complex solution simply won't work, and will likely create an even bigger shambles. This is not a good article to conduct editorial experiments on. It needs real administrative action, and I'm starting to think that ArbCom is likely the only possible solution at this point. They are much better suited to solving this kind of problem. RGloucester — ☎ 18:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

  I can agree with involving ArbCom rather than the solution proposed here. I'm not opposed to this solution, but I do have to agree that ArbCom would be a better solution; especially after reading Drmies' comment, I'm not entirely convinced that the originally proposed solution is appropriate. demize (t · c) 18:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I won't retract the proposal per se but it certainly doesn't seem to have the broad support I would expect to require for success, so I think we're done here. Thanks for the insightful commentary, everyone. In the event someone would like to discuss the idea of a neutrality review in general feel free to post on my talk page. I am also thinking that since we're not able to make any headway here (and I'm thinking any admin action is going to be seen as controversial at this point) it's worth passing the buck to asking WP:ARBCOM. Cheers. Ivanvector (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. This has been causing problems for months, administrators simply haven't been able to enforce WP:ARBEE, and various AN/I threads have been unproductive. It is about time that this disruption was reviewed by ArbCom. RGloucester — ☎ 19:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be the consensus now. I'd close this discussion myself, but I feel that would be out of line (as I'm not an administrator and the nature of this discussion warrants having one close it) and potentially premature, as an ArmCom case has not yet been requested. I do feel that there should not be any more discussion here though: it's been demonstrated that this discussion cannot get anywhere if it's being had on ANI. If anyone else wants to close it, then that may be a good idea. demize (t · c) 19:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I thank and congratulate Ivanvector for this innovative suggestion. It's the kind of thinking we need to get past the reality that there is no consensus at that article right now, just a large and loud group of editors mocking, bullying and shouting down anyone who dares to think differently. The style of discussion is so far removed from consensus seeking as to make that concept nonsensical for this article. The biggest issue in Ivanvector's proposal will be defining what "uninvolved" means. The incident in question occurred well into a major propaganda war over the geographical area involved. Now, propaganda works. It influences many people without them even being aware of it. That's the goal of propaganda. Those promulgating propaganda will use any available tool, including articles like ours, to advance their cause. Another major factor, one that overlaps the propaganda issue, is Wikipedia's systemic bias. The goals of the western side of the propaganda war feed perfectly into that bias. Many of those who are part of the systemic bias also don't realise the impact it has on their thinking. That means that a lot of people, both on and off Wikipedia, come to the issue of who is responsible for the plane crash with a very strong preconceived view that Vladimir Putin and the Ukrainian separatists are bad guys, and that we can, and should, blame them for the crash. My personal position is that I don't know who did it. Nobody here knows who did it. (Or, if they really do, they won't tell us.) But, because of the propaganda war and our systemic bias, a lot of people want to keep producing evidence that Putin/Ukrainian separatists did it, and rejecting evidence that they might not have. Given that very few people really do know who did it, I repeat my goal for the article - when it comes to discussing the cause of the crash, leave out all speculation from anybody, all politically motivated proclamations from anybody, so that all we include is material from those conducting the official investigation. I think that most closely matches Wikipedia's goal of presenting a neutral point of view. Of course, once the official verdict is finally presented, that should be all that our article should contain on the cause of the crash. It would be silly then to still include all the theories and the subset of claimed "evidence" it currently contains. Logically, of course, that means that all that speculative stuff should be removed now. So, returning to my earlier point, to me "uninvolved" means not part of our systemic bias and not influenced by the propaganda war. An impossible goal? Maybe. But we do need to think about those factors. HiLo48 (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Amazing. A formal proposal seeking my input is made. I see it upon waking up (it's 7.00 am here) and spend some time composing a response discussing the problem of finding editors who are truly uninvolved, and then before I click Submit, the whole thread is closed by one of the most involved editors here. Oh the irony. HiLo48 (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight even if the thread is closed. I do share your concerns about systemic bias, and I have no proposed solution. I don't want to comment on this article directly now since it seems we're going to ArbCom with it, but if you want to talk more about the proposal or about issues of involvement or systemic bias in general, you're welcome on my talk. I can't promise prompt replies, it's 4pm here and the Beer Store is calling. Ivanvector (talk) 20:45, 14 November 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.

• Support SaintAviator lets talk 04:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

IP sockfarm with grudge against a 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.

---

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) needs page protection possibly revdel. I've already contacted emergency about the threat against a user. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that said threats are only in the edit summaries. Epicgenius (talk) 02:49, 15 November 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.

POV tag at Gamergate controversy being used as a scarlet letter

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.

---

• Gamergate controversy

(Note claiming exception to the Arbcom finding, as this is a matter in which I am primarily involved.)

We have a situation at the Gamergate article, linked above, where the "NPOV issues" tag has remained on the article for five weeks now, even though there are no specific or immediate issues. The tag was added on October 6th by MSGJ, at the behest of other editors and he has not edited the article since. The nature of the controversy over Gamergate is over the misogyny and harassment of women in video gaming culture, a point-of-view strongly supported by reliable sources. A secondary point-of-view is that the nature of the controversy is about gamer journalism ethics. The side that pushes the latter has become more and more vocal about their minority point-of-view being given equal weight as the primary, but as the sourcing does not support this at all, that would violate WP:UNDUE. So, they tagged the article, and the tag has remained for thirty-five days now.

I intended to remove it last week, but the date slipped by. A thread last night, consisitng largely of vocal single-purpose accounts seems to think the matter is up for a vote, to which I disagree with strongly. Template:POV explicitly warns against tag usage as a badge of shame or as a "warning" to readers. It is meant to solicit other editors to weigh in on the matter. We have done that for over a month now, none of the concerns raised have been found to have merit. I attempted a removal just now to no avail. Admin intervention is requested, as the tag is now being misused. New editors need to keep in mind that a tag removal doesn't mean the end of the discussion, it just means the end of the immediacy of a serious issue or concern that we must warn ever make every page visitor aware of.

Also note that other editors wholly unconnected to Gamergate seem to see the tag as long outliving its usefulness as well. Tony Sidaway attempted to remove it last night, but was reverted by an SPA. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it's been decided that Tarc cannot comment at ANI unless someone else raises a thread specifically about him. Moving on, let's discuss the merits of the case itself. Tarc will no longer comment here, in this thread or otherwise, unless he voluntarily chooses to get blocked.--v/r - TP 19:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Note to all I have initiated an WP:ARCA case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Banning Policy. KonveyorBelt 19:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have continued and will continue to point out there is an NPOV problem with the article (mainly impartialness; balance will never be equal due to sourcing), which a few owning editors (see ArbCom case) refuse to acknowledge. While such maintenance tags are not meant for long term use, I can point to hundreds of articles with similar maintenance tags still on the page going back to 2007, so there is no requirement that they have to be removed after a month, especially if active debate is still going on with justified reasons. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC) I'm not sure that point out other problematic articles makes a compelling counter-argument. Look at The Troubles, abortion, climate change, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and 9/11. All hugely controversial articles are are subject to editing disputes all the time, yet none are tagged. Disputes are routine; tagging an article with "POV" is a short-term call for wider input into a matter. We've had that for over a month now, and if there are editors that cannot articulate a reason other than "it's biased!", when the sources show otherwise, then it runs afoul of the template usage instructions. Tarc (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC) I'm pretty confident (save for 9/11) that all of those have gone through ArbCom to set what proper editing process should be and approach, in addition to the fact that those are long since "resolved" (years of facts and opinions) so that long-term issues are resolved. This is still developing and only a few months old, and things are still changing, and of course, no ArbCom review yet. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Immediate block of Tarc for violating ArbCom's ban of his use of administrator noticeboards. He is banned from any noticeboard unless it directly concerns the user. He is not allowed to bring forth any issue as he is effectively banned from the admin boards. This is a use of administrator's noticeboard for this purpose and he has fragrantly disobeyed the ArbCom restriction lended to him, and as enforcement, should be blocked. Tutelary (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Sigh Arbcom should have explained what the "normal restrictions" were. Is he banned from all topics which are not explicitly about him, or is he banned from topics that have nothing to do with him? Can someone file a clarification case?--v/r - TP 17:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC) I would think that the normal restrictions involved responding to posts about you, rather than starting a new discussion. On the face of it, this appears a clear violation of the sanctions from the case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC) I have initiated an WP:ARCA case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Banning Policy. KonveyorBelt 19:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC) This is a very obvious violation of Arbcom sanctions against Tarc, which explicitly prohibit him from posting on AN/I and Jimbotalk. Here he is stirring up drama by starting a new thread. See: "Tarc restricted (1) For actions discussed within this case, as well as past history of disruption for which he has been sanctioned, Tarc is subject to an indefinite editing restriction. Tarc may not edit any administrative noticeboards, nor User talk:Jimbo Wales, aside from the normal exceptions. Passed 6 to 2, with 1 abstention at 10:27 am, 12 October 2014, Sunday (UTC−7)" Carrite (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Support immediate indefinite block of Tarc for violation of Arbcom sanctions. Carrite (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Before we all get on the bandwagon, I do believe Tarc has violated it. However, the game is in ArbCom's park and not the community's, else we could just devoid or reject ArbCom by merely having a !vote on it. I'll file an enforcement request when I get home, or some admin can just block now. It's a pretty overt violation; after all. Tutelary (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Support for indef block of Tarc in violation of ArbCom sanctions. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 18:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC) My reading of those restrictions is that they're intended to prevent Tarc from becoming involved in ongoing noticeboard drama. His proposal to remove the NPOV tag, which is being used out of policy, is being filibustered by many editors with very few contributions outside of the gamergate debacle. This seems like a clear case of 'legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Anybody who keeps shouting "immediate indef block of Tarc" here needs to first read the Arbcom decision himself. We don't do indef blocks for one-off violations of arbcom restrictions, even if this turns out to be one (which I'm not entirely certain of). The length of a block is a matter of administrative discretion, but the maximum would be a month, and since he declared he believed an exemption applied (and I have no reason to doubt his good faith in that), I doubt even a short block is in order – if we think he was wrong about that, we simply close the thread down. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Tarc did violate his restrictions. He may have, or he may not have, I don't know. Would it make the Gamergate article to be perfect? Does his complaint have no merit? Perhaps two independent and unrelated discussions need to occur here... --Jayron32 18:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Facepalm Will someone please muzzle these 3 characters...Tuletary, Carrite, and Dungeon-whatever...please? The middle one in particular, a busybody with personal animosity who has nothing to do with the topic area. The Arbcom prohibition has a "normal restrictions" clause, i.e. WP:BANEX's "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" line. I, on behalf of myself and other established editors who have been keeping the muck out of the Gamergate article, am seeking intervention in a dispute because I/we are unable to fight the constant edit-warring over this tag without resorting to edit-warring ourselves. This is textbook "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution". Tarc (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC) You deliberately leave out the next line. It has to be related to the ban itself. Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include: asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another party (but normally not more than once). asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban.appealing the ban. You are absolutely in violation of this as you are not questioning the ban of itself, but trying to us the AN board to bring action against something. ArbCom specifically sanctioned you for this, and you are violating it. Tutelary (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Yep, Tarc, WP:BANEX doesn't cover this; it's only about "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself". I suggest we close this thread down, and if anybody else besides Tarc wishes to have a discussion about that Gamergate tag, they can re-open a new one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Oh for fuck's sake, I cannot be prevented from seeking redress when there is a situation in which I am involved in requires admin input. Arbcom wanted me out of admin discussions which I had no prior involvement in, as I used to comment on ANI postings quite frequently. None of this affects the merit of SPAs and their associates trolling the Gamergate article to force a scarlet letter tag in perpetuity. Tarc (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Tarc, apparently we think this is not covered as an exemption from your ban. Now don't sin again. Oppose any kind of block on Tarc, in case we were still voting on this. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Erm, if I remember right, hasn't Future Perfect interfered with another thread involving one of the 5 horsemen of WikiBias? Specifically this? [127] I've already archived it locally and on the web, if you're wondering, you know, just to be safe [128], as I know that users with certain privledges can modify and delete logs, not implying anything, but I'm just being cautious. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 19:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Drama aside, can we get some actual administrator attention to this issue and the page in general? That would be extremely helpful. FWIW as far as I can see the page meets WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS, and the one outsstanding POV issue on the talk page contains calls for violating those policies and is basically and excercise in beating a dead horse, but admins are of course free to make up their own minds on that. Artw (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Would it help if I opened up a seperate AN/I for the actual issue that could do with some administrator attention? Artw (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

As long as the POV issues remain, so should the tag. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• While it is quite early, given that the usual suspects at the article have generally weighed in, if an uninvolved admin would review Talk:Gamergate_controversy#NPOV_tag_removal.2C_Nov_10th.2C_late to see if there has been made a valid argument for keeping the tag. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Which set of usual suspects? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 20:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree: Whatever the history with Tarc, it's clear that what we have is, at best, a slow-moving edit war that is being openly coordinated at 8chan in order to secure a wikipedia page more sympathetic to Gamergate and less sympathetic to its targets and critics. The NPOV tag is a pretext under which this effort will continue indefinitely, and it is not merited by the current state of the article. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

...a slow-moving edit war that is being openly coordinated at 8chan in order to secure a wikipedia page more sympathetic to Gamergate and less sympathetic to its targets and critics. [citation needed]. No seriously. I haven't single a single gram of proof that any editors are engaging in 8chan in any way, but what I did see was absolute trolling on the 8chan thread, people claiming and spoofing themselves to be Ryulong and North to parody them in some sort of weird hysteria. Nonetheless, we cannot control what goes on on other sites. The neutrality has been disputed many times--Just view the freakin' archives. It's ridiculous on how we can't find a way to resolve this. But the article in its presence form methinks should be TNT'd due to all the statements it makes. (Metaphorically, not actually. Just see very little salvagable stuff that isn't a 60% compromise between both sides, leading to botched sentences and the like). Tutelary (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein:, could you provide some diffs of this? pbp 22:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If anything, the article should be nuked, and not be recreatable until January 2015. --DSA510 Pls No H8

• I don't care what 8chan is doing, but I oppose the removal of the NPOV thread and I have nothing to do with them. The attempt to paint editors as being commanded by 8chan is not appreciated. starship.paint ~ regal 23:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• At the risk of being seen as emulating Baseball Bugs, this reminds of an old Baby Snooks and Daddy exchange, guest-starring Groucho Marx:

Groucho: You have a very ill-mannered child!

Daddy: Hey, resent that!

Groucho: Do you deny it?

Daddy: Noooo...I just resent it.

--Calton | Talk 02:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagree: The issue brought up by several editors is that the tone of the article is in violation of the NPOV, not about some old discussion about "the nature of the controversy over Gamergate". Adversarial and hostile tone do not belong in either article or talk pages. Since much of the article is about living persons, WP:BLPSTYLE should taken as a requirement rather than a hint that article should be written in a dispassionate tone, in a non-partisan manner, and avoiding both understatements and overstatements. All three is current issues with the article and thus the tag should stay. Belorn (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• are you sure? that is not the way I read the instructions for the templates use. Template Instructions: " The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. ... This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. ... This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking over the talkpage, I see much discussion about BLP and NPOV issues that fits the requirements of the template. Is there something I'm missing here? KonveyorBelt 22:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes you see lots of SPAs coming in and claiming "BIAS !!! Its not NEUTRAL!!! You are not covering MY SIDE!!!". But those are not " pointing to specific issues that are actionable" based on "the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources". Please point to a discussion that meets the criteria, particularly one applicable to the entire article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Goodness me, TPRoD, is that something written in a Scarlet pen? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• There is an entire RFC on concerns about the neutrality of the article. Talk:Gamergate controversy/RFC1. I do acknowledge the majority of reliable sources do depict harassment, etc. but, to quote Masem, we are instead giving the antiGG side far too much coverage, to the point of being preachy on how "right" the antiGG side is, and how bad the proGG side is. This is evidenced by certain phrasing, excessive use of the negative words "harassment" and "misogyny" (and forms thereof), and overuse of near-full quotes from antiGG sources when they are not needed for explaining the key parts of the narrative. That is the specific neutrality problem in the article. Also, an additional problem in the lead-> search for Masem's post in Talk:Gamergate controversy on "18:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)". starship.paint ~ regal 23:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"we are instead giving the antiGG side far too much coverage, to the point of being preachy on how "right" the antiGG side is, and how bad the proGG side is. This is evidenced by certain phrasing, excessive use of the negative words "harassment" and "misogyny" (and forms thereof)" - that's your own personal feeling. The only question is, do reliable sources use these so-called "negative words" such as "harassment" and "misogyny". And you're goddamn right they do. So you're basically whining about the fact that the article reflects reliable sources. Get over it. Quit tagging the article per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There's other outlets for your frustration on the internet. Hundreds of them. This ain't one of them. Volunteer Marek  23:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There's of course no way that we can hide those words in the discussion of GG - they fill 90% of the sources at least. However, per IMPARTIAL and FRINGE, we cannot act like the press's opinion is the only opinion. We're not going to balance the article, but we can write it impartially to treat both sides in a clinically neutral manner as NPOV requires. This means we don't need to use lengthy pull quotes (which bring those words up again over and over) to hammer in the press's side of the argument, but we do have to mention these as serious issues that the situation has presented and has tainted the GG arguments. --MASEM (t) 04:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

thats just crazy talk. you would need to through out our policy of UNDUE AND all of the reliable sources AND then inappropriately give the claims that have been repeatedly invalidated by the sources credence. Your TE pushing of such nonsense needs to stop. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For all the discussion on the talk page, I don't see any useful reliable sources there that aren't in the article. To quote WP:UNDUE Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. There are a buttload of sources on one side of this issue, just as there are a buttload of sources on one side of the shape of the earth, but our role is not to ensure that the flat-earthers get equal column-inches. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not about ensuring that "that the flat-earthers get equal column-inches". It's about presenting and phrasing the discussion in an impartial and neutral manner, and not taking any sides. starship.paint ~ regal 00:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Per the tag, please identify specifically one of these "phrasings" or "not taking sides" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

For the record, starship, Avono, Belorn, Random, and Retartist, (all five of whom argued for keeping the tag) are all very much not SPAs as you claim. Not sure why this is being raised here as it is clearly a content dispute and not a matter for administrative attention, unless you are requesting full protection of the article, but that should be requested at RPP. You are literally just fueling the edit war.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Disagree: I agree with the devil's advocate that this isn't an appropriate issue for ANI. If anything a failure at the talkpage should result in an RFC to get more opinions. Seeking to settle content disputes through administrative action rather than consensus is an endemic problem here. As far as the tag goes, it is clearly the case that the neutrality of the article in under dispute, and casually reading the article makes me feel that is correct. The article is pseudo-psychoanalysis written by people with no experience in psychology trying to diagnose an unorganized group as being driven to misogyny due to a cultural identity crisis. Being a reviewer of videogames doesn't qualify you to discuss the death of "the gamer" identity. I also couldn't help but notice that after skimming the article I have come absolutely no closer to understanding what these groups are even arguing about; it seems the article should be renamed Analysis of GamerGater's motives by the media.AioftheStorm (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Agree. The weight of reliable sources is so far tipped against them, that User:Masem has resorted to attempting to jettison a core principle of Wikipedia regarding reliable sources with tortured -- and evidence-free -- claim about how ironclad reliable sources aren't actually reliable, owing to some original reasoning rendering them suspect, which is -- somehow -- supposed to therefore allow the GamerGate partisans s,ome sort of carte blanche to tip the scales. And User:The Devil's Advocate is, of course, once more indulging in his hobby of being contrarian for its own sake. --Calton | Talk 02:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The bulk of the sourcing about GG is opinions; there has been no verified evidence (outside of observation) that the GG movement is one based on misogyny: The pattern appears misogynistic to most of the press, but that's opinion, and not fact. That does not jettison any RSes, but instead demands we treat them as opinion pieces and not fact. The overreliance of opinions, however, does pose an NPOV problem.--MASEM (t) 04:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• BLP issues: One has to be careful: the Gamergate controversy is basically a number of unfounded attacks on a number of named individuals, and a number of - to use the term people are using above - "Gamergaters" who want to promote these attacks. We can't, per WP:BLP, repeat the claims of the Gamergaters without quite a lot of sourcing explaining that there's no evidence. As such, we literally cannot give into the demands. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Agree - removed it once, only to be reverted by one of the involved editors here whose other edits consist of MMA and "professional" "wrestling" article minutia. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Disappointing that an admin someone needs to bring up my background to make a point, and only half right about that too. (yeah my post is ironic) starship.paint ~ regal 13:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agree The many enthusiasts will prevent removal of the POV tag despite the fact that there is no reason for its presence other than as an expression of discontent. The talk page discussion gives no examples of problematic text, and the only justification is to point to an unclear vote. The issues presented by this topic are rare, and an uninvolved admin should remove the tag and warn anyone restoring it that a precise justification is required before addition. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There's been many many other sections , outside of that one, at least by myself, through the current and the archives. The lead is not impartial (immediately focusing on an effect of the controversy and not the subject of it), and the section about the ethics concerns of the GG is written against how IMPARTIAL and FRINGE would suggest, giving those parts the benefit of the doubt. I've also repeatedly address the use of far too many lengthy quotes to drill how "GG IS BAD, OKAY". We don't have to give that side any sympathy since the sources don't do it, but we shouldn't prejudge them in WP's tone and voice. --MASEM (t) 04:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Masem, you are inverting the very meaning of WP:FRINGE to say that when the reliable sources report something, Wikipedia should go out of our way to find less reliable sources that disagree. That's exactly what WP:FRINGE is supposed to preclude: a false equivalency in the name of a bogus balance not supported by reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
      • That's absolutely not what I'm asking for. I've been working on the basis that the sources that are there are fixed. And they are clearly against the GG side. That can't change, the article will absolutely carry a pre-dominate "antiGG" basis. However, impartialness and balance are two different things. And no, I'm not asking either for what the proGG would really love, having them smell like flowers and trash the press side, that's absolutely impossible. I am trying to get the article to be impartial - which means that when we present any arguments in favor of proGG, we don't give those any more praise in WP's voice, and when we present arguments against GG, we don't condemn them in the same way- the balance of sources is not touched at all. Absolutely 100%, we are going to say "the mainstream press considers GG misogystic-driven movement", as that is impartial, but we cannot say "GG is a misogystic-driven movement" , or use lenghty pull quotes to keep pounding that point into place. --MASEM (t) 04:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
      • As an example of what I would consider impartial, this [129] is an edit (later reverted) to the section about the ethics concerns of the GG, which generally have been laughed off, for the most part, by the press. My change did not drop any sources (in fact added more critical sources of the movement), but simply reordered the language to follow how FRINGE puts it - give the minority point at least whatever reason space can be given. Which works out to a handful of sentences out of 5 total paragraphs - the balance that the credibility of the GG's ethics issues have been given in the press. But the way it is written (give or take grammar) doesn't prejudge the GG side as the prior version had done, until after we've given all we really can on the GG side. --MASEM (t) 04:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Masem, you're really getting it wrong. "Some say X", "Some say Y", is your version of "impartial"? That's not an encyclopaedia article, that's a bunch of wish-washy nonsense. You're trying to skirt around the facts reported by reliable sources, discrediting them with "some". If you actually had to write out the substance of the "some", it would be "nearly all sources that Wikipedia usually considers reliable". This is WP:GEVAL, pure and simple, and it is wrong. I'm shocked to see that you are an administrator, given that you clearly lack comprehension of the applicable policies. RGloucester — ☎ 04:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  No it's not, that's absolutely not what I have. We have a controversy, with two primary sides. The GG side which has minimal - but enough - coverage to explain what their point is, and the rest of the media/press that strongly condemned that side for its actions and its unactionable statements. As per FRINGE, like the Birthers or the 9/11 truthers, we explain - without prejudgement - what the fringe point is, and then we start explaining the criticism about that point. "Some say X" "Some say Y" is a fair way to handle that. WE have to be wishy-washy and not take any sides regardless of the press (aka court of public opinion) in presenting information, though that won't change the balance. --MASEM (t) 05:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Sorry Masem, but your claims about Gamergate have no basis in standard procedure and you are losing credibility. There is no pro-gamergate organization that could be described in a neutral manner per what it did and what statements it made. The only thing that actually exists is an ill-defined group of gamers, some of whom have performed despicable harassment, with many more who have supported the harassment—even at Wikipedia, we see commentary about how the claims of the victims may be a hoax. There are plenty of gamers who do not support harassment, but no reliable sources have tracked them down and written a coherent account of what they have done and what statements they have made. Therefore, there is very little material that can show pro-gamergate activity in a positive manner. The resulting article is a product of WP:NPOV. Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Again, I'm not asking to show it in a positive manner (we can't), but simply to give them a say without comment in a clinically neutral manner. For example, one thing we can document from antiGG sources is that the proGG side wants reviews for games done in a more objective manner, which most of us all agree is a contradiction of what a review is. But we can document from a high quality RS that this is there claim. And that's all we'd be able to say in any sort of favor about it. So the next sentence in the prose would be the appropriate response to that by the press, which has been one of ridicule. However, I am aware there are many many more claims that some GGers have made like "false flags" by the targets of harassment, but these claims have not been picked up by any reliable source at all, so there's absolutely no reason to include that. My point is that there is a few points made about the GG side that are made by the better reliable sources that we can address without comment or twisting the statement, and then provide a lengthy counterpoint about why that's not going to fly. It is just like we do with other FRINGE topics. --MASEM (t) 06:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Isn't that more or less what the second sentence of the article says? "Many supporters ... say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism" Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, but after presenting the result of the controversy (the harassment and misogyny) which is prejudging the issue and not impartial; compared to where if we simply moved that part of the first sentence to the third sentence, we ascribe no "topic" of what the controversy is broadly about (that's part of the issue of reporting it in the first place) and then present one side (second sentence), and then the counterpoint of the other side (third sentence). This is a similar way to redo the section about ethics considers as I linked in the diff above, stating that those concerns without prejudging them, and then throwing all the opinions of the press to show how fringy they are. --MASEM (t) 06:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  That's because the controversy has nothing to do with journalism ethics — outside of the pro-GG fringe, the debate is entirely framed around the campaign of vile harassment and threats made by the movement's supporters. Nobody outside the movement takes the "but ethics" claims seriously, because as has been discussed in literally dozens of reliable sources, the movement hasn't made any meaningful claims that neutral sources view as being about journalism ethics. The only people with the POV that GamerGate is about journalism ethics are GG supporters, and they are demonstrably a fringe POV, based upon the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. What we have is a situation where everyone outside GG looks at the movement and says "Wow, there's a lot of misogynistic harassment against women who aren't even journalists, they're bizarrely demanding 'objective reviews' that don't exist, they want to silence anyone who is criticising games from a feminist perspective and are still clinging to long-discredited arguments about Zoe Quinn. Literally none of this has anything to do with journalism ethics." GG supporters respond "but ethics!" repeated ad infinitum. Wikipedia cannot fail to take into account that clear and indisputable dichotomy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  • It takes a quick glance at the article to see that there is bias, so I find these complaints ridiculous. If you want specifics:

Actor Wil Wheaton and former NFL player Chris Kluwe also posted criticisms of GamerGate, with Kluwe's being noted for its use of "creative insults",

Why are we randomly praising the insults of someone against GamerGate as being "creative"?

"virulent opposition to social criticism and analysis of video games."

Is one reporter, really sufficient to back up the claim that so-called "GamerGaters" are fundamentally opposed to social criticism and analysis of videogames? That is a ridiculous thing for someone to be opposed to and sounds like projecting.

"However, Hill said that Gamergate's perception of how the games industry works is "completely different" from reality"

This needs elaboration. It is just a floating sentence, it doesn't connect with the previous sentence or subsequent sentence. Can we at least **explain** what their perception of the games industry is if we are going to call it completely wrong?

"Gamergate really can't claim to have exposed anything but their own visceral meanness, which borders on fascism,"

Are we just building a coatrack to hang any negative quotes we can find about GamerGaters?

"Writing in Vox, Todd VanDerWerff said "Every single question of journalistic ethics GamerGate has brought up has either been debunked or dealt with", yet "GamerGate seems to keep raging simply to do two things: harass women and endlessly perpetuate itself so it can keep harassing women."

I am confused. Earlier in this article, it is stated "Video game journalists have acknowledged that there are conflicts of interest and other ethical problems within the video game industry, with some news sites adopting new policies in response to the Gamergate controversy." This is a recurrent theme in this article, stating that there are legitimate problems with ethics in gaming journalism, but that Gamergaters haven't focused on these problems. Now we are quoting a journalist stating that Gamergaters cannot come up with a single legitimate ethics problem, and that they are driven solely to by a desire to harass women. At the very least I would like to hear what these debunked questions of journalism ethics were/are?

"In The Guardian, Jon Stone called GamerGate "a swelling of vicious right-wing sentiment", saying it included known neo-nazis, it almost exclusively attacked "others" and those it sees as "biased", it has hit lists of undesirable journalists, and used military-style hyperbole. "

What could be less biased then mentioning that there are GamerGaters who are "known neo-nazis". I'm sure there are Republican and Democrat neo-Nazis as well, should we just mention that in passing in their respective articles?

While saying gamers were just "opposed to change for the sake of change",

So they are misogynists, with neo-Nazis, who are opposed to any type of social criticism or analysis of videogames, are opposed to change just because they hate change. I'm sure there's more in this article I would dislike if I continued reading it, but I think I've made my point, and I think those claiming that the article isn't biased have not actually read the article.AioftheStorm (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You are almost exclusively complaining about quoted text rather than anything original to Wikipedia. And this belongs on the article talk page rather than here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You have a point with that "creative insults" thing (it's unnecessary), but are pretty wrong about everything else. Volunteer Marek  05:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"Creative insults" is a quote from one of the sources cited in the article that essentially paraphrases Kluwe's uses of the phrases "slackjawed pickletits", "slopebrowed weaseldicks", and "basement-dwelling, cheetos-huffing, poopsock-sniffing douchepistol" amongst others.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@ All 3 of you: it is obviously biased to cherry pick a bunch of random insults and place them them throughout an article, please explain how mentioning that there are Neo-Nazis who are also gamergaters is not "unnecessary", and please consider issues like how repeatedly characterizing a subject with negative adjectives while applying positive ones like "creative" to the criticizer of the subject can generate an overall biased tone to the article. Please see the article on Hitler and notice how it doesn't excessively pepper the prose with disparaging adjectives and quotes about Hitler, but actually tries to inform the reader about the subject. That is what an NPOV article is.AioftheStorm (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Are we really allowing the constant comparisons to Hitler on ANI when it has been banned from the talk page? But I digress.

If you would read the reference being cited for the "Neo-Nazi" mention, it would go on to say how Gamergate has been co-opted by right-wing conservatives who don't give a damn about video games or video game journalism and are instead people who are anti-women, anti-feminism, or anti-minorities. And "creative insults" is a quote in the reference cited. Everything is in the references being cited. They are all marked as quotations from the citations. Read the references instead of going on and on about bias that doesn't exist.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been to the talkpage, so I have no idea about special Hitler sanctions, and I fail to see how pointing out that the Hitler article is NPOV despite the overwhelming amount of sources being extremely negative about him would be in anyways problematic or how it constitutes "constant comparisons to Hitler". You have not provided any argument about the merits of inclusion of details such as there are known Neo-Nazis who are gamergaters, you have simply and inadequately responded that all these factoids have appeared in reliable sources. Inclusion in a reliable source is not sufficient for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, there are concerns such as NPOV and there are mechanisms such as placing tags at the tops of articles in order to ensure that those concerns are addressed. And since I can't use Hitler I will bring up another generic "bad guy", Commodus, and point out that his article isn't hodgepodge of negative attack quotes. Are there thousands of negative attack quotes about Commodus? Most certainly, probably enough to fill hundreds of articles. But it would be similarly biased if it contained those.AioftheStorm (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The "Hitler" comparisons prevail in offsite discussions. And I answered our questions regarding the "Neo-Nazi" mention and the "creative insults" question. Not to mention that there's nothing on Gamergate controversy that says "this group is evil". There is a statement saying what they've done is misogynistic which is a statement supported by like 75% of the citations on that article so I don't know why people constantly compare the Gamergate article to the articles Hitler, Commodus, the KKK, and plenty of other people or groups considered morally "evil".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Which part of your response explains why the mention of Neo-Nazis in this passage is at all relevant:

In The Guardian, Jon Stone called GamerGate "a swelling of vicious right-wing sentiment", saying it included known neo-nazis, it almost exclusively attacked "others" and those it sees as "biased", it has hit lists of undesirable journalists, and used military-style hyperbole. He also said that any attempts to engage with GamerGate was seen as an act of provocation while silence on the matter was seen as hostility. He also said that when The Escapist tried to get a balanced piece from people on both sides of the argument, the male Gamergate interviewees were "eager to provide and flesh out a mythology that rationalises hatred towards the feminist/progressive element in games", leading Stone to compare them to Rush Limbaugh and Richard Littlejohn, while any female participants sought anonymity. He also compared them to the men's rights movement in that they sidelined any discussion on sexism for which they may hold a form of responsibility, and instead make themselves out to be victims.[96]

The bolded part could be completely removed and it would do nothing to change the meaning of the other parts of the passage. You seem to be arguing that mentioning neo-Nazis is relevant because the source connects it to groups like neo-Nazis infiltrating the Gamergaters. But the Wikipedia article provides no such context, instead it provides a thoughtless list of negative tidbits culled from a source with no indication of importance.AioftheStorm (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it can't be removed. It's a key part of Stone's point that GamerGate is being co-opted by fringe groups to push their own ends, taking advantage of the fact that GG has no organized leadership or objectives which could steer it away from political extremism. The Guardian is one of the most respected English-language news sources on the planet and an indisputable reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"a key part of Stone's point" that is never presented in the Wikipedia article. All Wikipedia does is state there are known neo-Nazis who are gamergate supports, an obviously inflammatory salacious detail, and the only time Stone mentions neo-nazis is in this one line "Marching under the incredibly vague banner of “journalistic ethics” allows bona fide neo-nazis to hold hands with ticked-off customers and claim common cause.". He could have replaced neo-nazis with any other extremist group without changing his message; the fact that he mentions neo-nazis is hardly a "key part" of Stone's op-ed. All Stone is arguing is that anyone can march under their banner due to its vague goal, and what Wikipedia has instead reported is simply that "Stone called GamerGate "a swelling of vicious right-wing sentiment", saying it included known neo-nazis". There are obvious differences between how Wikipedia and Stone are presenting this: Stone uses it to highlight a point which could've been highlighted with any fringe group, Wikipedia mentions it in it of itself. Besides this nobody has still addressed the fact that the article is a coatrack of unnecessarily inflammatory quotes.AioftheStorm (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• You know, some may say certain specific GamerGate concerns about ethics in journalism are fringe or not (can you really call it fringe when numerous major outlets adjust their policies in response?), but the view that ethics in journalism is a major or predominant concern of GamerGate is hardly fringe. Numerous sources, including ones cited in the article, agree that GamerGate is about ethics in gaming journalism. Some are fully sympathetic, others see that as being overshadowed by harassment, but there is really no way anyone can look over the entire body of sources and come to the conclusion that agreeing with GamerGate is akin to believing the Earth is a square. It is a minority view, but not a fringe view. The majority view is definitely not that somehow these concerns are just a smokescreen, though there are some sources presenting that view. You would not get that from reading the article in its current state, because editors like Tarc have been allowed to run wild. Best way to describe the majority view would be, basically, that people feel any legitimate ethics concerns they have are overshadowed by harassment. Honestly, whatever the Arbs intended when they allowed Tarc certain unstated exceptions for posting at ANI, I am pretty sure "gathering a posse to edit war and canvass a discussion where I am involved" was not what they had in mind. Pretty sure such a use of ANI was actually the opposite of their intentions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  It's a major predominant concern of Gamergate, but their concerns are as a whole fringe unto themselves because outside of the "Patreon" clauses put forth at Kotaku and the Escapist and Polygon, there was no actual corruption to speak of. They just added the clause to just make sure that these idiotic complaints ledged against the people involved won't happen again. There obviously is corruption in video game journalism, but it's not coming from any personal relationships between indie developers and any people writing on Kotaku or Polygon who may have sent them $5 on their crowdfunding campaigns.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  The editor-in-chief of Destructoid resigned over some questionable activities on GameJournPros dude and you actually fucking know that shit too since you at one point reluctantly added it to the article. Sure, that sort of stuff is not getting widespread coverage and when issues GamerGate does discuss get covered, such as Shadow of Mordor or the Aussie Gaming media stuff, GamerGate is rarely ever mentioned by these outlets, so you obviously know it is not limited to Patreon donations. On another note, why the hell are any of us discussing this at ANI again? What admin action is being requested?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  It was also removed from the article for BLP reasons seeing as issues weren't confirmed. And Gamergate didn't break that story IIRC. And the administrative request is to deal with editors that demand that the NPOV tag remain despite common sense on Wikipedia saying otherwise.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  You are wrong about GamerGate not having anything to do with that, but leaving that aside, how exactly is an administrator supposed to do something about those editors or the tag? Tarc claimed most of the people who objected to removing the tag were SPAs, but all you have to do is look at the names I mentioned to realize that ain't gonna fly. Is he calling on admins to choose sides in a dispute and enforce it? Are we now using ANI to address content issues? Seriously, what the hell are people agreeing to above? That is not particularly clear to me. Looks like Tarc is just trying to rally an army behind him to push his position in a content dispute and the others are signing on for the task or is just looking to get an admin to make a supervote.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  They're supposed to uphold Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when the editors themselves cannot or will not. The NPOV tag does not belong on the article as a way for the gaters to say "WE DISAGREE WITH THIS" when there are no valid complaints regarding the neutrality of the page, particularly when so many administrators and editors have been extensively disagreeing with the actions of several established editors pushing a POV under the guise of seeking neutrality as well as the various obvious single purpose accounts (that is brand new accounts created to stir the pot) and accounts revived by Redditors and the 4chan to 8chan exodus to get past the semi-protected status. But we have no real rule on this, at least not until ArbCom actually decides that Gamergate is worth their time and the concept of "zombie accounts" gets written into Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Except, the tag is being kept because there are various disputes regarding the article's neutrality that are not resolved. Some of them are long-running issues that have never been resolved. The only reason the article is in its current state is because you and a group of other editors have spent far more time than anyone else systematically slanting all material towards your POV then revert as much as possible to insure your preferred version sticks simply because other people tire of dealing with you guys. Once again, why is this an admin issue? The validity of the tag is fundamentally a content dispute. Despite what you and Tarc have said, a very large number of established editors with significant pre-GamerGate editing history this year have been objecting to your edits and the attempts to remove the tag. You appear to be either canvassing or looking for a supervote.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  The "POV" you claim I possess is the same POV as the mainstream media looking at Gamergate from the outside in. It's the POV that you and several other editors share with the Gamergate movement that has no place on Wikipedia. And no. This "very large number of established editors with significant pre-Gamergate editing history this year" almost exclusively refers to the "zombie accounts" issue. Nearly all of these people have done nothing on Wikipedia in the past 3 months other than push the Gamergater POV. Barely any of them have touched an article that is not in some way related to Gamergate because every time someone tries to get something done on the article the clarion call is sent out to r/KotakuInAction and /gg/ to keep everything in the status quo and hope that they get rid of the people that they disagree with through whatever vague attempts to game people into being so fed up with them that they get banned. There are so many more people in good standing who are established editors who are here more often and most of them are administrators who are looking at this dispute and finding it so impossible to get through because of the constant disruption happening from offsite that is only being enabled by the editors effectively on their side. That's why they're exclusively looking to discredit myself, Tarc, TaraInDC, TheRedPenOfDoom, and NorthBySouthBaranof and not giving a shit about anything editors like you or Tutelary have done. That's why there's a thread on /gg/ right now imploring people to go through my over 200k edits looking for anything that they can feed to Retartist to use if the arbcom case gets accepted. Why they've gone to ED and Wikipedia Review and Wikipedocracy to find whatever they can against me. Why they brought up banned users I had had a hand in getting rid of who released my old emails or other personal details that had no reason to end up on any website. It shouldn't go this Hubble Deep Field deep but here we are.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  The "POV" you claim I possess is the same POV as the mainstream media looking at Gamergate from the outside in. It's the POV that you and several other editors share with the Gamergate movement that has no place on Wikipedia.

  You don't understand NPOV, it is not to select the POV of the right/mainstream/winning side and reflect that and remove the other sides POV, it is to have a neutral POV that doesn't apply value judgements to any of the sides.AioftheStorm (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  The "neutral POV" is one that completely discounts one "side" of the "debate"'s very arguments for existing. Gaters are no different than people going "Grassy Knoll" or "Obama is a Kenyan".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  The neutral POV isn't whatever POV you think is correct. Flat-Earthers are obviously wrong about their views, but an NPOV article would a)Report their views, b)Report the contradicting view of all known science, c)Not adopt the condescending and incredulous tone that most people have when discussing people who believe the world is flat.AioftheStorm (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Except Gamergate controversy isn't an article about the Gamergate movement, as denoted by its title.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You know, I am just going to stop addressing this shit. The arbitration request is open and evidence from the past week will be provided if necessary. Sadly, you and Tarc do not even seem to get that you are digging a hole for yourselves with these remarks. P.S. Auerbach.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Appending "Controversy" to the end of anything suffixed with -gate is a redundancy, and it was only done here because Gamergate was already the name of a type of ant. The fact that you think this article isn't about GamerGaters and doesn't need to report their beliefs illustrates how badly it needs a rewrite, and the importance of the NPOV template at the top.AioftheStorm (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  "GamerGate" the movement doesn't meet WP:GNG as much as "GamerGate" the controversy surrounding the movement does. The article is not solely about "GamerGaters" so there's no reason to frame any information in the article in any way that legitimizes their causes at any stage of their history because the world at large doesn't believe them. The article can contain their claims as to being all about ethics in video game journalism but that's not the majority view point on what GamerGate has become. The reliable sources used in the article depict GamerGate as an anti-feminist backlash in video game culture rather than any sort of valid consumer movement and that the claims of ethics (whether it be pointing out alleged corruption in the video game media or the demands that video game reviews be more objective) are not valid or are being used as a front to further the campaign of hatred towards the women in video game development or the feminist critics who dared to speak their mind, no matter how many times they can say that the person who sent the shooting threat to USU was some "Brazilian clickbait blogger" or deny that anyone in their movement has been involved in any of the publications of addresses and phone numbers or the constant harassment and death threats sent to people. Multiple people completely uninvolved in video games journalism have made these distinctions. And there have been multiple people who have identified that the various talking head heroes of GamerGate are a bunch of right-wing pundits who have had nothing to do with video games before but have had plenty to do with anti-feminism. "But ethics" is a meme now because no one takes the demands of Gamergate seriously until someone has to call the FBI to report extremely specific and violent threats. All of this is supported by the sources in the article. Except maybe the "Brazilian clickbait blogger" bit because I don't think any reliable source has actually covered that but it is a constant point of contention on /gg/ when they have to complain about Sarkeesian.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy close please, this is clearly a content dispute. There is already a talk page discussion about the removal of the tag, and (apparently) there is no consensus to remove it. Please note I am completely uninvolved about GamerGate, I am just tired to see on daily basis inconsistent and sometimes frivolous GamerGate threads at WP:AN. Cavarrone 09:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  As far as I'm aware this is the first thread in at least a week because that was when the general sanctions were put in place. And "no consensus to remove" is inorrect because the people arguing for retention have no guideline or policy based reason for retention. It is being used to say "We don't like how this article depicts our side" when their side doesn't have a majority view point on the matter as stated time and time again. Perhaps this is a content dispute, but it needs an administrator to end it seeing as multiple uninvolved editors, one of whom was an administrator, all attempted to remove the tag based on their understanding of the events ([130], [131], [132], [133]) and all were immediately reverted ([134], [135], [136], [137])—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagree This is an attempt to create a false consensus in a less viewed part of Wikipedia, this discussion belongs on its talk page, as it was placed before, and time and time again, there's been NO consensus, and there's a real concern about NPOV Loganmac (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• • HUH? how is bringing in outside views to "a less viewed part of Wikipedia" an attempt to create a "false consensus"??????-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagree There is NPOV problem and every source, no matter how reliable, is labeled "fringe" or "unreliable" unless it supports a particular narrative, then the source is "okay" for that purpose. Tarc, for violating Arbcom sanctions and forum shopping should be topic banned at a minimum based on the general sanctions as applied to the topic. Amping up the drama should be dealt with extreme prejudice. The tag should remain until consensus is reached which has not happened. --DHeyward (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• • again, what specific issues in the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with DHeyward. There are too many marginal sources in the article. It doesn't matter what they say or who they support, anything less than the highest quality mainstream sources should be removed. I'll put a list on the article talk page presently. aprock (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with too many marginal sources. Lines like this one from the online-only "Paste Magazine": "In Paste magazine, Garrett Martin suggested that any concerns about ethics in journalism were merely a cover for attacking women, even if some sincerely believed otherwise." It directly contradicts other sources that state that gamergater's legitimate concerns are drown out by misogyny, by now stating that they they have no legitimate concerns and are all about misogyny. And what even are their concerns? The article never mentions them, because according to editors here the article is about criticism of gamergaters and not gamergaters and therefore their views don't need to be presented. This article is literally nothing more than a disparate collection of criticisms of gamergaters culled from op-eds, and serves only to highlight the fact that our site is unequipped to handle controversial topics.AioftheStorm (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The sources have been discussed on the talk page. The removal of content based on a small but persistent group of editors has created the NPOV issue and is the exact reason why NPOV tags exist. The contant discussion is extremely long and that should be the first clue that there is an NPOV problem. The whole NotYourShield meme was created out of this. Everyone in touch with reality knows this is the case but the current narrative removes this perspective based on arbitrary interpretations on the realiabilty of sources. It's dubious at best and deceitful at worst. WP should not be a social justice cheerleader nor should it be a shill for gamer viewpoints. It's currently biased as a social justice cheerleader whence the NPOV tag. The one constant theme in discussion is acknowledgement that other prominent viewpoints exist but because of bizarre interpretations of policy, they can't be reflected in the article. That's an NPOV problem. --DHeyward (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Please actually identify specific "arbitrary misrepesentations". Yes, there are a bunch of rabble that repeatedly appear chanting the mantra "UNFAIR! BIAS! POV!" But, no one is, as is required for the NPOV banner, identifying specific instances in the article that are actually bias. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's on the talk page. Are you unaware on the shear volume of talk pages comments? Are you unaware that sites like "gawker" are acceptable for on narrative but deemed unreliable for another? That's the convoluted logic on the talk page that justifies the NPOV tag. We cannot summarize the volume of talk arguments here. It's a POV problem that is obvious by the shear number of talk page comments that challenge NPOV with no compromise or collaboration. --DHeyward (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what immediate admin action is needed here. I'd appreciate it if Orangemike could keep an eye on the page and talk page discussion (as we have a shortage of uninvolved admins), but I don't think there's anything here which looks like an "incident" Protonk (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Protonk: The admin action requested is a determination of whether or not there is a community consensus for whether the conditions for placing/removing the tag have been met. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support removal of tag. Tags are supposed to be for actual problems with articles, not for stubborn but fringe groups to register their continued disapproval with the correct application of Wikipedia policies. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Pointless !vote to keep tag The neutrality of the article has been disputed so many times. It's just short of I believe...uh...an insane number. But this !vote is pointless because you can't vote on content. And specifically administrators trying to use their tools to endorse or deny content I think is a big step too far; and a dangerous precedent. Tutelary (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I've hit on a brainstorm of why there is the consternation on this article, and recognizing that there are two different types of POV here: the one that is coming from the proGG side that would want the article to more reflective of their side - something we absolutely cannot do given the sources - and the writing style POV issues that myself and others have pointed out. I have proposed an idea of rethink the structure of the article to make it 100% clear that the article primarily about the controversy over the harassment, and not as much about the "controversy" that the GG movement wants addressing; with that clarity in the setup of the article, there is absolutely no way we can justify the first POV aspect, and I'm confident we can remove the POV nature on the writing style since we won't be kludging the two aspects together. More details can be found at [138], if anyone wishes to comment. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Coordination

I was asked above to provide evidence of lobbying at 8chan. See https://8chan.co/gg/2.html (this will scroll to a later page eventually, of course) where a thread specifically seeks to gather evidence against NorthBySouthBaranof, Ryulong, Tarc, RedPenOfDoom, TaraInDC, Gamaliel, and Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise. Another wikipedia thread is here: https://8chan.co/gg/res/478105+50.html.

But 8chan aside, there is an overwhelming likelihood that this page will be edit-warred indefinitely by GamerGate supporters. As long as they can muster a few editors at the talk page, they can perpetually argue that removing the NPOV tag is not supported by consensus because support for removing the tag will never be unanimous. This will ultimately require a policy decision. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

8chan's GamerGate board talks about stuff concerning GamerGate? Shock.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The sausage making of wikipedia articles is not about gamergate. The targeting of editors is certainly a disruptive tactic. aprock (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess I can say finally that collecting on wiki links is a 'disruptive tactic'. (No literally, that's what they were doing. Though they kind of got carried away by taking screenshots of Ryulong's Twitter and trying to submit or aver that is valid proof.) Tutelary (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, this is the new thread. "WP ARBCOM GENERAL" I'm merely monitoring it for links. --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Close per WP:DR policy - stop the spillover drama over a content dispute tag

• Propose close as beyond scope of ANI per WP:DR, section 4. The administrators' noticeboards (e.g. AN and ANI) are not the place to raise disputes over content or conduct. Reports that do not belong at these noticeboards will be closed, and discussions will need to be re-posted by you at an appropriate forum – such as the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN). This request was started by an editor under arbcom sanction and should have been WP:BOOMERANGed immediately and closed so dispute resolution can occur. There is no action that is immediately necessary on a 3 month dispute. Close and salt gamergate content disputes. --DHeyward (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• And.. what do you want the admin to do? - This is WP:ANI, these kind of things should be handled on the article's talkpage. In my opinion I would go ahead and even say that the article should be fully protected until a consensus is worked out here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:51, 12 November 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.

@Mdann52: You were predictably and almost immediately reverted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the restoration (eg removing the tag) per this close decision. --MASEM (t) 07:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Close is absolutely and positively gaming the consensus policy

One user cannot close this heavy, hard hitting discussion because apparently 5 'agree' and 5 'disagree' votes is now a consensus towards the 'agree' side. When did we started getting into this? WP:ANI cannot be used to deal with content disputes, and for the 'No discussion ongoing on talk page.' Are you freakin' serious? Check out the archives and archives and the just recently, the NPOV dispute section and the like. There was absolutely on going discussion so I've reverted such a close. There is positively and absolutely NO CONSENSUS to remove the tag in any formality. More on his close, he also reverted the tag before his close, citing WP:ANI...before he closed the discussion based on the false premise that there was no active discussion. Tutelary (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And I have restored the close; you're clearly involved in this controversy and should not be unilaterally undoing a close merely because you disagree with the outcome. Consensus is not !voting, and all consensus decisions must fundamentally comply with policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I also disagree with this closure. Discussion at the talk page is clearly ongoing, consensus over there is overwhelming right now. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

1) it's !notavote. and 2) mere claims of "bias" without identifying specific actionable instances where the article is not representative of the mainstream sources is not a valid rationale for the tag. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: As for the timing issue, If you are going to bring up a 2 minute gap between me removing the tag and saving the close, that is stupid (the difference is actually due to an edit conflict if I remember correctly, or I may have just forgotten to click save, realised my error, then completed it). As I've mentioned on my talk page, leaving a tag in place that is clearly having no effect is like tagging an article for notability while at AfD. In this case, there should not be a tag in place, as discussions keep breaking down and starting up. As and when there is a serious discussion into this, then this may be worth revisiting, but only when a NPOV can be shown, which IMO as an uninvolved editor prior to this, it has not. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You've really been trying to justify it and even changed up the close trying to justify it. First, you say 'no valid discussion on talk page' to the close, making it biased and absolutely false. Then, when other editors complained, you didn't revert it. You still haven't reverted it. You've kept it there even though there was blatantly no consensus at all in this WP:ANI thread for ANI to rule in a content dispute. One single editor--you decided to instigate this 'close' and edit warred for it to stay in spite of its problems. Now, I'd like to ask you a single question; Was this a conduct dispute or a content dispute, in your eyes? If it's a conduct dispute, then you're in violation of closing a discussion in which you can't possibly enact the solution. (a violation of non admin closure) If it's a content dispute, then ANI cannot help and you've extended ANI's scope which is in itself a violation of its sovereignty and authority. And what's up with moving the goalposts? Seriously. First 'No active discussion' -> Active discussion starts -> 'No useful discussion started, just same rehasing' -> 'No uninvolved editor says there's a problem' (that's actually a Quest for Knowledge saying that there's a problem, btw) What's next? 'NPOV tag stays out until Tutelary gets off of my back?' Come now, don't you see the problematic nature of your close? I'm going to ask that you self revert the closure out of respect for other editors' remarks on it, not just myself. Tutelary (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Correct that it's not a vote. The problems with the article are clearly outlined, from tone to sourcing to balance and bias. Of course the tag should remain. The only reason it's been removed is because one side doesn't like it, and that's a problem regardless of what side you fall on the debate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

POV tag at Gamergate controversy being used as a scarlet letter Pt 2

Why was this discussion closed (and against consensus)? Many uninvolved editors (such as myself) have pointed out several issues with the article. The only editors who want the tag removed are heavily involved in this dispute. If anything, this should have been closed to keep the NPOV tag. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't appear to be a non-involved editor. If you do have specific and actionable NPOV concerns I would suggest you point them out in Talk:Gamergate controversy. This discussion should be closed. — Strongjam (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I only have one edit to the article itself (a style change) - I don't think that make me involved. The thread that you point it is about a poorly worded, confusing sentence, not about NPOV. And for the record, I have attempted to provide an outside view on the article talk page.[139] Perhaps you don't intend it this way, but you give the appearance of wanting to close down legitimate discussion, rather than resolve disputes in an atmosphere of mutual respect and cooperation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree on this, it says a lot about the current POV pushers already mentions when they worry about the POV tag, they might want people to take the article content as fact Loganmac (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This discussion does not say the article is neutral, or there are no issues, just that there is not a consensus to include the POV tag. Anyone interpreting my close as saying the POV is perfect is not reading it in the manner intended; Personally, I have no opinion on the tone of the article, as I really have not read the article nor the sources enough to determine this. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

However, there was ongoing discussion specifically about the tag; this section started by Volunteer Marek (a "put up or shut up"), I responded to with my specific issues as to why the NPOV tag should stay. And that's one of several sections about NPOV at the present talk page. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

...Which appears to support the action taken here, with you admitting people are refusing to build a consensus. If this is the case, then a tag encouraging discussion is not going to do it's job in any way. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

But the tag should help (discounting the fact/influence of external pressures to make changes to this article in a certain way) bring new voices to the discussion that might provide more insight or the like, as long as there remains a significant dispute. I will point out that no cleanup tag has a time limit on which actions should or should not be taken - I've seen articles tagged since 2007 with one or more of these. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And I do want to be clear, there's two ways that the POV tag could be taken. One way is the way that the external groups want to push for, that being that the article doesn't cover GG enough, puts it in far too much a bad light because of the weight of press criticism, etc. The problem is the sources cannot at all support that point, per NPOV/UNDUE/WEIGHT. If the POV tag was being used only for that, I would be completely behind it's removal. But I and others have pointed out the second way that the tag should be taken, in that while the article, broadly, meets the appropriate balance required by NPOV and available sourcing, the wording and approach is not an impartial take on the situation, which could be improved; the idea is not to make GG look any better (Because the sources prevent us), but to at least tone down the vitriol that the press has towards GG, that is presented in a manner that gives a strong non-impartial view of the situation. That's a POV situation that can be addressed and discussed, if people would work towards consensus, and thus a reason to keep the tag. (I'll follow any ANI decision on that, of course, I'm just expressing the reasons here) --MASEM (t) 20:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

How is is IMPARTIAL to misrepresent by "toning down" the external commentary that has been directed at GG? "Toning down" would in fact seem to be antithetical to WP:IMPARTIAL. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52: You have that backwards. The NPOV tag has been in the article for a long time. If someone wants to remove the tag, the burden to obtain consensus is on them, not the other way around. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Apex Horizon

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.

---

• Apex Horizon (talk · contribs)
• 3AM XXX XXX (talk · contribs)

Apex Horizon appears to be a sockpuppet account of 3AM XXX XXX, who has been indefinitely blocked for sock activity. User is adding grossly insulting posts to BLP articles like this one and attacking other users, such as with the the creation of this. This is Paul (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Blocked by HJ Mitchell as a vandalism only account. Thomas.W ^talk 19:03, 15 November 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:Universal_remote

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

---

I propose that this user be blocked indefinitely for attempting to out someone on their user page which was then speedily deleted. This edit also doesn't fill me with confidence. Jack Stamps (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not try to out someone on my page i am sorry for the inconvenience — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universal remote (talk • contribs) 20:35, 15 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Am letting you all know that the claim made by the user may indeed be correct as they have claimed the account is compromised here. Therefore I'll request that an administrator block it indefinitely on these grounds even if the above grounds do not warrant it. Jack Stamps (talk) 20:54, 15 November 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:Colorstv

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

---

See this and this edit for two examples of threats that this editor has made. Jack Stamps (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

As an update they've posted on my TP here that they were explicitly threatening to inform the Police of another editors perceived illegal editing. Therefore I'll request that an administrator block the editor at once. This has also been reported to the foundation's legal department via email. Jack Stamps (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to close this, the user's been blocked. Jack Stamps (talk) 22:30, 15 November 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.

86.159.37.87 posting libelous edit summaries

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Wharton&curid=27302490&diff=633657283&oldid=633435493 I consider this a libelous edit summary, and this IP is regularly vandalizing the James Wharton article to remove cited content. Please can you look at this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeonLego (talk • contribs)

I feel like I'm missing something. Who is Andrew Duffell? How is this libelous? Gamaliel (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I presume that from your accusations that a user is being libelous that you plan on taking legal action against them? If so then please read our policy prohibiting such threats and publicly retract it. Jack Stamps (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be accusing a politician of going against his party. I wouldn't think that qualifies as "libel", but it sounds like a BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Photography with copyright in the article of Christian Meier

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

---

Hi, I have a problem with a user who has uploaded a copyrighted photo. Here the photo, license that has is false. Because if they come on the page you will see that this page does not give permission to copy or use its content freely. I've left him a message in his discussion, But it has ignored it, I don't know if the message was correct. I think that the user reads summaries of issues, because he knows how to wear them, but I think that it has ignored that. I would like to know that you can do, because it was already tired of being reversed. :/.--McVeigh / talk 13:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The source website has a clear copyright notice on it that reads, "Copyright © 2012 ZGS Digital, Inc. Derechos reservados. All rights reserved". DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't find a Creative Commons release anywhere on that page, either. The image uploaded is also the exact same size as the image used in the slideshow on that page, not a higher-res image that would be available to the actual owner of the content. I've speedy deleted it as a non-free file without fair use usage. -- The Anome (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The image has been deleted by The Anome per speedy deletion criterion F6 (non-free file without a fair use rationale). De728631 (talk) 18:12, 15 November 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:JarosBaumBolles and conflict of interest.

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

---

The account JarosBaumBolles (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has been created for the sole purpose of promoting the company of the same name, Jaros, Baum & Bolles. The account has made an edit request to a semi protected article to include their name in the infobox at Talk:One World Trade Center (diff). The account has also attempted to directly include the company in the infobox at Two World Trade Center (diff). The company appears to have supplied the electrical and plumbing services to the building, but unless there is a need to list all the service suppliers (elevators, windows, carpetting, air conditioning etc. etc.), then their contribution is not notable enough to warrant inclusion. They were notified of the conflict of interest (diff). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A firm handling such an extremely large contract, the contract for the principal infrastructure components of a famous building, might be notable. This could be best examined by trying to write an article on it, preferably in Draft space. I think the principal subcontracters are suitable content for inclusion in the article--but certainly not in the infobox, which should be kept concise.

I point out that an account made properly for an individual to write appropriate content --or what is hoped will be appropriate content--is certainly permitted under the COI policy if disclosed. I suspect the contributor quite understandably did not know the peculiarities of our account name policy--a policy different from essentially all other WPs -- and thought that the name of the firm is sufficient disclosure. Of course an account writing only clearly promotional content for one or any number of companies will be blocked, because promotional content is inadmissible no matter who writes it. I consider this good faith editing, even if what they want to do does not have consensus. We should do a soft user name block, as usual in such cases. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Soft block applied.  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:08, 16 November 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.

Meatpuppetery by User:Weegeerunner

Accusations of sockpuppetry assistance/meatpuppetry have been retracted, but in turn 79.79.137.119 (talk · contribs · 79.79.137.119 WHOIS) was blocked by JamesBWatson for making legal threats. De728631 (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Am requesting that action is taken against this user for assisting a sockpuppeting troll (although they are not themselves the troll as has been confirmed by a CU) with their edit war here Gabriel Turner (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

open a SPI-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Done so consider this closed 79.79.137.119 (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

'79.79.137.119', are you the same person that claimed to be representing the Canadian House of Commons (despite having a UK-geolocated IP) yesterday? And are you the same person that claimed to be acting "instructions from the German ambassador" yesterday too? And are you also User:Gabriel Turner? [140] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes to the first two but no to the third. I happened to search SPIs and suggest an admin close this 79.79.137.119 (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this should be kept open until you explain why you were claiming to represent the Canadian House of Commons and the German ambassador while making legal threats on Wikipedia. [141][142] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I assume your point to the IP was that the OP should be asking for a close, not some IP off the wall. Usually when a user is anxious to get an investigation closed, it means the investigation is getting too near the truth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see an SPI for Weegeerunner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, my 'point' was that the IP had been making spurious legal threats, and that we need an explanation. And quite frankly, I have to suggest that I find the assertion that the IP and Gabriel Turner are different people less than entirely convincing - it should be noted that Gabriel Turner only created the account yesterday, but has dived straight in to raising a SPI and starting multiple threads here, while also issuing at least one questionable'vandalism' warning for what appears to be a legitimate edit (removing a name which in no way matched the subject's from a BLP infobox) from a new contributor. [143][144] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The mystery is why the IP remains unblocked, despite that outrageous legal threat. (Maybe the admins are all busy working on the backlog of SPI's.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Javier93h and the checkuser says that Weegeerunner is unrelated. I have blocked the IP for a week for the legal threats. -- GB fan 03:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

1). I was not a part of any edit wars, I just reverted an edit once because I thought consensus was against them. That does not violate WP:3RR. 2). I do not know anything about legal threats. Can someone show me where legal threats popped up? 3). I am not a sockpuppet nor a meatpuppet of anybody, I just make an edit.Weegeerunner (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The legal threats were by the IP who proposed this thread be closed - nothing to do with you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Anything about the other stuff I said? In my above post? Weegeerunner (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Your edits look fine to me, and there is no reason why they should have been raised here in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Alrighty then. Weegeerunner (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't think the socking claim belongs here but anyway let's abandon this thread as it has a lesser chance than a snowball in hell. Gabriel Turner (talk) 09:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Weegeerunner, it was me that mentioned the possibility of you being linked to Javier93h and his sock farm. Sadly, the Union, Progress and Democracy article has been a long term target of his socks and therefore when a new editor appears, looking clueful and reverting to Javier's preferred version, it does raise suspicions. Happily, I was wrong in this instance and I apologise if any offence was caused to you. Valenciano (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

To avoid further incidents like this, I suggest you look over the WP:NAAC page. It's funny how 1 simple meta page can avoid tons of incidents. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

In response to your response I completely retract any implied false allegations of sockpuppetery that may have been interpreted by you and am also sorry if I wasn't clear about my claim. Gabriel Turner (talk) 15:23, 15 November 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.

Defamation per se at Luxembourg Leaks

Apparently a website exists called Luxembourg Leaks which has listed dozens of companies as having made "shady deals" according to the source: Here's A Full List Of Companies That Allegedly Have Shady Tax Deals With Luxembourg. No evidence of any criminal activity is implied against the companies, buit apparently their private tax documents are being made public. Half the companies are non-notable, which is bad enough per WP:AVOIDVICTIM, but alleging bad business practices is Defamation per se and without specific documents of criminal charges, creating such a list amounts to both a violation of WP:ATTACK and a copyright vio of the attack blog itself, since it is simply a cut and paste of the blog's list with no independent verification. I have removed the list, but User:Thue has restored it, again using a copy-paste from a blog making defamatory accusations, with no independent verification of wrongdoing by any company on the list. I suggest the list be removed and the article frozen until the current AfD is completed, and a reference is provided for any individual company named. μηδείς (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Where does wikipedia list these companoes? I feel like I missed it on the page you are discussing. It seems like it says some 300 and something unnamed companies are involved.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The text above the list which Medeis removed said "This is the list of companies as of 6 November 2014 whose Luxembourg private tax rulings and corporation tax returns have been leaked". When Medeis says it is listed dozens of companies as having made "shady deals", Medeis' claim is false. The list is merely a factual complete list of companies whose tax paper has been leaked. Knowing which companies' have had their papers leaked is factual and central information for the leak. As for Medeis' claim of copyright infringement, databases are only protected under copyright as "collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship". Since the list is a complete listing, no selection has taken place, and as such is not protected by copyright in my understanding. As quoted in [145]:

In the case of Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a compilation work such as a database must contain a minimum level of creativity in order to be protectable under the Copyright Act."

A complete listing such as this one obviously contains no creativity. Thue (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I have closed the AfD which Medeis unwisely started for the article as a Snow keep. As for his claim that the list violates AVOIDVICTIM because half of the companies are not notable: don't mix "doesn't have an article" with "aren't notable). Looking at the redlinks, I see many that could very easily have an article, or that should simply be a redirect (FedEx Corp? Government Of The Emirate Of Abu Dhabi? LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton? ...) At least 90% of that list are notable companies (something like Vers.Werk Der Zahnärztekammer Westf. Lippe probably isn't, so I can't claim 100%). And of course WP:AVOIDVICTIM only appleis to persons anyway, not to companies... Fram (talk) 09:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Under certain circumstances BLPgroup would apply and avoid victim may apply.However looking the list and the sources it's fairly safe ro say that is doesn't apply here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

As already proposed here: This conflict might be solved by relocating the list to a wikipedia-list. Whether this new list complies with wikipedia rules and standards might be discussed then separately. -- Neudabei (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Creating a list on wikipedia on a separate page wouldn't fix Medeis claim.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Does anybody other than Medeis take that claim seriously? IMO Medeis has made a lot of extremely dubious claims in the attempt to get this article or parts of it deleted, including the claim "This page seems to be designed to promote a single website". Thue (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Not to worry about defaming major corporations - but the article also makes allegations about a specific named individual pushing the WP:BLP envelope. Additionally, the article read far more like a press release than a neutral expostion of fact. Collect (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I cannot see "defamatory accusations" by listing companies whose tax agreements with Luxembourg were disclosed to the public. Please compare with other wiki-lists: Category:Lists_of_companies (in particular: List of companies involved in the Holocaust). It's just factual. -- Neudabei (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

If the rest of the article is problematic then fix that. But that is not what this complaint was about. The section Medeis complained about was just a factual list of which companies' tax papers were leaked. If the reader concludes that just because a journalist chose to publish a company's tax forms then the company is engaged in tax avoidance then it is the readers own error, not ours. We just published a 100% factual list - it is absurd to claim that just posting a 100% factual list with an 100% unambiguous well-defined criterium for inclusion could construed as defamatory accusations in the legal sense. Thue (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, as of right now no individual names are actually listed in the article, so I assume that any WP:BLP you may have thought existed has already been fixed. I also do not think the current article reads like a press release. Thue (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Since I think the list is to long to be included in the article I created a wiki-list: List of multinationals with disclosed tax agreements in Luxembourg -- Neudabei (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Extortion of money for page i have COI on

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 report what i consider to be extortion by the editor Logical Cowboy. He added an advertising flag on the page Khalilah Rose which i have COI on then proceeded to ask me to give him money. To support this i reference a conversation i had with him asking for his advice in how to improve the article. While he has been blocking the page, he also has been Asking me to split the money i have been paid with him. Please refer to this screenshot of the conversation as well

Conversation with Wikipedia Editor

. Even after i have edited the page, Logical Cowboy still has not removed the flags that he placed on this page and has made no effort whatsoever to tell me what is "advertising" about it. I first reported this activity on the COI notice board but got no response about this. Now he has taken to hindering my efforts on the other page Carmine Miranda that i am working on claiming that "Carmine Miranda is now apparently instructing another account to remove unfavorable information from the article". This is untrue and unproven because i am the one who has been engaged to edit this page and any other edits from Wikipedia are not related to me or my client. I may be new to Wikipedia editing but it seems to me that this user holding the article i have COI on hostage so he can extort money from me. I have ignored the request from Logical Cowboy to split the money i was paid for a Wikipedia article however he has proceeded to follow other pages i am involved in to make counterproductive comments that i suppose are designed to force me to agree to pay him. I hope something can be done about this user and thank you Lilianarice (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

References

A ludicrous accusation. Offering to split the money, publicly, at his talk page? He was obviously being facetious. I have worked with him on many matters regarding catching and blocking undeclared paid editors. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Anna is completely correct here. He was being a bit snarky about the fact that you are getting paid to edit an article and you are asking for help. Frankly, I find his comment amusing and apropo. Coming here and twisting his humor into an accusation of extortion (which is not only against policy, but a crime in the state where Wikipedia hosts its servers) is offensive, as I refuse to believe you are really dumb enough to think that is extortion. My guess is that you thought you could win some points by bringing it here. You were wrong. If you have a COI, fine. If you are paid, fine. I really don't care, nor am I against getting paid as long as you are honest, and in that respect, you seem to be, so good for you. But some people don't like it, nor being asked to help someone collecting a check when they do it for free. That is a reasonable position, as is putting up the COI tags. So, suck it up, that is what you get paid for. Dennis - 2¢ 14:53, 16 November 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:Gurfan - unacceptable comments

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.

---

Please take action against user:Gurfan for the completely unacceptable comments posted on his talk page and at User talk:David Sher.

Diffs:[146], [147], [148] and [149]. User previously warned and informed of this report. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action.--ukexpat (talk) 03:31, 16 November 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 am

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

---

A sock of Mark Nutley, sorry to all, but I had have enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Well seeing as User:Marknutley is blocked sadly there is only one thing to do with this sock. The fact that this user lied to the community for 3 years says a-lot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• For reference: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley/Archive
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Huge, huge, huge ADMIN FAIL. We've had nothing but problem after problem with Darkness Shines for three fucking years, and it takes this admission to finally get him blocked? This is precisely why admin tools need to be debundled. Admins simply can't protect normal editors who want to get through a single day without dealing with nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is an admin fail, we are all human when you make friends on Wikipedia it becomes that much harder to hit the block button. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The point is that admins on Wikipedia are risk-averse and unwilling to do the right thing at any cost. They protect each other and defend the thin blue line over and above accountability to the community and protection of its members. The sooner admin tools are debundled the better off everyone will be. I will not forget the enormous amount of time Marknutley wasted followed by the incredible timesink of Darkness Shines. How many times was Darkness Shines brought here and how many times did admins do nothing? Sorry, but I think the admin institution has served its purpose and no longer benefits the community. It is simply unbelievable that Darkness Shines was allowed to edit here for three years. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There were a number of CU's with Mark. If any admin had known, DS would have been blocked. I would have, and I like DS. Saying it is because of being "friends" is an insult and isn't substantiated by any evidence. Dennis - 2¢ 00:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mention you Dennis, I just said that in my opinion it is harder to block someone over friendship. DS is clearly well liked even after it was shown he was a sock. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and it seems like more admins than editors loved him, considering the groveling I'm seeing on his talk page. I'm not at all surprised, considering that Darkness Shines made the editing environment impossible and had numerous admins to watch his back (see their comments on his talk page if you don't believe me). Once again, we see the admin community doing what they do best. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I am also Mark Nutley. --NE2 00:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

For the archive record: An SPI has been launched.

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 to appeal self imposed topic ban

Not sure this qualifies as an incidents thread or regular noticeboard thread, but before I get to the analysis below, a link to the previous thread (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=613092331#Topic_ban_appeal:_Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tokusatsu_.28self_imposed.29) to also be of discussion and review and concern to this thread

So lets try this again

As part of an arbitration ruling that placed me under conduct probation in my arbitration case, five years ago, right before I was banned for six months, I was placed under a topic/interaction ban from the tokusatsu articles for making an inflammatory mention of Ryulong in regards to this enforcement. Thing is though, even though its apparent that because the conduct probation was never officially restarted and it is stated that the administrator imposed restrictions lasted for the duration of the conduct probation referred to as "current restrictions", two years ago when I made my unban appeal to the community, I stated that I had no plans to return to the Tokusatsu if I were allowed to return which the community came to a consensus to unblock on both the grounds of me having realized my behavior and that I agreed not to return to those pages.

Now two years after than unban, I am aware I do not get on here much since my unban and I go into phases of inactivity and back to being active and back to being inactive. While I know that is not necessarily a reason on its own for denying an editor an appeal to an editing restriction (voluntarily or involuntarily), some may look at that as not enough evidence to support the idea of changed behavior, unless you look into all my edits since the unban. On that same note, a lot of my edit count in 2012, 2013 and 2014 is down compared to 2009 and prior for the simple fact that a lot of my old editing habits (edit warring, incivility, trolling, harassment, strict interpretation of policy, over or misinterpretation of verifiability and reliable sources, etc) have died and most of my edits these days are either minor edits or an addition of sourced information so a lot of the reason I had a lot of edits in 2007-09 was due to the bad behaviors I exhibited at the time.

I am requesting this appeal for the fact that having realized my past bad behaviors and the fact that I know having realized the behavior that led to this restriction here and knowing that voluntary restrictions have as much teeth as a community or arbcom imposed restriction, so instead of diving head first and risk getting blocked, I am bringing my concerns here, I know for the second time

Thing is unless allowed to return to tokusatsu articles to help develop the guideline set out in this ruling, I will not have the opportunity to continue to improve upon the behavior that led to the no commenting on reliable sources restriction and to show that I have in fact changed my behavior on that matter and I can be trusted to no longer be restricted. But also that whenever the time occurs, I will be able to improve upon those pages in ways I've never improved them before

So I'm asking for a follow up review on the previous discussion and see what I should do from here. —Mythdon 00:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

TLDR! You can't improve on that behavior unless you are allowed to edit the articles that got the banned placed it sounds like what you are saying. Is that so?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly, but having been banned from the pages, and knowing the only way to show I've improved upon that past behavior, I'd need to be allowed to edit the pages to help produce a guideline that us participants of the WikiProject were told to do. I want to finally take the opportunity to both correct what I wronged and use it as a stepping stone toward the improvement of the topic area by showing I can work here collaboratively and proficiently. Hope that clarifies. —Mythdon 04:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like to me that you were unblocked sometime in 2009 multiple times and it escalated to and indef. Since being unblocked in 2012 you have made less that 500 edits. Really little to make a judgement on. Without editing power rangers articles you can actually show that you have improved your behavior. I'm not sure it's a good idea.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Please review these blocks on IP addresses

Please see these blocks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:66.249.93.185#Unblock_request also 66.249.93.188 As far as I can tell these IP addresses have previously made a single bad-faith edit each. For that they were given a year long block **with account creation disabled**. That IP address is used by GIFFGAFF (a mobile service provider in the UK, using the O2 network) and has jot as far as I know have been used as an open proxy. These vigorous blocks are **too harsh** - the vandals will have moved to a new IP Address long ago, and other editors are hit by the fallout. The normal response ("create an account" misses the point that most productive edits come from IP editors and that account creation was also blocked. My question: are these blocks normal? If they are the block notice (that appears when the editor tries to edit a page) needs to link to the IP talk apge so the editor can edit and add the template unblock request. I am not mentioning the blocking editor because this is not about him / her. I genuinely do not know how to add a comment to that editor's talk page -- I can't see the link to edit or add a new section to the talk page of their page. Here's an imgur link showing lack of edit / add new section link http://imgur.com/6850WZ9 Gustavail (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Whoa. Whois tells me that 66.249.64.0/19 (66.249.64.0 - 66.249.95.255) is assigned to Google Inc.[150], not to GiffGaff. I'm not sure what's going on here, but I'd be quite surprised if GiffGaff/O2 traffic was coming from Google-registered IP address space. A traceroute from my location to that IP shows the traceroute going into a Google edge router directly peered to my ISP. -- The Anome (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I don't see any open ports. Not to say there wasn't 10 days ago, but currently looks clean. And yes, that is a google owned IP, reverses to google-proxy-66-249-93-185.google.com (66.249.93.185), which someone might mistakenly think is a "proxy" because that is in the name, but it isn't an open proxy, at least not now. Dennis - 2¢ 15:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

At a guess, this is a data compression proxy for the Chrome browser: https://developer.chrome.com/multidevice/data-compression . If these proxies are not on the X-forwarded-for whitelist, they are definitely a problem, and should be treated as open proxies. -- The Anome (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I love learning new things. If you are correct that this is a compression proxy, then yes, that is the same as an open proxy, only worse since it doesn't look like one. Not sure if this needs to get bumped over to WP:OPP, where they can find the full range and block, but I would agree that we don't want any IPs with that feature unblocked here. Dennis - 2¢ 15:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. We need to get a list of all of the ranges for these, whitelist them for X-forwarded-for, and then permablock the entire set of proxy IP addresses. Since it's only a /19, I could easily scan the PTR records for whole range of addresses from this particular range, but it would be better to get an official list from Google, since it would seem likely that Google operates separate proxy farms for different regions. -- The Anome (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I am using latest version Google Chrome on iOS. The setting is in Settings > Advanced > Bandwidth > reduce data usage. Thanks. Gusavail (logged out) 82.132.214.221 (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Gustavail, have you notified the blocking admin, Gilliam?
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE READ THE LAST SENTENCE OF MY POST. Gustavail (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Gustavail stomped on my last post, but I went and notified the blocking admin. Dennis - 2¢ 15:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

thank you - apologies for yelling but this has been considerably frustrating. This experience is definitely why WP is losing editors. Gustavail (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be Google's FAQ about this proxy farm, but unfortunately it's not that useful for our purposes. I think the right answer is to punt this to the WP:OPP team, who have a lot more experience with this sort of thing (and also know about things like not trusting either PTR records or HTTP headers by themselves). If this is a standard Chrome feature, it may apply to a lot of potential editors. -- The Anome (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Gustavail, you only have a few edits, all to this ANI, I'm not sure what the basis is for declaring "this is what loses editors" is. Dennis - 2¢ 15:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

of course *this account* only has a few edits. I am an IP editor - and proudly so. This account was specifically created to get attention to the (what I originally thought) incorrect blocks of the underlying IP address. Here's a timeline: I use Chrome on iOS and visit the "collard greens" page. That page is blank -I've provided imgur screenshot links elsewhere- so I decide to let people know on the collard green talk page. I can't -- that IP was blocked. There's a notice about the block which tells me to put a template on my talkpage. There are no links to an IP editors talkpage anywhere, so I have to open a user's talk page, then replace that user name by copying and pasting the IP address from the warning page into the addressbar. That get's me my IP address talk page; I then copy and paste the unblock request template. I still haven't managed to tell anyone about the bug, so I try to create an account. This requires renewing my IP -more than once- and entering hard to read captures. So, now I have my account. I post this ANI request. I see that I am supposed to tell the relevant admin, so even though this is not about them and I don't want it to be I visit their page to try to tell them. There is no "edit" or "add new section" link on their page when I visit -- I make sure that I am signed in to my account. I take a screenshot and mention that I know I hae to informthe admin and say that I am unable to do so. An editor asks me if I've informed the blocking admin. So far I've spent about two hours and I have achieved absolutely NOTHING. The bug where some wikipedia content does not appear to users not-logged-into-an-account and using Chrome on ios seems to have been ignored; rather than having that IP address unblocked it seesm as though the block is going to be extended (there is currently a single bad faith edit from that IP address - and any good faith attempts to edit (such as mine) hae been blocked. OF COURSE NEW EDITORS ARE NOT GOING TO TOLERATE THIS FUCKING KAFKESQUE NIGHTMARE. "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" used to mean something. the disincentive to making simple gnome edits - the vast majority of Wikipedia's good faith edits come from IP editors- is so strong that I'm not surprised when I read that editor numbers are dropping. It's impossible for many people to edit. Gustavail (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for quacking loud, now you are a recipient of an indefinite vacation. Secret ^account 16:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this block was a mistake, as the user was trying to report a problem, and was forced to create an account to do so. Please look at his report at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Collard Greens article shows no text to anon users on mobile site. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixing the open proxy problem will both stop this being used for abuse, and also stop cases of legitimate editors being blocked. -- The Anome (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I unblocked, but he could have been a bit more civil here. Secret ^account 17:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I cross-posted his problem about mobile view over to WP:VPT, where tech-minded people are most likely to see it. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

thank you for doing thatGustavail (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

That sounds incredibly annoying Gustavail. It's already annoying when well meaning users like yourself are caught in rangeblocks. The blocks are made with good reason, and Anome is trying to get it fixed for this specific instance by the looks of it, but that doesn't mean it isn't annoying. When there is no direct link to your own talk page to put an unblock notice on, it gets even more annoying. I'll take a look on how to at least remedy that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Completely agree. I'm pretty handy with basic tools, as are many admin, but this needs a group who really know their stuff to look at it, and OPP is that group. Dennis - 2¢ 18:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

A look the recent changes list shows that only two google-proxy IP addresses have edited during the last 3000-or-so IP edits:

google-proxy-66-249-93-185.google.com.
google-proxy-66-249-93-191.google.com.

one of which is one of the IP addresses discussed above. The other is 66.249.93.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which I've also blocked as an open proxy. But we really need WP:OPP to get on this one to have a permanent resolution for the wider problem: I've notified them about this on their Meta-Wiki talk page. -- The Anome (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

see also 66.249.93.188 (which I did mention in the first line of my post but not very clearly) which has made a bad faith exit. May I ask: when someone goes through and blocks all the google cache IP addresses: will I still be able to edit as an IP editor? And if not, will I still be able to register an account? Thanks (the block by user secret above is yet another example of how fucking hateful Wikipedia is to good faith editors who somehow stumble into the morass of meta . Gustavail (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

When the Open Proxy Project goes and puts these proxies on the X-Forwarded-For whitelist, you should be able to go back to being an IP editor, without any further blocks. The problem here is that Google are deploying what are effectively open proxies without publicly announcing what their address ranges are, making it impossible for us to deploy the IP-based anti-vandal measures other than blocking the lot of them. You should be able to prevent yourself being snared by this in the short term by disabling the proxy compression feature in Chrome that seems to be causing the problem.-- The Anome (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please calm down with your language, if a new user suddenly discover WP:AN/I and posts incivility for no apparent reason, it presumes the worst for pretty much every editor. Just behave more calmer as your issue isn't a big deal. Secret ^account 18:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No, you calm down. Your block was horrible. --NE2 18:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I made a mistake with the block, but Gustavail is screaming, and accusing bad faith, and throwing incivility on a very public place for a very minor issue fyi, so most administrators will presume the worst. He needs to calm down as that's no way to start out on Wikipedia. Don't tell me to calm down for a mistake. Secret ^account 18:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

where have I accused bad faith? You really need a bit of help with interacting with new users, as per WP:BITE, although I am not a new user, I am an IP editor. (This is gustavail but logged out - whatever IP appears uere probably needs to be checked as above open proxy style blocking). 82.132.214.221 (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

So now complaining about a bad interface and bad admins is worse than making a hasty bad block? I think not. You're a shitty admin and deserve his "incivility". --NE2 19:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

And you are trolling right now, causing problems for no apparent reason. I misinterpreted the debate, made a mistake and I unblocked, lets close this thread before this gets even more uncivil. Secret ^account 19:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Your accusation of trolling is a mistake as well. And let's not close this - there's an open issue with these IPs that you're ignoring to flash your civility police badge. --NE2 19:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Just popping in after a break. Not much has changed, same old Admins making the same old serious errors of judgement and trying to excuse it by blaming the victim. Leaky Caldron 19:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the root cause of this is Google deploying what are effectively open proxies on the Internet without either making a list of their IP addresses publicly available, or making it clear to their browser users that they are using proxies. Both Wikipedia's anti-vandalism patrollers and users behind these proxies are caught up in the repercussions from this.

Without the IP address list, we need to block the proxies, and thus the users behind them, to protect Wikipedia from vandalism. However, if we can get the list of proxy IP addresses, we can add them to the global XFF whitelist, which will eliminate the problem completely for everyone: the inadvertent proxy users, Wikipedia, and Google themselves. -- The Anome (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

robertpedley/disruptive 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.

---

this individual has disrupted my editing here[151] and also here[152] and has also done personal attacks by stating "garbage" to an edit stating -"Treatment: Removed - this is unverierified, anecdotal, and NOT currenly proposed for clinical trial in West Africa. Oxxie, please stick to WP guidelines, you know this kind of stuff is garbage"(btw it was referenced)the individual apparently also made fun of my name by placing "oxxie"[153] I am asking for a warning on this person . thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree the word "garbage" was unjustified, and prepared to apologize. Regretted using the word the instant I had pressed the "save" button. However I stand by the other comments - the edit in question was unverified, based on anecdotal evidence, and not relevant to the page in question. I subsequently posted as follows on Ozzie10aaaa's talk page -

• Hi Ozzie - I researched this.
• a) it's an early stage product which may never come into general use ( http://www.aethlonmedical.com/products/hemopurifier/index.htm )
• b) it must be attached to a kidney dialysis machine - not many of those in W Africa !! ( http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2014/nov/14/aethlon-hemopurifier-ebola/ )
• c) the patient was receiving multiple therapies and his viral load was already in decline ( http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2014/nov/14/aethlon-hemopurifier-ebola/ )
• Cheers, Bob. Robertpedley (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Robertpedley (talk) 11:55, 17 November 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.

Spammer

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.

---

Avcgi360 (talk · contribs) ~ R.T.G 11:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, and user page deleted. Peridon (talk) 11:24, 17 November 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.

68.147.198.171

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 was blocked in August for 3 months and it appears the block recently expired. They have a solid wall of warnings dating back to Dec 2013. Most of the warnings are for disruptive editing at numerous articles related to children's entertainment. Disney-related, Teletoon, things of that nature, which suggests that it is likely the same operator. Off their recent block, user is posting odd discussions on various talk pages. [154][155][156][157] None of these discussions seem to have a focus or a purpose, and some are quiteincoherent. This edit looks like it was an attempt to add unsourced content to the article (article is semi-protected), so the user added it to the talk page instead. Several of the talk pages the IP is using are for semi-protected articles. If these notes are intended to be used to improve the article, it's not clear how, as the user does not add references or make obvious suggestions. Not sure if this is a competence issue or straight-up vandalism, but it doesn't seem productive, to me. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for a year Secret ^account 16:39, 17 November 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.

Bashar al-Assad

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, at Bashar al-Assad, I added information with sources such as BBC, Huffington Post, ABC news, UN.org, The Telegraph and maybe also some unreliable sources, but all of these have been reverted possibly by the same User using multiple IPs and accounts. I removed the uncited claim that Bashar was brought back as heir apparent, and replaced it with what he said to Barbara Walters at an interview that he nor his brother had anyone role in politics while their dad was alive+ Bashar and his dad never supported dynasty in Syria. Bashar al-Assad's article is full of POV, synthesis ans BLP issues. I also probably unintentionally corrupted the article a bit. It needs attention and fixture. More importantly, it needs protection from Syrian opposition trolls. Feel free to remove everything I added. Thanks--Makerbuck1 (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of my edits, like huge part of the article, are not neutral and require definite removal. --Makerbuck1 (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Makerbuck1, you are adding poorly sourced material (i.e. random bloggers with WordPress sites) exclusively to the lead of the article, while deleting WP:RELIABLE sources regarding Assad war crimes and other details. If you carry on like this you are just going to get yourself blocked—you are ignoring WP:CONSENSUS (your edits have been reverted by multiple editors), WP:NEUTRAL, as well as WP:RELIABLE. Nulla Taciti (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Can an admin please caution Makerbuck1? This editor is simply reinserting inappropriate material into the lead of the article verbatim. It is getting tedious dealing with his edit warring against several editors. Nulla Taciti (talk) 10:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Makerbuck as a sock of Mangoeater1000.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:20, 17 November 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 editor hopped IP to evade 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.

---

75.162.179.246 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) was recently blocked for persistent disruptive editing (block log). This user has now hopped IP address to a sock 75.169.14.135 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) in order to evade the block and is posting to the original IP address's talk page clearly as the original user. Further the new IP address is continuing exactly the same disruptive editing by changing the tense of historical articles (apparently in pursuance of making the point he was making under the original IP address). All reverted per WP:BE. (edit history of new IP). –LiveRail < Talk > 12:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

 Blocked. I've let the editor know that, whether intentional or not, block evasion is unacceptable. m.o.p 15:56, 17 November 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:Matt200055

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 section was prematurely archived and has been restored from archive.--02:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Recently I removed inappropriate material (a list of 'evil users'[158] that clearly violates what is stated under WP:POLEMIC) from the User and Talk pages of Matt200055 (talk · contribs) after the editor made attempts to goad BlackCab (talk · contribs)[159][160][161] and SummerPhD (talk · contribs)[162][163]. (Previous content of the 'evil list' indicates this to be an ongoing pattern of behaviour.) After I removed inappropriate material from the editor's User and User Talk pages, he responded with imaginary 'conditions' for how I was 'allowed' to respond to him in future.[164] The user has subsequently vandalised my user page while logged out (i.e. as an IP user).[165] Comparison of the material added to my user page relating to A-Ha with the editing history of Matt200055 provides a clear link with the user, in addition to the obvious timing of the retributive action (separate action elsewhere by Favonian (talk · contribs) also confirms this). The vandalism was reverted by BlackCab (talk · contribs)[166][167], who was one of the editors previously goaded by Matt200055. The editor has never engaged anyone at any article Talk page to discuss any article content, instead choosing to make mild threats about his 'evil list' when content disputes arise. As the editor's behaviour appears to be escalating, it seems necessary that something be done to assist the editor to abide by Wikipedia policies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've looked at and reverted some of this editor's work--including removal of valid information and addition of unsourced information. They've not restored their silly list: so far that's the best thing they've done here. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Matt200055 is attempting to game the system by continuing to deny actions that are clearly his. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Matt200055.--02:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm kind of at a loss here. Yes, I think it is pretty clear that the IP in question was used by Matt200055: How many editors on one ISP in Edmonton, BC are editing A-ha articles and would have a reason to vandalize User:Jeffro77? Yes, he has denied it. I'd say a warning not to vandalize user pages goes to User talk:Matt200055 and it becomes past behavior if we end up discussing them again. One act of vandalism isn't typically a blockable offense. That said, the denials are odd and I've recommended the user seek out adoption as some of their actions have been somewhat disruptive. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A single act of vandalism isn't a blockable offense. That isn't the primary issue. The problem is that the user is attempting to game the system by denying edits made while logged out even though they're obviously his edits, which compounds the editor's already problematic behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Drmies has already given some helpful advice, which seems not to have been listened to. A small cloud of disruption seems to hang around Matt200055 (talk · contribs). The common element is that he is trying to needle some of his content opponents. He is also playing games with his multiple accounts and IPs. The editor's response at the SPI is disappointing. It sounds like he is trying to continue the joke about his 'evil list'. Adoption only works for those with good intentions. Since this has been going on since 1 November and the editor is making no effort to put things right I would suggest a one-month block for Matt200005 and an indef of the sock AntiMatt200055 (talk · contribs). The latter account seems to have no good-faith purpose. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I can't easily argue against that. I don't believe "fucking around" is a valid reason for having an alternate account, and denying that IP charge is silly. Blocking the AntiMatt account is valid, in my opinion. Summer mentioned mentoring but I also think that's a bit too hopeful, but it begs the question of what to do with the main account. Indef-blocking is an option, or no block at all but a very short leash--I'm always a bit leery of blocks long after events have happened. Your mileage may vary. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The disruptive intent is clear from the editor's November 12 comments in the SPI. "Maybe 162.157.225.132 likes lists. Also, it's not an evil list, it's an EVIL list. Capitalize EVIL. Matt200055 (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)". In my opinion the bad behavior is still a current event. An indef block of both accounts is something to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

An indef block? Seriously? Matt200055 (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

An indef of AntiMatt200055 is, IMO, pretty much a given. My !vote is a short leash with a mentor/adoption. While he's made some trouble, it's been mostly "fucking around". Yeah, he called me "EVIL". I've been called worse. Yeah, there was some mild edit-warring. I've seen much worse. He copped to the alternate account immediately with a reason that calls for blocking the alternative account and ... well, it's already been explained that that is not o.k. (and he hasn't run off creating a drawer full of socks). His vandalism of the user page (replacing it with the content of an article) was pointless: neither making an argument nor causing much of a wound. Denying ownership of the IP is absurd. IMO, it's merely an attempt to avoid responsibility. Why keep him? His edits to A-ha related articles help counter a bit of the U.S. bias around here. The band had a very brief moment in the sun over here, with a couple singles I barely recall from the late 80s -- they're practically one-hit-wonders in the U.S. In Norway, 8 of their 9 albums went to #1 (the 9th was #2). While his edits that I've seen haven't exactly been major changes, they've been mostly corrections of errors that I wouldn't have noticed (incorrect years, especially). I think he's worth a chance with some guidance (to Wikipedia policies and culture). Without guidance? You might as well indef him now. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that his behaviour necessarily calls for an indefinite block of his main account (definitely block the sock). His edits on his primary subject do seem to be of some benefit to those articles. If he continues to deny his inappropriate behaviour, it is probably a reasonable indication that he is not going to improve. Beyond his obviously inappropriate—and yes, absurd—recent behaviour, it is not encouraging that he has never bothered to participate on any article's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2014 (UT

I'm led to understand the vandalising of my talk page by Matt's IP was quite distasteful. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• If 162.157.225.132 is this editor logged out (which it appears certain they are), the contents of the vandal edits to User_talk:Pinkbeast would indicate an indefinite block, in my opinion. Black Kite (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

For those of us without a mop, can you give us a general idea of the contents? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Eh, yes, I could, but I won't. It's really just disgustingly disgusting. In the meantime I blocked AntiMatt indefinitely. If anyone can make the case that the IP is Matt, I'll be happy to block as well: a quick glance suggests this might be the case, but I'd like confirmation, preferably with a diff or two. WAIT: Morten Harket is a member of A-ha, so I think this nails it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:42, 17 November 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.

Page-move vandalism cleanup help needed

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Babarstamp52

Don't have time to deal with it now, but I did indef. DMacks (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll help.  Doing... --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Helped  Done Amortias (T)(C) 20:14, 17 November 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.

Casting aspersions

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 will notify Rotten regard in minute, but this [168] is problematic. I know all three accounts, and CU has been run without matching, so it sounds silly to me, but at a public board, to declare someone a sockpuppet without filing a report, is beyond uncivil, and is disruptive. Replying there would have only increased the disruption, so I came here instead. Showing two links of intersects isn't sufficient "evidence" to back up the claim. I'm involved, but I request an admin or the community take whatever appropriate action they deem necessary. Dennis - 2¢ 23:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not saying they defintely are socks, just that the intersections on very obscure articles are very suspicious. People should look for themselves and make their own minds up. --Rotten regard 23:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • If I hadn't voted already, I would have just blocked you and redacted your vote. I still think that is the appropriate response. Dennis - 2¢ 23:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• +1, Dennis. Also, I must note that when someone has 255,980 edits, that situation is likely to happen. ^{(Wow, this is the first edit I've made to AN/I)} --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, but you'll look silly when I'm proved right. --Rotten regard 23:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS says "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence". @Dennis, I believe an editor interaction analyzer counts as evidence for the statement made. It may be wrong, but it counts as evidence. I would have opposed your block on the grounds of failing to meet the threshold of WP:ASPERSIONS.--v/r - TP 00:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I must say though, according to Intersect Contribs, you (TParis) have 802 results with NA1000 (an example of how the oppose rationale of RR isn't valid, IMO) because you and NA1000 have a high edit count. (TParis = 26,000, Candleabracadabra = 25,000, Northamerica1000 = 255,000) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I have 55 intersections with NA1K and most of that is is on user talk pages because he used the MassMessage page to send out the same message 3 times to correct for his mistakes. Those aren't "obscure articles."--v/r - TP 00:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm seeing 802 here. I wonder why we got different results. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Because yours includes the 50,000 'Wikilove' messages he sent out to everyone to pump up his edit count? Dave Dial (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and an "intersect" tool is just that, a tool, it is NOT evidence by any stretch of the imagination. You use it as a tool to GATHER evidence, to show behavioral similarities. This is why you go to SPI to have an investigation done, you don't try to undermine faith in someone by making unsubstantiated claims. I've worked plenty of SPI cases to know. I can not for the life of me believe you have ever blocked someone just because they had intersects. Dennis - 2¢ 00:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

:With enough edits the Birthday problem easily shows how collisions between any two people is all but certain. I saw that ~vote, and that was my first assumption. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Excellent example. Next we ask, "is this intentional disruption"? I maintain it is, as part of a pattern. Just look at prior RFAs. Dennis - 2¢ 00:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  If prior RfAs have the same type of claim based on the same type of evidence, that could be Rotten simply not understanding the statistics. On the other hand if they appear to be oppose votes based largely on (what to us) appears weak evidence, that could be Rotten simply finding what he looks for, in other words a form of confirmation bias. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC).
  

• I don't plan on getting involved in the drama here, but I just wanted to say that I find the socking concern to be legitimate. Now, if the edit intersection tool had only turned up common articles and noticeboards, I wouldn't be concerned. However, the tool shows that the accounts in question have edited the same obscure articles and AfD nominations, which makes me a bit suspicious. Concerning Dennis Brown's statement above that he would have just struck the !vote and blocked the user, I personally think that doing such a thing would be illegitimate. You don't block people just because they raise a concern that you happen to disagree with. In any case, I've always been a very skeptical person and will look into the matter myself. --Biblioworm 01:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Biblio, you need to actually read above. It isn't about agreeing, and if that is all you got out of the above, you missed the point. Those intersects are not evidence. Making a claim without filing at SPI can get you blocked here at ANI, no less at RFA. It boils down to "put up or shut up". This RFA isn't exempt. Even here, we would tell you to either file an SPI, or drop the claim. My disagreeing isn't because I think NA is a swell guy, it is because I knew ChildofMidnight back in 2008, AND I knew Candelabra, and was involved when the SPI case came around. But that doesn't even matter. You don't make a radical claim in the middle of a RFA then refuse to file at SPI, unless you asking to get blocked, it is disruptive to just fly by, make a claim, disrupt a process and feign ignorance yet maintain the extraordinary claim. Like I said, you either put up, or you shut up, when it comes to making sock claims, anywhere at Wikipedia. Dennis - 2¢ 01:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I understand what you're saying, and as I said, I am not by any means completely convinced; I just feel that there is sufficient concern to justify myself looking into the matter a bit more. In any case, filing a SPI would be futile, because CU data is not retained for such a long period of time. --Biblioworm 01:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't care if you are convinced he is a sock or not. You don't investigate socks at RFA or ANI, you take it to SPI, but you better have more evidence than intersects, because that isn't evidence. I just showed where DGG and I have over 800 intersects, someone should rush off and block us..... Dennis - 2¢ 01:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dennis. The aspersions are just another manifestation of how RFA has become a snakepit and witch trial. Making such accusations without filing a SPI is disruptive and blockworthy. The accuser should put up or shut up. Edison (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

*stuffs face with popcorn* This is getting interesting... I think Dennis is right. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Be careful. Candleabracadabra and Northamerica1000 have both edited popcorn. --NE2 02:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• This has got to be one of the most baseless implied accusations ever made at RfA. A quick review of the two edit intersections shows three editors interested in food-related articles (oh, yeah, lots of controversial editing there, full of sock puppets, eh?). As I noted in my snarky RfA comment, NA1000 has almost 1600 edits in common with administrator Anna Frodesiak (!), and unsurprisingly, many of them are food-related. When an editor has 250,000 edits, high numbers of overlapping edits are to be expected in areas of common interest with other editors. In the absence of obvious patterns of disruptive editing, vote stacking, vandalism, etc., all it means is that two editors share areas of interest. In the absence of providing such evidence and analysis, I strongly suggest that Rotten Regard should strike his RfA comment and withdraw his implied accusations of sock-puppeteering against NA1000. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• I'm about to look a little closer at Rotten regard, closer than I did after their crappy oppose at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/I JethroBT. For the record, I know NA1000, and I know ChildofMidnight, and I know Candleabracadabra. It's possible that they're all the same, but not in this universe. What Rotten regard (and perhaps others) seem to miss is that the overlap is on the same foods, hot dog stands, bacon trivia, other nonsense articles that NA1000 is so fond of saving and that Candle/Child (and their currently active sock) were so fond of writing. I'll mention only in passing that I only edit high-falutin' articles, and anyone is welcome to match my edits to NA1000's.
  But all that's beside the point. You don't bring something like this up in the middle of an RfA--I hope someone has removed that comment already. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• OMG! Dr. Mies is a sock puppet! He and NA1000 have almost 2300 pages in common! Burn him! He's a witch! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• :) I also have a thousand edits in common with CoM. And a few hundred with Candle. I really need to start editing better articles. I wonder how much Kelapstick and I have in common... Drmies (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ha, yes, of course--only a few days ago I reverted dozens of their edits, where they had tagged a whole bunch of notable Czech films and were edit-warring to restore the tags. They offered no comment when asked, except for "Please stop creating a bunch of crap stub articles about non-notable films." (Yes, it involved Der Blofeld, and User:Kudpung knows about this too.) In other words, this really has NOTHERE written all over it. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Drmies and I have 1055 in common, which I find surprising since I don't remember working in tandem on more than a handful. But again, either this was stupidity or malice. Based on Rotten's previous votes at RFA, I still think it is malice, a willful attempt to cause problems, something he has been accused of more than once at RFA. Dennis - 2¢ 02:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Witches! [169] Burn them! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Meanwhile, does anyone have the courage to strike the offending RfA comment and move the distracting thread to the RfA talk page? I think it's time . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• I would, but I've supported the RfA. What about you? You haven't !voted. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't support, but I removed it nonetheless. I do not wish to see NA1000's RfA tanked because of this. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• You removed the !vote rationale, but the oppose is still technically being counted. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Another admin can still remove that if they like; Rome wasn't built in a day. If this here discussion leads to greater concerns or a block or whatever, someone will remove it. In the meantime, you have to have faith in the crats who do the actual counting: for now, their oppose is a placeholder, and the crats will know what's on the talk page. (So it's only "technically" being counted by the mechanical counter--but what that counter counts doesn't really count.) In other words, it's less than nothing. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Rotten supported 5 RFAs in 2012 and opposed 3 in 2014. the opposes were the last 3 RfA's I believe, I JethroBT, Northamercia1000 and Jackmcbarn. The oppose diffs from this year are:
  1. Jackmcbarn oppose
  2. I JethroBT oppose
  3. I JethroBT comment on reaction to oppose
  4. Northamercia1000 oppose

Not great to see opposes in all these three cases, it smacks of opposing on principle. But probably not actionable at this stage.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

This kind of stuff is what scares away potential candidates. Maybe it would be wise to make a statement that this will not be tolerated. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• I regularly edit new articles that are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Showcase/NA, performing edits such as cleanup, layout, formatting, WikiProject tagging, adding sources, etc., and have done so for a significant period of time. I'm certainly not going to abandon my membership in WikiProject Food and Drink and avoid food- and drink-related articles and XfD discussions because a person on the internet was blocked for using two accounts. I welcome anyone to please go ahead and open an SPI immediately and get a check user to start comparing IP addresses right away. It's injust and rather sickening to be vilified for my work to improve the encyclopedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I am concerned, that would explain a great deal, NA1000. Now, get off the ANI page during your RfA, and let the rest of us handle it. Believe me when I say that that this is the wrong place to ask for fair treatment during your RfA. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• • • Like I said, I knew CoM and Candelabra, and like Drmies, I know there is no way, but file if someone thinks that is the case. And I respectfully disagree Rich, although I understand your perspective. Last time, his disruptiveness was just under the wire, and I supported just leaving it alone, there on that talk page. This is different. He keeps pushing the envelope and even now is probably laughing his ass off that we are even debating this. As I said when I came here, had I not voted, I would have struck the vote and blocked him and my opinion hasn't changed. Good faith isn't a suicide pact, and once the pattern is clear, preventing it from continuing is an obligation. Dennis - 2¢ 03:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

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

---

Above, Rich has provided links to Rotten regard's recent RfA disruption. On one ongoing RfA, he has opposed without giving a reason. On another one, he makes a irresponsible allegation of sockpuppetry. In both cases, his brief responses have indicated that he is not willing to consider that he may be wrong. This may be somewhat harsh, but I am proposing an indefinite topic ban of Rotten regard from all pages beginning with "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/". I feel that it is important for the community to make a statement to prospective candidates that we are trying to clean up the process and that disruption will not be tolerated. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as nom. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support This sort of behavior cannot be tolerated at RfA if we expect candidates to be brave enough to run. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support This prevents disruption, and that is good enough for me. A reasonable compromise. Dennis - 2¢ 03:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Secret ^account 04:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support There are other locations such as ANI that they can use and meaningfully demonstrate that their behavior has indeed changed and they can seek to overturn this in the future. This will end the disruption and it does seem reasonable considering the topic.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support – RfA clearly is not the appropriate forum to make serious allegations without cold hard evidence. A user's talk page, AN/I or SPI would make a great start. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Please excuse my flagrantly biased participation here, but I think Mellowed Fillmore has it spot on. Tolerance of this kind of behavior during RfA is frankly embarrassing, particularly when it involves very serious allegations and arguments pretty much devoid of substance. Rotten regard is entitled to their opinion on any candidate, but failure to advance a believable case reeks of intent to disrupt rather than constructively participate in the RfA process. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support t-ban on RfA. Although WP:RFA2011 didn't bring about any physical changes to the process, it sent a clear message to the community and over the following years RfA has slowly but surely somewhat cleaned up its act. There are some who maintain that such !votes should be left to 'crat discretion be discounted and that such detractors will go away if we ignore them. The latter obviously does not work and we've been passive about this kind of thing for far too long. It's time therefore to reinforce that message to the community and the only way to do it is to start taking positive action and show that silliness on RfA will not be tolerated. Perhaps we'll then start to see an increase in the number of candidates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - It's clearly obvious he's only opposing everyone to simply disrupt, Comments like "No thank you" without fully explaining why is disruptive & sure as hell doesn't help the RFA. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support While the first oppose may be understandable, the second is disruptive. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 16:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Miniapolis 20:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

*Whoa (that's oppose, but) Agree the behavior is unacceptable but going straight to disenfranchising an editor from voting seems like overkill. How about "Rotten regard is topic banned from participating in Rfas. The topic ban is suspended on the provision that all future comments be supported by rationale in a manner consistent with the community Wikipedia:Civility policy. Any uninvolved administrator may revoke the suspension if they judge Rotten regard has violated the terms of the suspension." ? NE Ent 21:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on RFA. Enough with the poorly supported accusations. Edison (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 22:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support He's an idiot. --Rotten regard 23:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Rotten regard, are you invoking Hanlon's razor? I hadn't weighed in yet and was considering an Oppose, preferring NE Ent's alternative (if it's posted as an alternate proposal for me to Support). An apology and statement that you'll include a rationale with diff's to support your position in the future would go a long way toward smoothing things out. Removing your Oppose from I_JethroBT's RfA was a good start even though you should have struck it out rather than removing it. Your improper AfD closure and subsequent sock block and some other actions were disruptive. I judge your Support here as sarcastic and potentially disruptive. Continuing will result in bans and/or blocks. Stop the disruption now and productively edit in ways to help build an encyclopedia and mistakes will be forgiven in a year or so. I suspect that any of the editors here would be happy to suggest articles that need improvement (and please help improve, not just stick tags on them). DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 01:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Did it really come across as sarcastic? It wasn't meant that way. If the vast majority see a topic ban as appropriate then fair enough, you'll get no whinging from me. --Rotten regard 01:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Also forgot to say, yep it was a stupid thing I did hence the "He's an idiot" comment. --Rotten regard 01:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support per Rotten regard. NE Ent 01:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Rotten regard. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Does WP:NPA cover agreeing with someone personally attacking themselves? ^{[just kidding]} --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support RFA has routinely been described as one of the worst processes to undergo here at the English Wikipedia. It's important that not only the candidates, but those participating, are held to a standard of accountability for their actions. The venue must be prevented from becoming simply an opportunity for those that would abuse the system to attack other editors under the guise that ANY oppose rationale may be used. It would also appear that Rotten has other issues here on Wikipedia so preventative enforcement will come at each point, and this will be one of them. Mkdw^talk 03:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Rotten regard. Rr can ask that the ban be lifted in a year or so by agreeing to include thoughtful rationales when commenting on an RfA. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 15:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I was going to suggest limiting to just actual !voting but allowing participation via RfA talk, but after RR's own sarcastic !vote in favour of banning themselves, I see this as flippant disdain for the process and continuously attempting to disrupt it to prove a point. Ivanvector (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify, my support vote for the topic ban was not done sarcastically. The punishment must fit the crime and my actions deserve a topic ban. --Rotten regard 22:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think at this point there is an overwhelming consensus for a topic ban. Rotton, this does not have to be forever it seems like you realize your actions and hope for the best in the future. Lets all move on shall we? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:12, 17 November 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.

User:Ryulong, cannot be stopped breaking rules

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

---

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

You cannot delete my valid talk page entries without signs of abuse. User:Ryulong has done this to me three or more times and is and has been doing it regularly to others with dozens of examples including the most recent [170][171] (this has happened several times in several places [172][173], with other forms of invalid interference with my comments [174][175]), but as regards their interaction with others, there are literally dozens if not hundreds of related diffs, to which blocks and warnings bring not even admission of wrong doing let alone any assurance that they are taking the rules of the site as meaningful.

• As a sign of context, one editor has currently dedicated themselves to quietly reporting Ryulongs continuous 3RR immunity.
• I have also seen regular interference with others comments for purposes other than to revert blatant vandalism, nonsense or other valid comment deletion. Ryulong deletes talk page comments they consider invalid. Many diffs can be provided to that.
• And there is repeated incivility, particularly with those who Ryulong considers *condemned or insignificant*.
• I myself have encountered and confronted User:Ryulong for focusing on an actual genuine contributor of long term good standing and zero apparent conduct or content issues, for having the supposed gall to admit they saw a dispute on a non-WM site, before they gave an opinion here. Try some of the commentary, she only made one or two edits to the dispute but... "contributed so much to the point that it's daunting to even try to read it all because you feel that you do not meet the definition of meatpuppet. You can complain to the audit subcom all you want..." And you can, because User:Ryulong has immunity. Needless to say, User:Leeyc0 has left the site for the longest period and blanked their userpage. This is a contributor in good standing on another site. Is there no knock on effect from this behaviour? Does User:Leeyc0 not go back to the site they came from and spread more antipathy for us on this site? And do we tolerate that? ~ R.T.G 16:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

None of the below response is directed at this report

---

Could you explain why you've dismissed a big chunk of discussion like this? Personally I think it's quite relevant. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Richard Yin: Yes Richard. This paragraph reports User Ryulong for interfering with other editors comments. The below discussion is not about that. ~ R.T.G 14:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@RTG:WP:BOOMERANG, while not official policy, seems to more-or-less represent consensus, at least from what I've seen. One section reads:

There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny.

I think that section in particular is important to note here. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That says "perceived" misbehaviour. I thought you were interested in why I had broken this paragraph from the other discussion. It seems you are propagating the other discussion here instead. Have you considered the veracity of the report? I thought it was rudimentary given the minascular quality of the event. It is arguably not even macroscopic. I feel like I am learning to sing a song. Why are you asking me questions, if only the same questions as the others are asking below as well, to only the same answer, with the inference that somehow responding to the perpetuation of that situation, is a kind of instigation. You open continually on an individual with a request for explanation as to why they are even apparent, and you get a load of rampant dichotomy. But the issues are not so complex. Please, stop asking me for arguments. I had to leave a reminder that there are those who Ryulong has broken the rules with. They responded with ANI threads and more monkeying around outside of the actionable protocols. If there were something so obviously amiss, I'd have been corrected to it some time before by now. So my input is complete. Do stuff or don't. ~ R.T.G 17:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of their edits are ok, I'm failing to see what admin action is needed. Per above thread, support IBAN between the two. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to suggest that my couple of interactions with User:Ryulong somehow implicate me in their massive list of ongoing issues. I am one of dozens of users needlessly burned by this dragons breath. I have not one single interaction with them over actual content except once that they followed me. User:Ryulong breaks the rules and cannot be stopped, and I get to say that and so does any other user so long as it is true. Bring me anything meaningful to compare to Ryulong or show some sort of unprovoked harrassment over a handful of interactions. There is no guideline to say that editors, who wish to request a rule breaker is acknowledged, should be punished and silenced. There is no way that I should be topic banned from any content that User:Ryulong has been involved in for a start. And I've posted on their talk page only on one occasion that wasn't to put an ANI notice there or to simply state in response that I was not interested in their following me around for a fight (content of which was:"Not interested" and a signature). It's my duty in a way to report wrongs of other editors isn't it? ~ R.T.G 17:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You want to sanction me for posts like this and this, but these are not my posts... ~ R.T.G 17:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

So, what happened here? You, RTG, posted a hostile but barely intelligible and incoherent rant [176] on a noticeboard, where it had no business to be. Yes, Ryulong should not have removed it himself; somebody else should have though. Posting hostile rants on administrative noticeboards is generally not a very good idea. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Do not accuse me without evidence. Let's see a quote. This is ridiculous. The post has been deleted because. There was no abusive content. Any accusations were founded and about conduct. Nothing personal except the fact of the person. But I am an incoherent babbler, right? ~ R.T.G 17:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)(edit, was not deleted as told below diff)~ R.T.G 14:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@RTG: fut.Perf. provided a diff above. Yes, it was of the removal, but the point still stands; That was not sutable for AN3, and was borderline personal attacks. My advice would be for both of you to leave each other alone, before one or the other of you is forced to. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I was reading your SPI link from a couple of months ago, regarding a banned user called "Instantnood". Are you aware that edits by banned users are subject to deletion on sight? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

fut.Perf.'s mistyped the diff, the link should be this. — Strongjam (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs:, this has nothing to do with Instantnood. The only relevance there is that I went to that page to suggest that it was become a badge of honour for socks (this stuff is in the guides to watch for) to debate it with whoever, no-one in particular for genuine purpose, and there I met Ryulong and found them to be hauling editors of good standing, so I complained to which they followed me around, addressing me directly on various talk pages promtping me to check them and follow their discrepancies. Is it to be said that my report here is not even to be reviewed because it is me only that is being reviewed and that sort of seems a little bit suspicious given that Ryulong is a perennial, often daily on ANI, whereas I am not that, and so on... The diff being waved around is certainly hostile. Ryulong is fully hostile to all. I am not that, and my hostility for Ryulong is not incivil even and is about their conduct only, and their apparent longstanding immunity thereof. Show me some genuine blockable behaviour I have before any claims that I should not be given the chance to make any claims... genuine founded claims. ~ R.T.G 17:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that this is not the first time Ryulong has been caught violating Wikipedia policies. I would also like to point out that it seeming to be the same admins who keep coming to his rescue. --DSA510 Pls No H8 19:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's usually a good idea to provide diffs when making such comments. — Strongjam (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Right right, I'll collect my evidence tomorrow, my laptop's charger broke, and I don't have time to find them right now. --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

DSA510, you shouldn't be one to talk at all here considering you returned to editing by linking to my old website.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Block OP for repeated disruption, per the diffs provided by Ryulong in that user's request for RTG to stop WP:HOUNDing them. This thread is clearly retaliatory. Ivanvector (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, 2 diffs merits a block of somebody who just wants a review taken into another editor's behavior? Not buying it and oppose any block. Tutelary (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Retracted; apologies to RTG. More comments below. Ivanvector (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a blatantly retaliatory thread to the one I made 3 days ago. None of RTG's interactions with me have been productive of anything. There was no reason for him to have made any of these messages to me or about me [177], [178], [179], [180], [181]. This is why I want him to be indefinitely interaction banned from me. I have no problem staying away from him but he obviously has a problem staying away from me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• I just wanted to comment because I was involved in the AN3 issue. RTG's addition to the noticeboard was an aggressive, unhelpful rant. Still, Ryulong should not have reverted it. I actually restored it and then shortly after formally closed the discussion. It's an administrator's discretion what to allow at AN3, and I usually give a fair amount of latitude after my conclusion for editors to complain. As for here, I can't discern what administrative action RTG is requesting. In addition, I have only glanced at the merits of their complaints about Ryulong. That said, the style here is similar to the style at AN3, combative, aggressive, and overly dramatic. That certainly doesn't help RTG's credibility.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Look, three respondants are admins. Yeah, I've got hostility for Ryulong, but it is not raw, is instigated by them, and hostility is their MO, not mine. Most non-admins here are implicated in Ryulongs content disputes. I am not. At all. My posts here are directed at admins. I have little or nothing to debate about the content of the diffs I OPed above, because they are relatively simple and the violations are individually minor. But the site needs WP:CIVIL and 3RR and none of you have standing above that. Jimbo don't have it. Material Scientist don't have it. does Larry Sanger have it over on Compendium? No, I don't believe so.

So I am a bit craking up with the Ryulong situation, but needless to say, I can see that and have not nor will not devolve with it. There is no chance of me descending into attacking behaviour here, except attacking hostility, which is all I am trying to do. Ryulong was not getting these blocks before this time last year. Someone gave them offsite hassle. I appreciate peoples situations, but I am not the one, and Ryulong did pursue me from which I was spurred to investigate, and I found what I found, and I don't believe perpetuating it is fair either from Ryulong, or from anyone else.

The reasons for my presence are clear. I have no content interaction with Ryulong (they've questioned me once on a talk page about something which I was correct or at least went with the site). I will be just as impressed if I see this editor get a hard time at Christmas as I am to find their immunity and manner of support. I want to see some smooth. That's all it is. Everyone here has decided to focus me, or at least they have managed to destroy every other impression of this thread. He's not dumb. If he insists on being blocked out, maybe he wants to. You won't get them back into RFA like this anyway. This really isn't my area. I've made the report. It's valid. I've only come back that I could comment as the OP. I don't want to bicker. The reason I have posted here is to report bickering. ANI has returned a so far verdict of: More bickering. Now please forgive me while I go and dream of incoherent laughter (and ombudsmen) instead, cheers. ~ R.T.G 01:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What does this rambling even mean? I have not had any sort of interaction with you for several months and you decided three days ago to lambaste me across my user talk page and then again at WP:AN3 on a thread that was closed for non-actionable reverts. You have gone out of your way to try to get me blocked. I want you to stay the equivalent of 300 feet away from me on this website.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia says, "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you find yourself wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic. If you provide a link to the other article, readers who are interested in the side topic have the option of digging into it, but readers who are not interested will not be distracted by it. Due to the way in which Wikipedia has grown, many articles contain redundant passages of this kind. Please be bold in deleting these passages." ~ R.T.G 02:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? You and I have had zero interaction in the article space as far as I am aware. What are you trying to even say?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, here are more diffs of RTG appearing out of nowhere to try to get me blocked. [182], [183], [184] (reverting my removal of the AN3 notification), [185] (warning me I'm apparently not to remove it from my user talk), [186] (complete ignorance of WP:OWNTALK), [187], [188].—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a single ANI thread (the above diffs). I already mentioned it. what I didn't mention is that there are about a dozen or more diffs of evidence of User Ryulongs disregard for the site at the expense of others good feeling. Strange how they post up each diff rather than post up the thread altogether which was closed, as the 15RR was labelled as over, and my posts to the ANI, including lists of valid incidents gone without acknowledgement by the perp, were responded to wholly by the accused. Isn't that an interesting incident? Who's to blame there? Me I bet. ~ R.T.G 02:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Because I am calling for your behavior to be examined as a reason to leave me alone. You have no reason to pile on to any thread that's posted at ANI or AN3 or anywhere to get me blocked because you have shown to have absolutely no knowledge of how policies and guidelines are to be applied. You have your own personal interpretation that is contra to standard practice. I shouldn't have made that many reverts in a single day. But the article is a point of contention that is subject to extreme offsite disruption. But that thread was left alone for hours and obviously I wasn't blocked for it, unlike the multiple other times I've been blocked (often when dealing with users who are later banned from the website for the edits I was reverting) for edit warring. You have gone out of your way to get me blocked when it has nothing to do with you whatsoever. I want you to go back to your side of the project and I'll stay on mine. If it has to be a formal ban from each other I will have no problem adhering to it. You obviously cannot keep yourself from trying to get me banned for no valid reason.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

One thread on ANI and one thread on AN3 ever, only one of which I instigated. Surely Ryulong is indundated by my persistent harassment, or, as happened over at RFC archive.is, you think that I am an idiot, and if you keep calling an idiot an idiot others will join you, and they will, but this magic breaking of the rules I have done in relation to you. it's not there. I am not perfect. You think I do not and should not confront other abusers, but I do, because I am not about abuse, and neither is this site. So, why don't you move on the the SPI. It's all you've got left. I've got your entire contribs to point out the relevance of reporting you here... Face it Ryulong, I ain't interested in your content disputes. I ain't your harasser or any of that. You do break the rules in intolerable fashion. You are not beneath the intelligence level to claim you do not understand that... Even if they ban me from interacting with you, you are building a goodbye ticket. If you can't get back to the site while you are on it, you know you'll be seeing it on the ARBCOM sooner or later and that I will not interact with you there and that no amount of pointing at me will make it seem that I have caused any of your incidents. What you think of that then? Seems legit to me. ~ R.T.G 03:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not the one here who has repeatedly gone out of his way to make sure that the other party knows what they think about them. I will have no issue if I am banned from interacting with you because you and I don't edit any of the same pages. You are the one who has the desire, or even need, to go "Ryulong is an awful person and he should be banned from Wikipedia".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in hurting you, even if it seems you have done wrong. I do attack hostility that continues, but I reason about it. I mean, if I thought you should be banned I'd be saying, ban that editor now, and I'd be a lot more careful about how I presented any information. What I think they should do, should have done ages ago, is give you a short block for some stuff and a warning for others, as and when it happens. I have seen that you do respond to that stimulus, but that the reprimanders go back on their intentions, and leave you again to neglect when you need, or start supporting you for the wrong reasons, worse than neglect. You've been an admin. If you cannot produce this attitude, you don't get to be admin, so you know this attitude, and also so do the admins here. What kind of support is it they give you if they aren't trying to fold you back in as an admin and be a strength for you should you decide to be more careful again? I just want to see it fixed if it is broken. The fact that you are implicated in that for the moment is secondary. That is where my desire lays. If I was trying to slay you, you'd see a wall of diffs, not a load of text. But it's meaningless if the admins refuse to take notice. They are giving you barnstars for biting noobs. It's not fair, and I don't mean to me, I mean in general, me included, you too. Everybody here should be trying to resolve the situation to the most amicable outcome possible or its meaning is worth less. ~ R.T.G 04:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone understand this?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to understand what I say Ryulong so long as you understand that you create hate for this site in the way you conduct your self. The site is more important than you are, and the admins are here to protect it. It doesn't matter how much poison you or passing revellers chuck on that. You are temporary. There's been worse. A true dragon would strike fear. You strike as getting cleaned up after. :0 ~ R.T.G 11:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You create hate for the site among ones that love it. Is that funny too? ~ R.T.G 11:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Knock it off, both of you. RTG, this is now crossing the line into wiki-hounding, stop it or you'll be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise:The tools are yours to abuse. I cannot hound someone who has followed me to a thread can I? ~ R.T.G 12:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can I please have the equivalent of a restraining order now?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Propose/Support IBAN - There is clearly discord between these two editors maybe it is best to keep them apart and see how things go from there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support IBAN, unfortunately. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban as I did in the thread above. As another editor put it succinctly on the AN thread RTG opened today, whenever these two editors interact, drama is the result. There is clearly no hope for an amicable resolution here. I also think it would be a healthy decision on RTG's part to step away for a bit and get some fresh air, but that's up to them. Ivanvector (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Pie in the sky proposal

First, we're getting a new thread nearly every three day in the intersection of Ryulong, Gamergate, and someone who feels offended by Ryulong enforcing the standard operating procedure. While I know this will be resoundingly opposed by the hordes of SPAs and POV champions I propose the following To discourage frivilous reports, any ANI or AN report brought after November 14th with respect to Gamergate controversy that does not result in action being taken against the reported shall have the same magnitude reverse sanctions applied to the reporter. The goal of this proposal is to sweep these drama magnets off the AN boards and to encourage reporters to have a bulletproof case when they file the report. Hasteur (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems out of place here. This report really doesn't have anything to do with Gamergate. There is also now Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement which hopefully will cut-off Gamergate issues before they reach ANI. — Strongjam (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Strongjam Since I can only surmise that you've missed the dots that connect how this report connects to Gamergate: This report was regarding an AN:EW filing, which was about edit warring on the Gamergate controversy article. As demonstrated at the ArbCom Case request the advocates bringing these frivolous cases are not interested in working inside/with the system. Their goal is a slash and burn strategy to get their way regardless how many pseudonyms they have to burn. Hasteur (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur, this is entirely unrelated to Gamergate. After RTG disrupted an SPI case I had opened (SPI archive, SPI's talk page) where he was making claims that either policy should not be adhered to or that our interpretation was wrong or I don't know I can't understand a word he's ever saying I had found he was making other problematic contributions to the Archive.is RFC (RFC page) and involved myself. I then left him be and then two months later he goes to the AN3 report (AN3 report) and disrupts my user talk page under the false assumption that I'm forced to keep Tutelary's AN3 notification there. And then three days ago he goes insane on my user talk, adding comments to several old messages I was sent, completely unprovoked ([189]). I report him ([190]). He ignores this and two days later leaves another rambling message at another AN3 report that had been closed ([191]). I notify him of the thread again and then he opens this retaliatory thread. And when he's not getting his way in this thread seeing as he's now shot himself in the foot he forum shops over at WP:AN ([192]). RTG's behavior towards me since August 31 has been nothing but disruptive and shows evidence that he doesn't know anything about Wikipedia's actual policies and guidelines and only acts on what he thinks they should be instead of actual practice. I want him banned from ever being involved with me again. And this bilateral interaction ban stuff should not be applied because there is no history of me hounding him as he has hounded me time and time again. Just because he's decided to hound me on something peripherally related to Gamergate does not make this a Gamergate issue.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_Web_archiving_initiatives#Archive.is_is_not_notable. I am sorry, but it is User:Ryulong who follows me around disrupting my content improvements quoting the rules the wrong way around and insulting me. What exactly do you think I am here for? ~ R.T.G 14:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I forgot I did that. But it's not like what you've been doing for the past couple of weeks to come out of no where to pile on to closed or about to be closed discussions rather than the isolated cases that have never been repeated. I have stayed out of your way since the first week of September but you have gone out of your way to be in my face and demand I be punished for the last two weeks. Who is more in the wrong here?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

For example, I haven't intervened in your disruption at Talk:Goldman Sachs/Archive 2#GS is one of the largest Wikimedia Benefactor, since 2012 where you went against a consensus that had actually formed or whatever you're doing at WT:Ombudsman here which is the same stuff you were pulling with the Archive.is discussion and the SPI case.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"...and someone who feels offended by Ryulong enforcing the standard operating procedure". Am I to conclude that 15RR is now "standard operating procedure"? 74.12.93.242 (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason for this IP who has cast aspersions at the arbitration request about content not in the article to constantly harp about the fact that I was not blocked.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

So now RTG is jumping into Talk:Gamergate controversy with his usual aplomb [193] [194].—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

RTG is now jumping into the completely independent failing topic ban proposal below now. I want him IBAN'd from me ASAP. I can easily stay away from him if it needs to be mutual.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

And he's left a message to David Auerbach. This has gone on long enough.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:38, 16 November 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.

Aggressive behavior, edit warring, a personal attack by 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.

---

It started when User:Sayerslle added a quote from Putin to the article "2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine". The quotation took Putin's words "But I would like to stress that this is not the issue" out of context. The user's addition was:

When asked in interview about the complaint that Russia supplies weapons to the separatists and sends its servicemen there he replied that 'people who wage a fight and consider it righteous will always get weapons. [-] But I would like to stress that this is not the issue.

when the source says:

HUBERT SEIPEL: The question or, more properly, the claim made by Kiev today is that Russia supplies weapons to the separatists and sends its servicemen there.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Where did they get the armoured vehicles and the artillery systems? Nowadays people who wage a fight and consider it righteous will always get weapons. This is the first point.

But I would like to stress that this is not the issue. The issue itself is entirely different. The issue is that we can't have a one-sided view of the problem.

Today there is fighting in eastern Ukraine. The Ukrainian central authorities have sent the armed forces there and they even use ballistic missiles. Does anybody speak about it? Not a single word. And what does it mean? What does it tell us? This points to the fact, that you want the Ukrainian central authorities to annihilate everyone there, all of their political foes and opponents. Is that what you want? We certainly don't. And we won't let it happen.

As you can see, the way it was misquoted may even look like an intentional misinterpretation. Like an attempt to make Putin look bad, to make it look like he said he didn't care about the war.

I deleted the sentence [195] from the article and wrote a message about it on Sayerslle's talk page [196].

(Actually, just for the record, I somehow added the message two times. I'm not sure how it happened. Maybe I accidentally pushed the "Save page" insted of "Show preview". So there are 4 edits:

• My message 1
• Sayerslle simply reverts my message from his talk page
• My message 2
• I apologize for posting 2 times and say I don't mind if he deletes the message again.)

But instead of discussing the matter, he reverted the sentence "But I would like to stress that this is not the issue" back in [197].

Then I warned him not to continue the edit war [198] and reverted him again [199]. (I had to revert him cause I didn't want something like this stay in the article. And he added it without a prior discussion, so I had every right to revert. And as you can see, in my edit summary I'm politely inviting him to start a discussion about the matter on the talk page.)

But he continued edit warring. He reverted the sentence in again [200].

And then I also noticed he made a personal attack towards me:

: yes I deleted it - but then I wrote a response - ' completely out of context - its the next fucking sentence - he means it to follow directly on - a putinist complaining about disinformation - that would be beyond satire really , no? ' - bit exasperated , really Sayerslle (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

(Just for the record, his reply was made seconds before I posted the warning message, but I didn't see it and the Wikipedia software again didn't say anything about any edit conflict. I'm not sure why. I spent some time writing the warning message and prepared everything so that I could post the message and delete the sentence very fast afterwards.)

I think his behaviour is unconstructive and aggressive. Since I can't continue the war, I would like admins to interfere.

Update: Now he has finally started a discussion on the talk page [201]. But I don't think it's a good idea for me to talk with him. At least not before the article is reverted to a pre-war state. I would really like Wikipedia admins to review the case and interfere. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Update 2: Another editor has already deleted the complete quote Sayerslle added [202]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I misrepresented nothing. Volunteer marek has taken it out the lead - I think hes wrong to say Putins comments in the interview are not relevant material for the lead but you've got what you want. - 'Since I can't continue the war' !- ffs - - good heavens, that shows your mindset doesn't it. ( and yu accused me of bad faith - you were the aggressive, personal abuse one - I just said if a putinist complained of disinformation that would be beyond satire - it would be - can't one say anything to respond to your attack ? Sayerslle (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Since I can't continue the [edit] war." It's just a Wikipedia term. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

write 'edit war' then Sayerslle (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

People really need to stop running to AN/I with every bit of trivial crap like this. The reason they do, is as part of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attempt to get those who disagree with them banned. Which in itself is sanctionable. Volunteer Marek  19:27, 17 November 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.

Concerning edit summaries by IP 99.107.148.15

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.

---

Take a look at the edit summaries left by IP 99.107.148.15. Based on their comment here, it appears that they're basically doing it as some kind of experiment to see if they can. That's not to say they're all "constructive edits", as the IP also edits to add a single period and then immediately reverts themselves to leave these edit summaries – [203] and [204], [205] and [206], [207] and [208]. Some of these edits are old, but the most recent was two days ago. Should action be taken here? Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I took a quick look. The edits are too far apart, in my opinion, to allow for anything further than a warning for unconstructive edit summaries. demize (t · c) 18:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

IP was warned in March to not do this, and stopped after admitting they were only doing it to see if they'd get away with it. Now they're back doing the same thing, and I think it's pretty clear this is a single person and not a shared IP. Escalating warnings are warranted, if not a WP:NPA block. Ivanvector (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I've written a rather stern warning on the user's talk page warning them that they may be blocked without further notice if they continue these edits. If they continue, then there should be reasonable grounds for a long block on this IP. demize (t · c) 22:29, 17 November 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 page review request, Dcbanners

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.

---

Going by the User page policy on what is not allowed, this recently created account's User page seems to be overly promotional, [209], with links to off-Wiki material. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Meh, I wouldn't bother. They have links but they also have a lot of contribs for a short while. It is mainly about proportion. It is a bit promotional, but not to the degree it needs deleting, in my opinion. Normally, that would a matter to decide at MfD anyway. I don't think anyone would say you filing it there is bad faith, but my gut says they would say the same thing. If they did this, then didn't edit, it would be different. Dennis - 2¢ 23:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, fair enough and thanks for the look Dennis. Admittedly I began looking around when this person became disruptive by removing sources from an article after consensus had been reached on the Talk page by others, but if its not worth it, I'm happy to drop the stick about the page. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:28, 17 November 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.

Chasbo123

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 Chasbo123, for whatever reason, insists upon formatting his talk page comments at Talk:Phineas and Ferb (season 4) with an obnoxious font that adds undue emphasis to his comments.[210] Though font formatting is not specifically mentioned in the talk page guidelines, I think this contravenes the spirit of the guidelines. As I said, it adds undue emphasis and attention to his comments, and it also grates against the "Keep the layout clear" aspect of WP:TPYES. I removed the formatting and explained the reversion with an edit summary. The user attempted to remove his comments from the discussion entirely, which of course then created the problem that there was a one-sided discussion at the talk page. This was reverted, and user again attempted to restore the formatting.[211] And after they were asked to not continue their disruption, they again submitted the formatting. I tried explaining the matter on their talk page with my specific issues, but they submitted the formatting again and left an incoherent, font formatted message about cursive on my talk page. This is a silly thing to be bringing to ANI, but I'm not sure what else to do since the user seems adamant to personalize their comments in public talk spaces and I guess we now need admins to figure this out. Thanks. Sorry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's possible to set up wikipedia to display, for each editor personally, in the font of their choice. I could be wrong, but if that's possible, someone more knowledgeable than myself could show them how it's done. The extra benefit is that Chasbo123 won't have to add the formatting each time and not annoy everyone else. Blackmane (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I have it for you here, under the Teahouse stuff. at User talk:Chasbo123. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A reasonable compromise, if used by the reported user. However, user is still engaged in an edit war over fonts, as is evident by this edit made not only after reverts, warnings and clear explanations, but also after being notified that there was an open ANI case involving them. We still need to address the behavioral matters that has brought us to this point, as user is still inflicting their fonts in other users' talk space. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This has to be one of the most-interesting reasons someone's been brought to ANI in quite some time. Left a final warning on the user's talk page. m.o.p 12:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

+1. I was already writing a block message but a last last warning can't hurt I suppose. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Martijn Hoekstra: figured a final warning would be less heavy-handed than a block because it doesn't seem an administrator has warned the editor yet (though I just woke up, I could be wrong). If you think a block is warranted, I defer to your judgment. m.o.p 12:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Master of Puppets: a matter of preference I suppose. I don't consider a warning of an administrator to weigh heavier than that of another editor, nor do I consider a block to be a really heavy measure if it's clear that it's only intended to stop the editor in place, and would be lifted as soon as everything is cleared up, but I recognize that is a viewpoint that doesn't have very wide support anymore. Anyway, I'm fine with a final warning - as long as it stops the disruption. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Believe me, guys, I'm not proud of this ANI report. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Bit late to respond to but many thanks to AmaryllisGardener for their css input. A final warning is probably best at this point, AGF and all that. Hopefully they'll sort their preferences out or at least seek assistance instead of continuing their disruption. Blackmane (talk) 23:45, 17 November 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.

Incivility and attacking messages from User:Prisonermonkeys

I am here to report incivility and personal attacks by User:Prisonermonkeys on his talk page while pinging me (see here)

I recently reported User:Prisonermonkeys for violating the 3RR at Assassin's Creed Rogue. They (and I) got a warning (as Bbb23 miscounted my revert count; see [212], [213], and [214]). They proceeded to make a uncivil comment on the talk page ("That's better. Not, you know, much better, but it's a start. Now all you need to do is understand how an encyclopedia works, and we might actually get somewhere." [215]).

The user reverted the page the following morning (and added content that partly addressed the situation; the experience left a bad taste in my mouth, and I have since decided to stay away from the page). I reported them to Bbb23 by email and then by talk page post, and Prisonermonkeys was given a one week ban. The user made countless attacks against me on his talk page in his failed ban appeals. The user also repeatedly misrepresented me as being in violation or near violation of the 3RR and continually claims I did not fess up for this IP edit, when I in fact did minutes later (Edit summary: "Last edit was me logged out. It was clear that there was a link between Rogue and Unity, that is important independent of the plot and can stand alone until the plot is fleshed out. Do not remove it just because you don't like spoile"). I even tried to point out to them that I clearly fessed up, but they ignored me and continued to misrepresent my actions ([216]). Then an hour ago, they left a long, uncivil, attacking rant against me on their talk page. Can something be done about this user? Thanks! Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• One important detail to anyone reading this, Prisonermonkeys is currently bannedblocked and will not be able to respond here until 00:52, 21 November 2014. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Procedural note, Prisonermonkeys is blocked not banned. The terms have different meanings here. Blackmane (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I have corrected my terminology above. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I had a read of their rant. Editors generally get a small amount of leeway to vent when they've been blocked. Invariably they will feel it is unjustified and unfair, particularly if there is another party that they feel got off lightly in comparison. It's probably best if you ignore the rant part and correct them on any inaccuracies that you feel are present then disengage from them, not as a parting shot but to let them cool off. Blackmane (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I tried to correct them once, but they just ignored me and kept spouting untruths ([217]). I tried ignoring them, and then they pinged me with that long rant. I understand they get some leeway, but this user clearly went passed that leeway. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Just an idea of mine, but I suggest not to post on User talk:Prisonermonkeys again until they are unblocked. You should let them cool down for the duration of the block, because if Prisonermonkeys doesn't want to hear of your corrections, just leave them be. Epicgenius (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I was about to post the same followup suggestion. I don't think any admin is realistically going to take any action against them for now, as they're already blocked. Of course, if it continues, you could request their talk page access be revoked for the duration of the block. Blackmane (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict, so I suppose this is in response to Blackmane too) Epicgenius, that is what I did. After they reverted the correction, I stayed away from their talk page as well as the article they warred on itself (per admin suggestions for the former). Then out of the blue, a couple hours ago, I see a massive rant on their page which pinged me. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thegreyanomaly, it's better to leave the rant there. An admin may revoke Prisonermonkeys' TPA anyway if the user talk page has been misused. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• As rants go, this is minor: irritating, maybe, but not enough of a personal attack to warrant talk page removal. If NE Ent wasn't so busy celebrating the new AP poll (Roll Tide, Ent) they'd drop by to say that the easiest way to deal with this is to not look at their talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Before the latest "rant" from PM, that's precisely what I recommended to Thegreyanomaly here. I did read PM's latest comments about when he posted them, and although it's annoying, I agree that it's not sufficient to revoke talk page access or take any additional action against him. My advice to Thegreyanomaly is the same. Stay away from PM's talk page. Just because he "pings" you doesn't mean you have to go there. Ignoring him is the best way of handling it.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• While I endorse not posting on the blocked editors talk page and not watchlisting / reading it, I also think Prisonermonkeys should be firmly instructed to stop pinging other users, and TPA removed if they keep it up. Also, I think WMF should do this: Wikipedia_talk:Notifications#Blocked_users_pinging. NE Ent 10:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • • I don't see enough editors participating in that discussion to make this a "rule", NE Ent. Ironically, PM just tried to ping you, but he screwed up your user name. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed, they should not be able to ping. I remember previously noticing that PM had used pinging on their talk page to ask other users to do their bidding during their last block. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)