Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive890

Unexplained / POV removal of content by User:Packerfansam

User:Packerfansam has been around for a long time and has accumulated tens of thousands of edits, many focusing on Wisconsin legislative and / or political articles. He has created more than 3300 articles – many of them very short biographies, but a lot by even that measure. With this depth of experience (and a clean block log) it’s perplexing that in the past few days following a several-month editing hiatus, he has begun to remove substantial chunks of content from a variety of articles, accompanied by vague (and sometimes misleading) edit summaries. In many of the cases, the excised material relates to Jews, Muslims, African-Americans or LGBT matters, raising NPOV concerns.

Michigan – removed a religious affiliation table, and all narrative references to Jews, Muslims

New York City – removed textual references to the Stonewall Inn, Jews, LBGT demographics, Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism

Gabriel Riesser – removed description of subject’s Jewish ancestry and its consequences for the subject

Hamburg – removed references to Muslims, Jews

Kansas – removed references to Mormons, Jews, Muslims and other less-represented religions in the state

I raised concerns about this on the editor’s Talk page, first in brief narrative fashion, followed by templates when the edits continued without response. See link. Since then the unexplained and apparently POV edits have continued:

John Johnson – dab page – removed link to John Johnson (Latter Day Saints), "early Latter Day Saint and owner of the John Johnson Farm, a historical site in Mormonism"

Republican Party (United States) – removed entire section on LGBT issues as well as other references to gays; also a description of Jews as voting mostly Democratic.

I am bringing the matter here because the edits are, to my eyes, troubling, and need attention; and the editor is unresponsive. Furthermore the editor has a long and apparently productive history here, and these excisions are not so plainly “vandalism” or disruption that they’re suitable for AIV if they continue.

Thanks in advance for any comments and / or assistance. JohnInDC (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The edit summary shortened, simplified and removed possible redundant content is not reflective of the edits which are often completely removing all mention of specific groups of people. How can content be redundant if you remove all of it that concerns gays or Jews? These edits definitely are imposing a strange POV where some people are just erased from the public record. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

He's trying to purge Wikipedia of any evidence for the existence of people who aren't Christian and Republican. In May, he even removed references to the Democratic Party from over 100 articles (and was reverted).[1][2][3] I would support an indefinite block for deceptive editing. KateWishing (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block - even though he has a long history and a clean block record, this editor appears to either have become very extreme of late or decided he's WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia anymore. These edits account for vandalism in my opinion and given the particular topics of his dislike, I don't see the editor cheerfully avoiding them in the future. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

In addition, he's not responsive at his talk page, the last time he responded there seems to be to thank someone over 5 years ago. As for the recent edits, the edit summaries clearly misrepresent the edits, and his removal of content has become clearly disruptive. Despite his constructive edits, these edits suggest WP:NOTHERE. Doug Weller (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

JohnInDC was concerned about the wrong citations Packerfansam had added to several Wisconsin Legislators article very recently. I had been looking at Packerfansam's Wisconsin Legislators articles to see if a category, etc., needs to be added. I did add the correct Wisconsin Blue Books citation to the articles that JohnInDC was concerned about. And I was concerned about about Packerfansam removing the political affliations of several Wisconsin Legislators articles with no reasons given. I hope this helps-Thank youRFD (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible this account is compromised ? Considering his long history of productive edits, then this sudden shift ... maybe it's something to look at ? KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 15:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I had the same thought but in the main, the edit interests seem to have been pretty stable. I guess in the final analysis it doesn't matter - the edits are unacceptable no matter who's responsible. (It is mystifying though.) JohnInDC (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note that he stopped editing in August of last year, and when he returned 24 April, this is when the problems began. The possibility of a compromised account is real, as is a CIR issue. He has never been one to communicate, I didn't see any talk in his contribs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown, I thought this was possible but even as of today, he continues to create articles on Wisconsin politicians as he has been doing for years. Please look at his contributions. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

A CIR issue may still be at hand. Medication, life events, all kinds of things can change a person's competency, either temporarily or permanently. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

First things, despite the assumption, I'm a 'she'. Second, to answer people's suspicions, I have numerous health issues that have escalated in recent times. I don't feel it's necessary to go into specifics, but is it possible they can effect my judgment? Sure. That, along with other issues in my life can explain gaps between logging in, such as the last couple days. Now, I think along with some of the other issues being discussed, my not logging in for two days is being exaggerated. It was not because of these accusations, I didn't received a notice of this until I just logged in for this session. Sometimes health and other life issues take my attention. The extended length between updates last year involves family issues that, again, I don't think it's necessary to be specific about. If, during these times, I was hacked and I haven't realized it, my apologies. I have recently changed my password, maybe that would help to stop other possible issues. Now, the concerns about the links to the Wisconsin Blue Book tend to can be tough I understand. Google Books reverts you back to the original page you were on prior. If you were looking as something on page 1 and later decide to post a link for page 2, it decides to take you back to 1. Some of the re-categorizing is simply because it doesn't seem like the article necessarily belongs there, such as with Category:Mayors of places in Wisconsin, where there were some subjects whose job titles didn't match the criteria. Thanks to those who have offered their support. Packerfansam (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response here, and good luck with your health issues. Can you please offer an explanation, for example, for this edit [4] to Precursor (religion), where you removed sourced materiel regarding non-Christian religions. This type of POV edit, with no (in this case) or misleading (in other cases) is the heart of my concern, and perhaps others. Was it judgement impairment due to illness, as you suggested some of the unaddressed issues might be? Or, are you asserting that your account was WP:COMPROMISED? The key is to understand (a) which other edits your account may have made, like that, with no or misleading edit summaries, that still need to be fixed, and (b) can you offer an assurance that such editing will not happen again. An acknowledgement of why it really happened will help other editors have confidence in your continued participation. Otherwise, why should you not be topic-banned from editing articles about religion and politics? JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Packerfansam: could you please address some of the issues such as Joe's question above?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, let me first address that if anything I did seemed to be misleading or deceptive in articles, I deeply apologize. It seems to me, among other things, if you have a certain location (city, state, etc.) where the residents are overwhelmingly affiliated with a certain group or denomination, it bloats the article and makes it excessively long if you go into detail about other groups that make up a microscopic (sometimes like 0.15% or less) portion of the population and the culture. Thanks Packerfansam (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

As for being compromised, I can't answer definitely without carefully combing through and trying to remember things, but it's happened with me on other sites in the past so it's possible. Packerfansam (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm unpersuaded. That reasoning would maybe explain removing mention of Jews in Kansas (though it's 2%, not .015%) but it certainly is hard to square with editing out Jews in New York City or mention of the "largest gay and bisexual community in the United States" that is found there. That's just one counterexample - there are several others cited above, and below as well. JohnInDC (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

First, let me point out that it was 0.15 not .015, there is a difference. In regards to NYC, there was a section about the city's many, many landmarks and none of the others were mentioned by name, except for I think it was Greenwich, as if it were special or more noteworthy than the others. Without getting into what's right or wrong even, it seems strange to me that one should be especially singled out and recognized apart from the others. Packerfansam (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Pardon, but that is an inadequate if not disingenuous explanation for this [5] edit to NYC, where, as you did with many other edits, you removed all mention of non-Christian religions:

Christianity is the most prevalently practiced religion in New York, followed by Judaism, with approximately 1.1 million Jews (יהודי) in New York City, over half living in Brooklyn. Islam ranks third in New York City, with official estimates ranging between 600,000 and 1,000,000 observers and including 10% of the city's public schoolchildren, followed by Hinduism, Buddhism, and a variety of other religions, as well as atheism or self-identifying with no organized religious affiliation.

References

Try again. JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Please let's don't go through these one by one, arguing whether ".15" or ".015" makes the edits any more defensible. A full-throated denial would be a good start - if Packerfansam doesn't want to go through her contribution history to identify the odious edits that were made by a hacker using her name, the examples here are sufficient to tell her in an instant whether she was responsible for them. Absent a straight-up denial, which we don't have, an acknowledgment or recognition that maybe, perhaps, it's problematic to remove references to, e.g., Jews in New York, Muslims in Michigan, gay marriage from the Republican Party, the Jewish ancestry and civil rights advocacy of a German lawyer, the sexual orientation of a the first gay Republican legislator in Wisconsin, or - by the IP a day ago - the sexual orientation of the Swedish Womens' Soccer team coach. And that's before we even start on the misleading edit summaries that accompanied these changes (for which she offers a conditional apology). So far I see nothing to assure us that Packerfansam recognizes these edits as problematic or that she will not make similar edits going forward. JohnInDC (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Continued problematic editing that is continuing to occur noted here, together with Good hand/bad hand editing noted here are both of considerable concern. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, this is what certain people seem to want to see - yes, I made updates that are causing this debacle. You can argue about my judgment and whether it's been altered. To me, in my judgment in what I recall, it seemed proper. I don't necessarily know if it was to the excess others believe it was, so I can't rule out a hack. I don't have plans to go out and make particularly controversial edits, my plan for the imminent future is to continue with legislator bios, creating and updating articles as would be appropriate with that. Packerfansam (talk), 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Response & comment - This is at best a grudging acknowledgment by Packerfansam of the problems she has caused with her POV edits and misleading summaries, not to mention (indeed not mentioned) the edit warring and sock puppetry. It isn't just "some people" who want to see an explanation and assurances, but nearly every single person who has participated in this discussion. I do not believe that Packerfansam appreciates that her edits contravened Wikipedia policy, or that that were in any way improper or disruptive. That being said I also believe that the foregoing is about all we are going to get out of her on the subject, and, as halfhearted as it is, it is something. She is, at least, speaking about it. Going forward, which I assume will take place without a block, I personally would like to see something a little more explicit about the ground rules, whether it comes from her, or from us, by rough agreement. Maybe something like, "no edits to remove content from articles re religion, sexual preference or other demographic characteristics" - I don't know. What I do know is that "no immediate plans" to make controversial edits is not reassuring, and isn't very helpful as a standard against which to measure future behavior. Thoughts and / or comments welcome. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Look, I have no idea what can offend some people. To me, for instance, creating an article about a notable politician, listing them in the proper areas for where they were born, where they lived and went to school and things like that doesn't seem like it should bother anybody. But I can't be sure what somebody could have a problem with. Can I give 100% certainty that nobody will ever have a problem with something I write ever again? No. Do I want to go through this stress again when I already have enough in my life? Also no. Packerfansam (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If what you mean by that is that you intend henceforth to stick to creating stub articles for Wisconsin politicians, then you are much less likely to run into POV and bias problems. I would recommend including the political affiliation of the subjects, when it is in the sources, and ensuring that the sources you cite actually link to the subject of the article you are creating. I, we, are not asking you to promise you'll never offend anyone again; rather we are asking that you stop removing material from articles because something about it offends you. Thanks. Now let's see what some of the other editors have to say about this. JohnInDC (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I found your response to be very disappointing. I had thought you "got it", and were willing to move forward, but just didn't want to explicitly own up to your mistakes. But your answers, above, make me wonder. Do you really think the issue was a vague, hard to understand "some people" being "offend"ed? Do you really think the issue was anything to do with was "creating an article about a notable politician, listing them in the proper areas for where they were born, where they lived and went to school and things like "? If so, you have a serious problem of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and or a problem with competence. Examples were laid out for you very clearly here and on your talk page. You are ignoring those details here, and have repeatedly blanked them on your talk page. As a reminder, the problems include this list and many more:

Michigan – removed a religious affiliation table, and all narrative references to Jews, Muslims

• New York City – removed textual references to the Stonewall Inn, Jews, LBGT demographics, Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism
• Gabriel Riesser – removed description of subject’s Jewish ancestry and its consequences for the subject
• Hamburg – removed references to Muslims, Jews
• Kansas – removed references to Mormons, Jews, Muslims and other less-represented religions in the state
• John Johnson – dab page – removed link to John Johnson (Latter Day Saints), "early Latter Day Saint and owner of the John Johnson Farm, a historical site in Mormonism"
• Republican Party (United States) – removed entire section on LGBT issues as well as other references to gays; also a description of Jews as voting mostly Democratic.
• [6][7][8] removed references to the Democratic Party from over 100 articles
• [9] remove mention of Jews in New York City
• [10] removal of the sexual orientation of the Swedish Womens' Soccer team coach
• Special:Contributions/24.178.45.221 most troublesome, was your Good hand/bad hand editing, with your logged out editing all, with 2 exceptions, being reverted by editors as being disruptive

Are you really sure you want to continue in this way? JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Time to close We do not know the full circumstances under which Packerfansam is editing. We know he has health issues and we should leave it at that. He is constructively engaging editors about issues they have, and although we may strongly disagree with some of the edits he has made, he clearly wants to edit constructively and with good faith. Could there be future problems? Sure, but we can deal with them should they arise. Let's assume good faith and encourage Packerfansam to continue editing. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Again, it's she, either way, much appreciated. Packerfansam (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for getting your gender wrong! --I am One of Many (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not too much to ask that Packerfansam state precisely what she intends to do, or not do, going forward; or that we collectively outline our expectations of her. Her POV and misleading edits were blockable and while she is now at least discussing them, she has given no indication at all that she appreciates what the problem is (apologizing if she has been misleading; confessing to having no idea which of her edits "might offend some people", as though unpredictably thin-skinned readers were the heart of it) and I would like just a bit of clarity about what is expected of her going forward so that if, three or four weeks - or 5 months - hence, we see a new run of POV purges, someone can point back and say, "that is not what you said you would do". If she does not understand the problem, then she can't exercise meaningful judgment in avoiding it in the future. Other than that - yes, I agree, we are done here. JohnInDC (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it is too much at this point. Packerfansam has edited here, without issues, for years. If there are issues in the next few weeks or months, we can deal with them. If the edits in question were due to misunderstandings and/or lapses in judgement, then moving on means she moves on to continued constructive editing. If we continue to push this thing, maybe she says "The hell with this, I don't need this in my life.", she moves on, and we lose another editor. You have accomplished what is important: She is aware of the issues, acknowledged them, stated that she wants to contribute constructively. Now, let's assume good faith and deal with issues in the future if they occur. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't seem to quit - Promises notwithstanding, Packerfansam just this morning edited Omaha, Nebraska to remove mention of synagogues in the city. Diff here. She does not seem able to help herself. She has been systematically removing references in articles to non-Christians and non-traditional sexual orientations and despite the extensive discussion here - as well as her claim that she doesn't want any more headaches - she continues to do so. She does not understand the problem, and she is manifestly unable to stop. JohnInDC (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It's getting ridiculous at this point. I am One of Many, I applaud your efforts to caution restraint, but I daresay that assuming good faith at this point at this point would be counterproductive and deleterious to the project. And to be honest, a bit silly. Editors are beginning to become exasperated cleaning up her POV edits, which she apparently has no intention of stopping. As of now, the editor has shown no actual remorse, has been generally avoidant and disingenuous, ignored several attempts to communicate, and is unrelenting in making their unabashedly POV edits (often coupled with misleading edit summaries). Whether they've contributed any significant content in the past is immaterial, and a point rendered moot considering the fact that this behaviour is continuing. For some time, the editor in question has been editing with an obvious political / religious agenda, and is completely unapologetic in doing so. This discussion has gone on for almost a week now, and extending them any good will is almost abetting the disruption, and appears to be only forestalling an inevitable indefinite block. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Support Indefinite block, per above, and no efforts to alter their behaviour or even acknowledge that this is inappropriate. An unblock, of course, should be conditional on a promise to reach consensus regarding removal or wholesale alteration of material related to religion, race, and sexual orientation. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

No sign of abating - Early this morning (June 23) she removed a reference to a "figure study of a nude young woman" painted by artist Clarence Holbrook Carter as "POV". A couple of editors recently weighed in on her Talk page, urging her to steer clear of religion, so it bears repeating that she has never confined her excisions to those matters, but has swept in sexuality as well - e.g., removing references to various subjects' sexual orientation, and LGBT political issues; edit warring at University of Wisconsin–Madison to remove "Playboy" as as reference on the ground that it is not reliable or a place for respected or credible journalism. Repeated admonitions don't seem to have had much effect, but if suasion is the path to be followed, it should at least be comprehensive. JohnInDC (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Time to close Issues are now about content and not behavior. Behavior has been mis-characterized in above "Can't seem to quit" where the editor removed an uncited sentence as much about Christians as it was about Jews. Attempts to paint this as anti-semitic fall short. Subsequently, you removed cited material that she added in a blind revert. Uncool. The material under "No sign of abating" is unsourced and indeed has a POV because of striking which is opinion..."Carter's striking figure study...". Being unsourced she can remove it...personally, I would have just removed the adjective but her actions aren't egregious here. The other diffs are old rehash from May. It is beginning to look as if editors have an ax to grind. Defer to dispute resolution for content matters.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I disagree that it has become a kind of rolling content dispute, and I don't care for the suggestion that I've got an axe to grind. Packerfansam's editing focus and pattern (religion / sexuality / politics) beyond the creation of short articles in my view remains unchanged. And too I confess to being a bit mystified by the deference that is being shown to her given that she has failed to address any but one or two of her earlier, indefensible edits (and those, only in the most general of terms). But I do agree that this has become a huge time sink, and my own convictions notwithstanding, the issue seems to be finding no purchase here. I don't like seeing my credibility as an editor called into question, so I will let this go if that's the decision. JohnInDC (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• So she removed one reference to Christianity (that also removed more Jewish info) after this AfD began? (And again, that would be valid population info that she randomly stripped it out for no reason from an article about a major U.S. city, well after this AfD began). Yes, I see how that definitely proves she has no problems with Jews and there's no problem with behavior.... —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

[Collapsing comments re proposed block and possible sock puppetry - discussion has moved to the middle of the posting]

Proposal to indef block Packerfansam for POV editing, misleading edit summaries and refusal to engage

Given the speed at which matters move up and out of ANI, I’m a bit worried that, a few editors having offered their views, the matter will languish without resolution. Several commenters have suggested an indef block, so I now formally propose it.

• Support, as proposer and per above - repeated removal of content reflecting political / religious bias, misleading edit summaries, refusal to engage. JohnInDC (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – given that this is apparently a long-term editor who did lots of good work before, but has maybe gone "off" lately, an indef block against a previously "clean" block record seems like overkill. I could support a relatively long block (e.g. months) here for Packerfansam, but even that seems like it might be overkill. It does seem clear that a block of some duration is probably in order here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This should surely be more of a cause for concern than an opportunity for a very punative block. I suggest further research is required- surely we also have a some responsibility to WP:ENGAGE...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - He has ignored my attempts at engagement (other than to blank the template warnings) and continues to make the same kinds of edits. If another editor can get his attention, that'd be great. JohnInDC (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Modify — A sanction of some type, not indef, and allowing for discussion at the user's talk page or here. But the nature of these edits is such that we need to put some immediate protections in place while we try to engage. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Reluctant support - given this editor's long history of sound edits, I'm distressed to say that we have to do this: but something has gone wrong since early May or so, and we can no long rely on an edit by this account to be a sound one, the way we used to. If they refuse to communicate, a block of at least one month minimum seems called for. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support shorter block, given the editor's clean block log until now; it will get their attention as well as an indef, which is always an option if needed. On a block log, an indef (which I know isn't infinite) looks worse than a block of fixed duration, and this editor may be salvageable. Miniapolis 22:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I've never seen what function an "attention-getting block" really serves. Either the account is compromised and an indef block is appropriate, or the editor is really an inveterate POV warrior who should not be editing as long as they think that such is appropriate. In the latter case an indef block is also appropriate--a block which can be lifted as soon as...well, fill in the blank, but it starts with "Packerfansam". Drmies (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose indef, we can use escalating blocks in an attempt to recover this editor. Something like a week for the first block would be sufficient. Chillum 22:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  So your premise is that blocking an editor is a good way to recover one? As opposed to alienating them? Strange. Eric Corbett 22:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  Please don't try to explain my premise, you never seem to get it right. We have to weigh damage to the project against keeping the editor. Chillum 03:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  If he's taken a sudden turn toward the Dark Side, it's probably too late already. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  It is not hard to reblock if shorter blocks do not work. Chillum 03:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, especially as it appears he's never been blocked before. If he's uncommunicative, a reasonable short block might get his attention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't usually agree with Mr. Corbett, but I do here. As I said just above, I don't believe in attention-getting blocks, and the whole concept of escalating blocks--well, I spent a few years in a place where they believed in something like that, and it never increased my desire to live by their rules. Blocks piss people off, and they should be applied judiciously and appropriately. "Getting attention" is like keying someone's car because they parked it in the wrong place. If it's in the way, you tow it. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• The goal is not to get their attention, the goal is to prevent disruptive editing. I suggested escalating block instead of an indef because it give the user a chance to recover while preventing disruption. Remember that communication has already been tried. Chillum 22:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose indef Something has gone wrong since May and a user with a clean block log is up for an indef. Please do not hand out indefs so lightly. (Littleolive oil (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC))
  • Comment - Just - to be clear, I don't care particularly whether the editor is indef blocked or not. Anything that works is fine with me. As for the scope of the problem, I can add that, at least among the articles he has recently created, he reports the party affiliation of the subject when it is Republican or Independent, but omits it if it's Democratic. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme - these are legislators who served 120+ years ago - but these deliberate omissions are irresponsible at best, and make wholly unnecessary work for others. JohnInDC (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef - I see no reason to suspect account compromise. Editor is STILL creating new articles for Wisconsin politicians. If any reason should be considered, editor can appeal the block and attempt to provide explanation. Regardless of reason, editor is no longer here to contribute. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Although Packerfansam doesn't respond directly to warnings, his/her behavior has been altered by them. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I am One of Many What do you mean by his behavior has been altered? He obviously saw the many warnings as he deleted them from his talk page. Then just today he removed the table about religion demographics from a town in Norway that was 1.5 percent Muslim. His edit summary for the removal of the demographics table was "bars were out of place." I really don't know what to make of that. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, he didn't make that edit today, but on June 14. He also removed the whole box on religion, so we can't say he was targeting Muslims. Finally, I don't know how to interpret his edit summary, but it could just mean he didn't like how tables lined up, so he removed them. I'll also add that I see no evidence of edit waring when he is reverted. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That edit summary shows it was made on June 15, at least by Wikipedia time, and more importantly was after he had been warned. If he felt the table wasn't properly aligned, he could have moved it somewhere else. It's below another demographic table that was not deleted. Based on his other pattern of removal of information, this is highly suspicious. Additionally he was warned over and over and continued his behavior, as you can see by the activity on his page along with his contributions. If his behavior has truly been altered by being told to stop, this would never have come to ANI. Edit warring is only one form of disruptive editing. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. He doesn't refuse to engage, he just hasn't engaged on this topic this time around. He uses talk pages:
• 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, 8 but typically blanks messages he receives and then goes to their talk page to reply. He responded here but that editor didn't reply back(!). He traded replies where he blanked and then replied here with another editor...that editor replied back to Packer's talk page so the thread gets lost in the shuffle. Packer is removing posts after he has read them as part of his norm. I would suggest that he isn't talk page savvy but that doesn't mean that he doesn't communicate at all. I do think that he should be more conversant on the POV topics. This change on his userpage may reflect a change in POV. He hasn't engaged JohnInDC; that shouldn't be taken that he doesn't engage with everyone. Calls for indef above seem extreme to me. The first warning might be construed as a nuisance as he may think his summary isn't off the mark and suggesting he has to play Mother may I and always use talk pages...well, I'd ignore that too. Being templated thereafter doesn't help but kind of has the ring of Don't template the regulars. Apart from John, the only other editor that has attempted to engage him on this is Ed. None of the supporters above bothered to try. This can be characterized as isolated between two editors. A more cordial approach may work.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - As I noted above, I don't care what's done as long as the unacceptable editing stops. (I am skeptical that his 36 hour editing pause is significant.) I would note further that his disinclination to explain or defend questionable edits is not limited to the immediate non-conversation with me - three times previously, on three separate occasions (beginning here), other editors asked him about and warned him against systematically removing party affiliations from Wisconsin legislator articles. As far as I can tell he did not respond to any of these messages. He did ultimately stop removing the material, but then switched over to selectively omitting the information from articles he was continuing to create. I get that this is a longstanding editor with a lot of good work to his credit, but - you know, so am I, and in all honesty if I started removing content reflecting a clear political bias, and camouflaged it with misleading edit summaries, and refused to discuss it - well, I'd expect to be blocked, at least until I evinced some willingness to acknowledge and discuss the problem. JohnInDC (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    • You've got that a bit wrong. What you link to above was on his talk page but he responded on the other editor's talk page and the last sentence leads me to think that he may have thought that removal of party affiliation may have been trying to correct where he thought that he had "been overdoing it" when he had wrote those in before.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
      • You are right. I missed that. Thanks. That being said, it is a "response" only in the most literal sense. He ignored the first Talk page message on May 12 (continuing to remove party affiliations), responded to a second (rather stern) May 13-14 Talk page message as you've noted, and then started right back up at it on another 20 or so articles (blanking Democrats only!) and didn't stop until a third Talk page message on May 15. I do not dispute that my messages to him were not the best for eliciting a response from him (I wish I'd done that better in retrospect) but: We've been talking here at ANI for a day and a half, and another editor has left a thoughtful narrative message on his page inviting a response, and so far we have nothing. The only thing that gives me pause is that he hasn't edited for 36 hours, so conceivably he hasn't seen Ed's message or the ANI notification. But I don't find his past level of engagement at all encouraging. JohnInDC (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
        • The response on Capitalismojo's page here (after Capitalismojo told him to stop being disruptive) was after he removed the Democratic Party from four politicians ([11], [12], [13], [14]) and oddly just removed the wikilink to the party from another one [15], in under 10 minutes. And he responds innocently "what did I do that was so disruptive?" Capitalismojo probably did not follow up out of exasperation. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Do you realize that he was the one who wrote those articles as well as wrote the particular sentences of affiliation in the first place? Odd that he is called disruptive to edit on this one when no other editor had touched it. I believe that he saw himself as trying to correct perceived mistakes. He removed whole sentences about party affiliation when they stood alone to that fact but as you note with the delinking, he wasn't trying to obscure facts. Note that he didn't remove the categories of political affiliation? Being told that you are disruptive on an article that only you have edited is just a bit bizarre so yeah, I think his question was in good faith. He wasn't really edit warring or anything like that. He reverted once in this history but he was trying to communicate also. He was misunderstood in this thread ("overdoing" wasn't in reference to the reverts he was doing that day but the inclusions in the past). The hard clamp down and admonishment in that light looks bizarre and I imagine frustrating. We should wait and put the pitchforks and torches up for the time being. He really isn't being that disruptive.
             — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
            • Oh, but he is being that disruptive. Removing political affiliations is, as I said above, small change. Beyond that little stuff he has been routinely, almost systematically, removing information from articles relating to Jews, Muslims, Mormons, gays & lesbians and other groups. I didn't provide an exhaustive list at the outset because I figured my examples were sufficiently representative, and distressing, that more would be perceived as piling on. But if there are questions about the impropriety of his edits, here are a few more (still not exhaustive - there are more still) examples from just the past six days:

Todd Novak - removed reference to the subject's sexual orientation (gay) and associated categories. No edit summary.

Madison, Wisconsin - removed text re Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus and others with the edit summary of "simplified".

Argus (dab) - removed all dab links to Greek Mythology. No edit summary. I can't see anything particularly biased about this but it is plainly disruptive.

Precursor (religion) - removing non-Christian examples; no edit summary.

What assurance - indeed even what indication do we have that he plans to discontinue these inappropriate edits, beyond the fact that he hasn't changed a page in a day and a half? Maybe the answer is, for now, leave him be and keep an eye on him and see if he continues his POV editing when he picks up the cursor again; fine. But I can't swallow describing these things as "not disruptive". JohnInDC (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why it matters that he created those original articles, there is no WP:OWNERSHIP. I don't see why he would decide to strip them out now unless it's related to his edit that he only works on Republican articles now or he's losing his marbles. I'm rather surpised that anyone would think removing entire sections related to Jews and gays from articles is not really that disruptive, but I suppose it explains why you're defending him. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

In my oppose above I stated "I do think that he should be more conversant on the POV topics." I too, would like to hear an explanation about those edits.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Berean Hunter and Drmies. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment-I agree with Dennis Brown that medication or some health issues may be involved with Packerfansam. Packerfansam mentioned about some health issues on the talk page. I agree with JohnInDC about keeping an eye on Packerfansam and see what happens. There is a possibility that Packerfansam may ceased editing again for a long time. Thank you-RFD (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strong SupportNeutral I am concerned that this editor's contribution history needs to be carefully reviewed for POV edits and unexplained removals with corrections made - I've made some over the past couple of days. Regarding the former, just a brief review of history shows many stub articles of Wisconsin politicians were created by this editor. For members of the Republican party, their party affiliation was included by the editor in the original article and remains to this day. For members of the Democratic party, no party affiliation was included by this editor at any time. Other editor(s) added the affiliation after this odd anti-Democrat etc. POV editing was noted. Regarding removal of content and tags, in addition to the misleading edit summaries noted earlier, most such edits have no edit summary at all. Both of these sets issues I mention come down to fundamental lack of trust regarding this editors contributions. I've looked at several pages of his contributions and found that these issues are consistent. How far back one must go to review and correct these clearly intentional dishonest edits? An indefinite block while such a review and correction takes place, such as what was done with Colonel Henry, is necessary to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. Once corrected, and after the editor responds constructively in an unblock request, then the editor can hopefully begin editing in accordance with WP's policies. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• I am switching my !vote to Neutral based on the interactions here User_talk:JoeSperrazza#Many_thanks- and here [16]. I believe the editor "gets it", and we're not going to get a point-by-point "mea culpa" - which we shouldn't need (but I admit a little more of an affirmative "I understand what the concerns are and will do better" would have been the best response. Nor do I think we're going to get help fixing old problems (everything from their IP is fixed, and going back a month on their contributions I don't see any serious issues that have not been fixed that are left - but there was plenty of fixing required". Those who work in Wisconsin articles should keep an eye on the editor - I'll periodically take a look, too. Future problems should lead to a very swift topic ban from "religion, sexuality and politics, in any namespace, broadly construed". Finally, perhaps the editor would like some coaching or mentoring if in doubt in the future, or just to informally ask some questions. If so, I volunteer to help. Best regards to all, JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

He hasn't edited in two days and no current disruption is occurring so you have time to review his contribs and make corrections if necessary. He has a clean block log, many articles to his credit and I believe he should be allowed to reply before any decisions are made. If he refuses to engage and starts editing in the same way then blocking may be called for.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps he should not have a clean block log. This is very obvious NPOV editing, done in a way to hide his changes. Lacking a response soon, how can no action be a correct response? JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll say it this way, if and when he begins to edit again he will need to address this issue within an hour or two - giving him plenty of time to respond after seeing the messages on his talk page and reading through this thread. If he makes more POV edits without responding or fails to respond entirely, my "oppose for now" above will likely be converted to "support indef blocking" and if consensus supports the action, I'll do the block myself. By the way, I attempted to email him but he does not have a specified email address.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

That clock just started 15 minutes ago as he is back and blanked the notice.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

He responded above about 30 minutes ago. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. I edit-conflicted and was going to remove my comment when I realized that. :) I was reading my watchlist from bottom up. I haven't read the reply yet.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment. As noted here User_talk:Packerfansam#Incorrect_citation_.2F_reference_in_several_articles [17], the editor is continuing with problematic creation of and edits to articles, yet has dissembled in response to questions about their edits and not, as of yet, either paused in their edits nor given any effort to identifying or correcting their problem edits to date. A block is designed to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. One is needed. JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't see any disruption here. The only issue is a content discussion that is ongoing, not disruptive in any way. Mentioning that the population of NYC is 1.5% Jewish is negligible, for example. --92slim (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - It's more like 15% and, as the largest concentration of Jews outside of Israel, not "negligible" under any sensible meaning of the word. JohnInDC (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I was starting to wonder if I'd been too harsh in recommending an indefinite block until she posted the excuses above, which are just another example of deceptive editing. Worst of all, 30 minutes after "apologizing" for her deceptive behavior, she logged out to continue it.[18][19] KateWishing (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Summing up thus far: By way of response from Packerfansam, we have:

• Some of those edits might have been made by someone with access to my account, or not – I don’t know. (“I can't answer definitely without carefully combing through and trying to remember things, but it's happened with me on other sites in the past so it's possible.”)
• I apologize if any of my edits were misleading.
• There was nothing wrong with removing mention of non-dominant religions from various articles, nor with my edit to New York City.

She has neither denied making, nor offered to explain, any of the several other examples set forth here.

Whatever happened between August 2014 and May 2015, as of now, someone with access to the Packerfansam account believes (again, just by way of example) that mention of non-mainstream Christian religions makes Wikipedia articles too long; that references to a subject’s homosexuality or Judaism are best omitted; that “Playboy” is not a reliable source and that material sourced to it should be removed (from the University of Wisconsin–Madison edit war) – and appears to see nothing wrong with any of this.

Since returning from her 48 hour absence, Packerfansam has made 37 edits, including 6 new articles and 2 new categories. She has had ample opportunity to consider the comments here and respond thoughtfully but has commented here only four times and offered no meaningful explanation. She has a clear history of disruptive and POV editing, and I do not understand why, absent clear statements from her that she 1) understands that the edits are unacceptable and 2) pledges to make no more of them, ever, a block of at least some duration should not be forthcoming. JohnInDC (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• After again blanking their talk page, the editor is engaging in a discussion at my talk page User_talk:JoeSperrazza#Many_thanks-. I would like to be able to convince the editor to do something to regain our trust. Answering some questions I posed is one way. Perhaps there are other ways. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Indefinite does not mean infinite, and the medical issue suggests that we should block until she is able to explain that she understands what was wrong with the edits, whether or not she remembers making them. Few argue against her edits being disruptive. We have blocked an editor who we believe is medically unable to contribute constructively. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Please check 24.178.45.221 as a possible sockpuppet of Packerfansam. Examples of similar edits: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] - [26] - [27] - [28] - [29] - [30]. 32.218.32.164 (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Same edits, same squishy edit summaries, same time of day, a Wisconsin emphasis, some of the same articles - indeed the same edit war at University of Wisconsin-Madison - no question. Nice catch. JohnInDC (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see anything inconsistent with WP:VALIDALT. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps not. But it yields several more examples of biased editing, we can add edit warring to the list of problems (odd that I hadn't noticed it before, even Packerfansam alone), and it calls into question Packerfansam's assertion above that she had been away from the computer for two and a half days inasmuch as one of the IP's edits comes in the middle of that period. JohnInDC (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• In the UW-Madison edit war JohninDC referred to, Packerfansam's POV edits were reverted 4 times, then 24.178.45.221 took over, making the same edits. (See last 6 edits listed above.) That's classic sockpuppetry - using an alternate account to deceive or mislead other editors or to avoid sanctions. The most recent example involved Packerfansam making an innocuous edit at 21:02, then 24.178.45.221 returning almost an hour later (3 minutes after Packerfansam's last edit and after commenting on this board), to make a questionable edit that was reverted by JohninDC. That's a clear attempt to evade detection. 32.218.32.164 (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think it is good idea to stop the mind reading for now. There are good possible explanations for everything that we just don't know right now. First, if he is concerned about others using his account, he may log off every time he leaves the computer and sometimes forgets to log on when he returns. It may be that he removed minority religions based on a good faith assumption, but he will come to see that it is not a good idea. Let's see if we can get this resolved peacefully so that everyone can get back to constructing an encyclopedia and retaining productive editors. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, please look at these edits, clear examples of WP:EVADE, made after these issues have been raised at the editor's talk page and WP:ANI and after the editor responded here:

1. Revision as of 01:32, 2015 June 17 [31], [32], [33] Editing Legal issues with fan fiction as 24.178.45.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), removes cited information without edit summary or talk page explanation. The 2nd & 3rd edits noted remove sexuality and religion information, edits that are consistent with other problematic edits that have been made by this editor.
2. Revision as of 17:02, 2015 June 17 [34] Editing Fond du Lac, Wisconsin as Packerfansam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), adds reference to a Wisconsin political stub article * [[Thomas S. Weeks]], Wisconsin State Assemblyman
3. Revision as of 17:53, 2015 June 17 [35] Editing Fond du Lac, Wisconsin as 24.178.45.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), removes referenced information about other than Christianity (in this case, Atheism, but as documened elsewhere, she has been similarly removing Judaism, etc.) 42.7% of Fond du Lac residents do not affiliate with any [[religion]].<ref>[http://www.bestplaces.net/religion/city/wisconsin/fond_du_lac Fond du Lac, Wisconsin Religion Data]</ref>
4. Latest revision as of 23:58, 2015 June 17 [36] Editing Gottlieb Wehrle as Packerfansam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), makes a minor edit to another Wisconsin political article.

This is not supported by the "I forgot to login" excuse, just as their other problematic edits are not explained by the "I was hacked excuse". Per Special:Contributions/24.178.45.221, this has been going on since May 15th of this year. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hoaxing again at Kenny Loggins

We need a range block because of recent activity by the long-term hoaxer, the Kenny Loggins vandal. IPs involved today are:

• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:5413:8F44:17A6:5B40 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:316C:945D:AF85:E19A (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Perhaps we can temporarily rangeblock 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0. Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

And now another spate of hoaxing by 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:A1D3:9BE1:C1A2:3BFC (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)).

15 of the last 16 hoaxer IPs started with 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0, so it would be very helpful to block this range. Binksternet (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And very quickly after that one we have this one: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:7132:4B62:E645:80BE (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Still looking for an appropriate rangeblock. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• HEY. ADMINS. SOMEBODY GIVE BINKSTERNET A RANGEBLOCK PLEASE. I'd do if if I knew how to. I mean, I can, but I'd probably block a whole state. That still doesn't make me care, as long as it's not my own state, but the Foundation will probably cut my allowance. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: Maybe this will help: IPv6 range calculation tool. It was recommended last time this came up here, and I bookmarked it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but I really shouldn't be messing with any ranges... Drmies (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
      • The range needed to cover the four above IPs, as calculated from that tool, is 2602:306:bd7e:caa0::/64 - I have no idea if this is a sensible range to block though. Sam Walton (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
        • mw:Help:Range_blocks/IPv6 implies that this covers 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IPs, so perhaps not appropriate. That said, that's a fraction of the total possible IPv6 IPs, so I have no idea. Sam Walton (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Pinging Mr. IPv6 Jasper Deng to see if he can help out. And (canvassing) perhaps more admins could put in their two cents here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
            • Just trying to bring another issue to your attention here, so not sure if it is appropriate for me to comment, but a 64 bit prefix is the minimum fully functional subnet that can be allocated. So it is probably a very good fit to block BFG (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• @Drmies and Samwalton9: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0::/64 indeed is the range you want to block. The duration you should use for this is the same as you would use for a single AT&T IPv4 address, although this should be considered more static than a dynamic IPv4. If it's a residential Internet provider, a /64 in IPv6, i.e. having the first four digit groups in common, is easily treatable as a single IP. Do not be deterred by the number of addresses blocked, because by design very few of them will be used.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Jasper, I appreciate the note, but I'm just not going to venture there. I wish we had a button we could push that would pull up a list of admins willing and able to make rangeblocks. I'm not one of them. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm blocking 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for two months. The log shows that the previous rangeblock by User:Monty845 expired on 14 June, which does fit with the dates of the above vandalism reports. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to add a technical note, while a /64 should be, and appears here to be a single user akin to an IPv4 address, the protocol is new enough that we should keep in mind the possibility that it may not always be, with either rapidly changing /64s from one user, or many users on one /64. Also, when this block expires, if we need to extend it again, linking the previous range block log may help get a quicker block. Monty₈₄₅ 00:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I do have to emphasize that looking at WHOIS is of utmost importance with IPv6; my comment strongly depends on the ISP being residential. It most certainly does not apply to mobile or satellite ISP's.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Drmies, Category:Wikipedia_administrators_willing_to_make_range_blocks --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks NeilN. No wonder I hadn't seen it--it's only been here since 2008. As far as I'm concerned, though, it should be renamed: "able to make..." Drmies (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Problematic behavior by Seattleditor - Probably COI, personal attacks, 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.

---

User Seattleditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing on Roger Libby the past few days. Their edits on the article's talk page indicate a conflict of interest and, up until now, they've mostly keep their editing to that talk page. Today, after I edited the page to reduce its SOAPy nature, they began removing maintenance templates from the page. I attempted to engage the user about it (here). They had done similarly in the past ([37]) saying it would negative effect the article subject's customers. After this, the user made this edit on my talk page accusing me deliberate malice that requires admin review and that I explained to you that as a practicing psychologist and psychotherapist, it is highly damaging to this licensed mental health professional to have his biography marked up with questions and errata.

I am requesting admin action on this. It appears that either the user is unable to handle their COI or they are NOTHERE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

agreed, there's a dearth of sources on that article and those that are there are almost all primary sources, Seattleditor is removing the tags indicating that fact, that's not cool at all. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, their use of "we" in their post on my user talk page makes me think the COI here is strong. Their post was completely out of line. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

In Response, EvergreenFir Has Misinterpreted Both Intent and Concerns

I am a practicing journalist, one who abides by the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, who wrote an article about this Dr. for a Seattle area publication. There is no COI on my part. However EvergreenFir has several COIs. First, his only authored page, for a Murray A. Strauss, bios a person who is a rival of the good doctor. Most ironically, the two doctors authored a major research paper together on sex and violence (which contradicts the claim of no secondary sources, the editor's own biographical subject was a collaborator.) I mean no personal animosity or offense but the other apparent COI is in the editor's (EvergreenFir) profile where he has elected to make various statements about his own gender issues. Regardless of personal bias, it is not clear to me how a distinguished position title within an organization can be secondarily sourced. Where such attribution exists, it has been provided (such as to membership rosters on publicly accessible pages.) What is curious is why the editor does not choose to actually edit the text which has gone untouched for a great many months, and instead inject uncertainty and doubt. In fact, I had expressed my misgivings that this could do harm if the patients of this practicing sex therapist found that the same page that had been untouched for so long is suddenly pockmarked with multiple assertions of errata. When I "Talked" about that to EvergreenFir I stated that, for my part, I was open to any edits he may like to provide but I requested he did not make the doctor appear unworthy or uncredentialed in light of the concurrent sensitivities of doctor-patient relationships. I presumed he was okay with that so I removed the template(s) for that reason and that reason alone. Please be advised, I did not author the section on the countless TV and radio appearances made by Dr. Libby which EvergreenFir has since removed. The "We" in my writing simply connotes that Dr. Libby sought my help since he was aware I had helped contribute to the original content. I have no COI whereas EvergreenFir 's COI is well documented. The fact of the matter is that Dr. Roger Libby is America's premiere Sex Therapist. If that is disturbing to this editor, he is welcome to call in a colleague. Oh, he actually did that and the colleague acknowledged that the academic credentials (post-doctoral) being beyond reproach. It seems to this relative neophyte that Wikipedia needs a way to make sourcing changes, IF necessary "behind the scenes" and not in a shameful, public way that casts doubt on the credibility or authority of a biography, especially in the cases of practicing health care professionals. Seattleditor (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think you might be a little confused as to how Wikipedia works. Writing an article for inclusion in a magazine kind of skirts the line of WP:NOTWEBHOST. But more importantly, if negative things about your friend can be reliably sourced, I'm afraid that isn't a violation of policy; see WP:BLP. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please take care of these personal attacks? How does my gender identity have anything to do with this? And if the subject of an article asked you to come and comment on their Wikipedia article, that's a WP:COI (whereas writing articles about criminologists is not)... Seattleditor if you are the author of that article, then you are Searchwriter and currently sockpuppeting... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• The bio is certainly problematic as it contains just one secondary source, and most of it is unsourced. One solution is to remove anything unsourced and slowly re-build it. Seattleditor, if you're editing with two accounts, please pick one and retire the other (or link them in some way). Also, please don't make personal comments about EvergreenFir. Sarah ^(talk) 01:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• There's also an issue with the image, which Seattleeditor added as his own work, but the image is on Libby's website. [38] Unless Seattleeditor took that photograph, it needs a release. Sarah ^(talk) 01:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding the image, since it appears on the banner of a copyrighted website, I've requested deletion at Commons unless the uploader can show OTRS either ownership or a license to use the image from the copyright owner. BMK (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I whittled down the article quite a bit (diff) which was the apparent impetus for the hostility. Quite annoyed at these attacks and ridiculous claims. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Searchwriter started the Libby article at User:Searchwriter/sandbox on 20 February 2014. The image was uploaded by Seattle24x7 on 21 February 2014, and Seattleeditor says he is Seattle24x7, so the three accounts do seem to be one person. Yes, the attacks need to stop. Sarah ^(talk) 02:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• It seems from a brief look at Seattle24x7 and related websites that this is SEO/marketing. Perhaps it's better handled at COIN in case other articles or accounts are involved. Pinging Jytdog in case he wants to take a look. Sarah ^(talk) 04:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I left a long message for SeattleEditor at their talk page. Too long for ANI. I'd ask that folks give him a chance to reply there. Basically I am recommending that SeattleEditor change course or that we indef him per NOTHERE. Let's see what he says. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Thank you for taking the time to do that. Much appreciated. I hope the user responds favorably. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, ditto, thank you. Sarah ^(talk) 17:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Possibility of paid editing

As noted above, the Roger Libby article began in the sandbox of User:Searchwriter, as did the article Lane Powell, about a Seattle law firm. Both of the articles appear to have been intended to be promotional, and have only been rendered acceptable by stripping out large amounts of information which is unsourced or attributed only to primary sources.

The user page for Searchwriter says:

This is the User Page for the editor of Seattle24x7.com, a Seattle news bureau Website. Thanks for your interest and comments. Everything we contribute to WikiPedia is fully "white-hat," attributed, and well-documented and includes citations.

The account name User talk:Seattle24x7 was username blocked in 2010. No edits exist in their contrib list, but their talk page indicates that they wrote an article on a book titled "The High Road Has Less Traffic", which was prodded as being self-published, and subsequently deleted at AfD as being non-notable.

The account User:Seattleditor was created just a few days ago, apparently for the purpose of editing the Roger Libby article. On their userpage they acknowledge that their former user name was "Seattle24x7", the name of their "Seattle-based e-zine". An examinination of the website shows quite clearly that it's a public-relations outlet: many of the articles are written by the CEOs of the companies they're about. This is clearly not a WP:RS, and not even a blog, it is, as its browser tab quite clearly states "Seattle's Internet Business Directory and Calendar".

What we have here is, I believe, paid editing on the part of Seattleeditor aka Seattle24x7 and Searchwriter. Seattleeditor is not " a practicing journalist ... who abides by the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists", he's a PR guy for hire, who'll do up an article on your law firm or your controversial medical practise, or whatever for his own "e-zine" or for Wikipedia.

I suggest that the unblocked accounts be blocked unless they comply with our requirements for paid editors as outlined on WP:TOU and WP:COI. That means an admission on their user page, and on article talk page of their conflict of interest and their status as a paid editor. It also means that they cannot directly edit the articles, but must make suggestions on the talk page which other editors can implement if they agree. BMK (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, folks should read Seattleditor's reply to Jytdog on their talk page here for an example of how not to write in a comprehensible way, how to hide the true nature of one's publication in convoluted and deceptive language, with phrases such as "pro bono" thrown in to make things look better, and how, in particular, not to answer straight-forward questions in a straight-forward manner. BMK (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Three other items:

• A picture of Dr. Libby was previously uploaded on en.wiki by user Searchwriter, and deleted for permission problems. Admins can look and see if File:Dr. Roger Libby in 2014.png is the same image that's currently in the article, which I have requested deletion of on Commons for the same reason.
• There's no doubt that the three accounts are the same person. After User:Seattle24x7 was username blocked, User:Seattleditor refrerred to it as his previous account. On the talk page of User:Searchwriter the editor reveals his real world name, and on the "Seattle24x7" website, the person of that name is described as "founder, publisher and managing editor of Seattle24x7, the founder of SearchWrite Search Marketing, an SEO, PPC and Social Media Thought Leader, and an SPJ award winner for Seattle magazine." This accords with the information in Seattleditor's response to Jytdog;s inquiry, and also reinforces the suspicion that SEO/promotion is what's going on here -- i.e. paid editing.
• Seattleditor's response on the Commons deletion request is informative. [39]

(Incidentally, my understanding is that my second item is not WP:outing because the user revealed the information on their talk page. If an admin feels it oversteps the bounds, please delete the item.) BMK (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

BMK FYI, in my first iterations of my note to SeattleEditor I included their name in a quote from the "about the author" section of the seattle24x7 profile of Libby, and later redacted it. I emailed oversight and asked them to oversight the pre-redaction versions. They declined, saying it was not a violation of OUTING. So we are OK on using his RW name. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. BMK (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Propose indef per WP:NOTHERE

So SeattleEditor's reply was not what any of us wanted. They are NOTHERE and appear to be dug in so far that there is no teaching them how to be HERE at this time. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC) (add missing "no" Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC))

• Support EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per their response to Jytdog. BMK (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per their response to Jytdog and another response to me. I asked two simple yes/no questions and got more evasive, combative, non-responsive verbal spew. We don't have the time or energy to waste on this gaming of the system. — Brianhe (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I support sanctions against User:Seattleditor. I wish there was a WP:POMPOUS essay, but I'll just have to be left with citing meta:Don't be a jerk (in reference to comments aimed at EGF). (Oh, and is WP:PEACOCK even allowed as an argument against an editor's comments? Well, then, that, too.)

In addition to NOTHERE cited in the title, for the record I also agree that there is a violation of WP:NPOV here that rises to WP:COI. I was hoping for @Jytdog:'s promised WP:COIN post before weighing in, but the original {{long}} comment is incorporated by reference to the reply to it, above.

I also agree that there may be a WP:SOCK issue here (I'd hope EGF will file a WP:SPI if appropriate). I'm not really sure which is worse, COI or SOCK, I feel they are both duplicitous.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Since Jimbo probably wouldn't approve, I'll refrain from suggesting an alternate title for an essay on how to respond to such contributors... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Holding note. There is consensus for an indef block per WP:NOTHERE. Unless something else eventuates, I intend to place that block after the AfD discussion mentioned below has been decided; Seattleditor should preferably have a chance to comment in the AfD. Please feel free to continue discussing Jytdog's block proposal in this section while we wait. Bishonen | talk 22:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC).

• So where do we stand now? I'm still very offended by the editor above referring to EGF in the masculine. I do look at that before using these pronouns. EGF hasn't declared a preferred pronoun, but has declared GQ. So, no more pronouns there for me. I disagree to a large extent to what EGF has said on the talk pages of the Caitlyn Jenner article, but not to the extent of actually going to battle about it. This editor may yet convince me that they are right and I am wrong. I'm willing to listen. (And not willing to contribute to the article to that extent; I admit ignorance.)

So what now? How do we move forward with a sanction against User:Seattleditor?

What I say is to follow P&P (Policy and procedure), cite COI, NPOV violations, SPA and potentially SP (sock puppeting). With these accusations against Seattleditor how can WP:POMPOUS prevail as an alternative narrative (it's OK to blow-hole against editors here, really?)? Impose a sanction, I'm not really clear which sanction is appropriate, but let it be clear that esteemed editors (regardless of our disagreement with them) are not to be attacked with pomposity, and not facts. This does not, and shall not, intimidate us.

Understand, those listening in, that as my understanding goes, that this ANI was originally filed based on this: User talk:EvergreenFir#We appeal to the highest authority. I think I just coughed up a lung.

We're all still waiting for Seattleditor to have EGF "disbarred" here.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Roger Libby now on AfD

Literally all the sources of the article are primary sources, in the sense of being publications by Dr Libby himself — not "nearly" all, a phrase used above I suppose in honour of the current note 13. That footnote appears to cite a different author, Murray A. Straus, which may mislead the unwary, but it actually references a 1978 anthology which contains an article by Libby; i. e., that too is a primary source. Or not a source so much; it's a publication, an article, which appears in the list of Libby's publications. So, no secondary sources, and none have been offered since Evergreen Fir tagged the article three weeks ago. On the contrary, User:Seattleditor, a single purpose account, has attempted to remove the tags protesting that they're "damaging to the credibility of the doctor" and "deleterious to the patients of the doctor".[40] (That edit was made by an IP, clearly User:Seattleditor logged out accidentally, not attempting in any way to hide.) All this suggests to me that Roger Libby shouldn't be on Wikipedia. We don't do self-sourced bios, because they can't show notability. I've listed it on Articles for deletion. Seattleditor's understanding of policy does appear to be poor, and the way they answer questions quite evasive, but perhaps we might as well put off the issue of a block until the AfD is done, so that they can take part in it. Bishonen | talk 07:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC).

• Bishonen, I thank you for your wise intervention.

There is a point that I wish to clarify for those listening in: "User:Seattleditor, a single purpose account" is not a reference to the Dr. Libby article. Instead, the SPA accusation, is I feel, accurate, on the basis that the user advocates for articles written at Seattle24x7. Dr. Libby's article there happens to be among those (as has been proven by others, above). The "single purpose" here, is about Seattle24x7, a PR news site (as another user put it, "CEO porn"), not about Dr. Libby himself.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• just fyi - i received an email from a person saying he was Roger Libby. Not happy about the tags on the article and among other things wrote: "In (sic - meant "if" i believe) my many publications, academic and professional credentials and references (including the links to professional associations which are publicly accessible online) are not sufficient, I would ask you to immediately remove the page entirely as it calls into question my professional standing given your editorial staff's lack of certainty in my credentials. Under the circumstances, I consider the "public editing" of the page to be damaging to my professional sex therapy practice and my reputation. Frankly, it has me wondering what other options might exist for what I sincerely believe to be an act of defamation. It appears that on Wikipedia everyone is guilty until proven innocent." I'll also make a note of this on the AfD. I replied nicely and fwded to wmf legal. Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you @Jytdog:! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Good thing Libby isn't an editor here, since "Frankly, it has me wondering what other options might exist for what I sincerely believe to be an act of defamation" is a not-so-veiled legal threat. (One that I hope he doesn't go through with, since all he'll do is throw away a lot of money, as there is obviously no "defamation" in determining that he doesn't qualify under our notablity guidelines.) Perhaps Libby will think twice next time before engaging a SEO/PR person who doesn't understand Wikipedia -- and if he could tell his professional friends that as well, all the better for us. There are a hell of a lot of doctors in the English-speaking world, but only a very tiny percentage of them qualify for a having a Wikipedia article. BMK (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Unacceptable behavior of editor

Hello,

I want to inform you about unacceptable behavior of the editor Croata concerning the articles Bulgars/ Dulo clan.

During the past 3 months (since the beginning of March 2015) he was constantly removing all my edits on these articles stating that they were "vandalism", "unrelated info", "false positive edits", "fringe theories edits" or simply calling them POV. He denies the reliability of obviously excellent sources as Yury Zuev and Edwin G. Pulleyblank stating that they represent minority point of view. For example on 19 June 2015‎ he removed my edit on the article Bulgars where I have added information about the origin of Utigurs, a major Bulgar tribe, stating that the edit is "false positive" and "unrelated info". On 6 June 2015‎ I have warned him that in his version of the article Dulo clan, his conclusion "Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples" is not supported by the cited four books - nowhere on the cited pages there is such a conclusion. He ignored my warning and reverted the article 6 times after that without bothering to correct this sentence or to remove it. On the talk page of Dulo clan article I have suggested many ways how to improve the article, for example :

• I have suggested to move the information about the historical rulers of the clan from the section "Research History" to the article's intro where this information should be placed because it is well documented
• I have suggested to removed the information that early rulers of the clan were claiming Attilid descend from the article's intro to "Research History" or to restate it in the form that some historians think they had such a descend. It is not known if they were claiming this.
• I have suggested to improve the article Bulgars by replacing the very first sentence "... semi-nomadic warrior tribes of Turkic extraction" with more accurate statement " The three major tribes were Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs, whose origin is still unidentified"

None of these suggestions (and many more) were accepted. The editor Croata doesn't accept any independent additions, he considers his versions of the articles to be final and set in stone. Also he tends to place disproportionate importance of the Turkic theory about the origin of Bulgars and Dulo clan and doesn't accept other theories about their origin to be added to the articles. Such a behavior is unacceptable and it does not help the readers of these articles.

PavelStaykov (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've reformatted. You didn't notify Crovata, and misspelled his name. The very top of this page clearly states you must do this. I have gone ahead and done so. Now to look at the merits.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• This is going to take longer than I have to give tonight, but the other stuff still needed doing. User:Bbb23 is familiar with Crovata, so I would draw his attention here. Looking briefly, it seems more of a content dispute, but there may be some behavioral issues by one or both, so I will leave to B and others to determine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• No promises, but I'll try to look at this tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I experience technical problems and don't know if will manage to actively follow the discussion. However, I neither have time to waste discussing the same thing over and over and over again. The violation of WP:NPOV principles, lack of neutrality and knowledge of the editor PavelStaykov, and in general about the topic and dispute, you can read at his talk page, Bulgars Talk and Dulo clan Talk. The scholars Zuev and Pulleyblank were only lately introduced, not months ago, and their minor claims have no relation to Bulgars. It is related with Utigurs and their article. The Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs were not Bulgar tribes, they were different tribes who in periods were part of Bulgar confederation, but whose names etymologically clearly show Turkic origin. The articles of Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs areas badly written, and currently work on them. He never answered which "four books", and I ask him again to respond. A simple read of the Bulgars article is enough to dismiss his claims, and often personal original research (which he calls "independent"). The Turkic theory is the only theory with verified evidence, and weight per NPOV. It is generally considered and discussed, and does not dismiss other ethnogenetic and cultural influence like other theories, Indo-European or Iranian, which do not have substantial amount of sources, reliability or confirmation for such claims. Not to mention how are ideologically motivated by the Bulgarian scholars during the anti-Turkish sentiment in Bulgaria, considered by unreliable "scholars" (PavelStaykov cited a scholar who is not educated in the historiography or linguistics, but medicine) and a minority. Such a fringe theory also has an article - Kingdom of Balhara.

The editor PavelStaykov denies and called modern scholarship considerations as junk and part of "some Russian propaganda". As far the points go, 1. The list of rulers follows the list of the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans and their names and meaning are discussed in the section 2. There is no need for this, and just for record, previously in March and April he strongly opposed the reshaping of the statement as personally considered it was Attila itself and denied scholars general consideration 3. It is generally accepted they were most prominently of Turkic extraction (with some admixture of Hunnic, Iranian and other Indo-European origin and influence).--Crovata (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not going to get embroiled in a content dispute about which I know next to nothing. Even if I did, the only issue here for me is conduct. I've blocked User:PavelStaykov twice for edit-warring at Dulo Clan, the first time for 48 hours and the second for one week. When I blocked him the second time, I also warned User:Crovata about his conduct. There's been no reverts at that article since June 11. There has been one addition (I assume it's brand new but didn't check) at Bulgars by PavelStaykov and one revert by Crovata on June 19. The two editors have to use some sort of dispute resolution to resolve their content issues. As for their conduct, if I see either editor revert at either article, that editor risks being blocked, and a revert back after a block may also be met with a block. Both of them should stay away from both articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Bbb23: The problem with the whole issue is that there's no constructive content dispute for Wikipedia, yet the fringe theories and personal POV/OR which are forced to be included in the articles which have nothing to do with - the violation of NPOV. I advise all involved to read all three linked talk pages to understand the situation. I cannot agree with the last statement, why someone who defended the articles from unconstructive edits, and rewrote the articles according modern scholarship, must stay away? Since 14 May personally rewrote the Bulgars article and done major constructive edits, and as currently is in the process of GOCE review for GAN review, and there few cites additionally for inclusion, it seeks if not edit activity at least my attention.--Crovata (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
    • If it's as clear-cut as you state, then the dispute resolution should be straightforward. In the interim, my warning stands.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
      • @Bbb23: Sincerely, I simply do not know which of the claims, articles and talk pages above should take for dispute resolution. They all were answered here, talk pages time ago, and there probably even more he seeks for. I need your advice, and personal inclusion of PavelStaykov for dispute resolution as he began those disputes. He needs to decide what claims should be brought to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I don't want any kind of disapproval from his side if missed to mention some of his claims we dispute. @PavelStaykov: Respond.--Crovata (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

First, I want to answer Crovata's accusation that I have "aversion for the term "Turks"" - this is not true. I am not obliged to share such personal information here, but I will do it. I grew up in small town in southern Bulgaria ( Haskovo ) which is of mixed population - Bulgarians and Turks. One of my best friends during my childhood was a Turk. I live in Sofia now and one of my friends is also Turk, and I value his friendship more than that of many of my Bulgarian friends. So, I don't have "aversion for the term "Turks", nor I have aversion for Turkic people or their culture. What I want is simply these 2 articles to be written in the best possible way. Also before I start the discussion, I want to make some general remarks. It is a common misbelief that Bulgars are extinct, or that they merged with Slavic people 7-10 centuries AD thus forming contemporary Bulgarians. This is not true. Even now three type of faces can clearly be seen on the streets of Bulgaria, all of them of obvious Indo-European origin, but definitely distinct. It is especially striking if someone comes from abroad. The approximate ratio is 1:1:1. I can take photos and upload them to the Bulgar's article. My explanation is that the proposed by scholars merging of Bulgars, Slavs and Thracian's continues even today - after all Bulgaria was a rural country up to 1950-1960 and marriages happened inside small rural communities. One of my friends took genetic tests and he was told that he is of Thracian origin. Personally I don't need to do this to know that I am of Slavic origin - it's enough to look at myself in the mirror.

About the article Bulgars. 1. The very first sentence in its current version states that Bulgars were "tribes of Turkic extraction". This is not known for sure - may be they were, may be not. What is known for sure is that they were nomads. If they were Turks, of Turkic extraction, Iranian, or Indo-European tribes influenced by Turkic and Iranian people is still debated among scholars. Using euphemistic phrases as "Turkic extraction" is not a constructive edit, it is an obfuscation of the truth. It is much better to state that their origin is still unidentified and to enumerate different Bulgar tribes: Utigurs, Kutrigurs, Onogurs and so on. Crovata's opinion that these tribes were not Bulgars is ridiculous - just type these words in Google and read. Not to mention numerous books and textbooks where this is explained.

2. My second point is to state in the article intro that some of the Bulgar tribes participated in the union of the Huns - this is well documented. Most Roman, Greeks and Byzantines sources used the words Huns and Bulgars indiscriminately to describe the same people. Actually many scholars equate Bulgars and the (European) Huns. This can be done in the 3rd sentence of the article. This will help the reader to understand better the origin of the Bulgars. Stating that they envelop " other ethnic groups and cultural influences, such as Hunnic..." is not accurate. Huns were not ethnic group, they were conglomeration of different tribes, many of them Bulgars.

3. In the section "Etymology and origin" I want to include the identification made by Yury Zuev and Edwin G. Pulleyblank that Utigurs were Yuezhi tribe. Both scholars are renowned and the identification is undisputable. Also it is a base for research among many modern Bulgarian scholars as Pr. A. Stamatov, Dr. P. Tsvetkov, Dr. G. Voinikov and others.

4. Section "History" - the subtitle is Turkic migration. This is misleading and I would suggest to be removed. If Crovata is making such implications, probably he could explain exactly which Turkic tribes practiced artificial cranial deformation? "Further information: Turkic migration and Huns" - this is OK. The second sentence is controversial. What would mean "Interaction with the Hunnic tribes, causing the migration..." if the Bulgars were Huns themselves, to interact with whom? Also the cited source is not available online.

5. Section " History", cited source 40c, pages 127-128 - does not contain such information. Which line ?

6. Section ethnicity, the 3rd paragraph - it starts with "When the Turkic tribes began to enter into the Pontic–Caspian steppe...as early as the 2nd century AD" is also misleading. It is generally considered that Turkic migration started much later and that the tribes in question are of unknown origin, they spoke language similar to proto - Turkic. May be here we could include the explanation given by Zuev that these tribes were actually Wusuns?

7. Section " Anthropology and Genetics" emphasizes too much on the origin of the Turks - paragraphs 2 and 3. What is the point here ? This article is not about the origin of the Turks.

8. Bulgars practiced Artificial Cranial Deformation and this is stated in the article, but I think the discussion here could be extended, it is well known that European Huns practiced artificial cranial deformation and they can be traced (using this) to North China.

9. I want to include research paper (by Voinikov) that modern Bulgarian language contains a lot of Tocharian words. It is published in Bulgarian language but with Google translate it can be read by everyone.

93.152.143.113 (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, it may be taken into account that through IP 93.152.143.113 wrote the same person as the one through PavelStaykov. The info in the intro about personal life (and previously where allegedly confirmed that Pavel Staykov is the personal name, and by education physicist) is useless and irrelevant for the whole discussion. The all 9 points were already discussed, and properly dismissed as are against the general scholarship(!), actually any relevant scholar consideration. This points are based on extreme and specially chosed sources and very minor considerations. They just confirm the lack of knowledge, will to understand, and disregard of general scholarship and evidence. The articles of Utigurs, Kutrigurs, Onogurs are currently being rewrote by me and his deny of their separate identity (which is something generally accepted!) is incredibly delusional and further discreditable. That's typical example of original research and personal POV violating NPOV. Even worse, he claims two different things, that the Utigurs point 1. were a Bulgar tribe, while in point 3. were a Yuezhi tribe. He doen't have basic knowledge about the Utigurs and Kutrigurs and how they existed in the vicinity of the Bulgars simultaneously, and participated in the battles and politics of Eastern Roman Empire. The Bulgars were not Huns, they were not equated at all, yet the name "Hun" became a general term or exonym for nomadic intruders from the East. This consideration, also in the point 4, is so wrong it's just ridiculous that it needs to be discussed. The scholar Dr. G. Voinikov revolutionary considerations (and the fringe Indo-European-Yuezhi theory) were not cited by any prominent scholar because he is an independent amateur scholar who is not at all educated in the field of linguistics or history - he finished medicine. No strange that no academic scholar cites his research. The personal POV and OR is based upon two reliable scholars (but whose considerations have nothing to do with Bulgars, but Utigurs, and claiming that the "identification is undisputable" is something generally not accepted!) and unreliable scholars. Replying to all the points for the XY time would be too long and waste of my time. @Dennis Brown:@Bbb23: Please give me advice how to properly write the dispute resolution, and for ever to end this unconstructive discussion. Should I cite every claim word by word? This 9 points deal with the article of the Bulgars, but not of the Dulo clan (where most of his activity was involved, and first comment dealt with).--Crovata (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Crovata: I didn't read the wall of text by the other party. I would forget about what the other user says. Their part in the dispute resolution is to set forth their own reasons for the content of the two articles. You, @Crovata, should decide what you disagree with (not set forth here) but what you disagree with in the two articles and explain why. @PavelStaykov: It is not a good idea to edit anywhere on Wikipedia without logging in to your account.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Bulgars were Huns, and Crovata knows this very well. Almost all serious historians accept this:

1. SANPING CHEN : "In fact contemporary European sources kept equating the Bulgars with the Huns" - page 8, line 1

2. Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen, The world of the Huns : Cassiodorus, writing his Gothic historv in the 520’s or early 530’s, and Ennodius (t 521) repeatedly calls the Bulgarians “Huns.” - page 164

Provided that what Ennodius said about the Bulgars, whom he equated with the Huns... page 199

Jordanes’ Bulgars and Huns in this chapter of the Getica are but two names of the same people. Schirren thought that Jordanes simply followed Cassiodorus, who in Varia VIII, 10, 4, likewise identified the Bulgars with the Huns. - page 432, line 5

3. Steven Runciman in his book " A history of the First Bulgarian Empire" repeatedly identifies Bulgars as Huns. The first part of the book is named The children of the Huns:

the blood of the Scourge of God flows now in the valleys of the Balkans, diluted by time and the pastoral Slavs. page 4, last line

On Attila’s death, his empire crumbled. His people, who had probably been only a conglomeration of kindred tribes that he had welded together, divided again into these tribes; and each went its own way. One of these tribes was soon to be known as the Bulgars. page 5

the Bulgar branch of the Huns - page 7 line 4

The Bulgars, we know, were Huns ... - page 12, line 7

the Imperial writers use their name, the Huns’, and the Bulgars’ indiscriminately to describe the same race. - page 15, line 16

and so on. Bulgars and Huns were the same people - that's why many historian use the term Hunno-Bulgars. I don't know what game is playing Crovata, but it is not serving the main purpose of every Encyclopedia - to tell the readers the truth. His next "invention" about Utigurs and Kutrigurs - every serious book states that they were Bulgar tribes:

Hyun Jin Kim, The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe

the Utigur wing of the Bulgar Huns - page 253, cit. 28

Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs were in all likelihood identical with the Bulgars - page 141, line 6

Steven Runciman :

it is impossible not to see in the Bulgars of Theophanes the bulk of the old Utigur people - page 15, line 13

Already in 1772 (Allgem. Nord. Geschichte, 358), the German historian August Schloetzer identified the Utigurs and the Kutrigurs with Bulgars, on the basis of the information provided by Greek-language late antiquity chronicles (Procopius, Agathias of Mirena, Menander, Theophylact Simocatta). Procopius of Ceasarea points out that Utigurs and Kutrigurs attacked the Goths during the fourth century.

The whole story is simple. Approximately around 2000 BC, a second wave of Indo-Europeans appear in North China. They were practicing artificial cranial deformation - the first graves with artificially deformed skulls in Tarim Basin (in North China) are from around 2000 BC. These people later were called by Chinese Yuezhi and Wusuns. With the rise of Xiongnu(Mongol-Turkic Huns) Yuezhi lost several wars against Xiongnu (between 210-160 BC - very well documented by Chinese) and move into modern day Kazahstan, around the Aral sea, in the interfluvial of Syr-Darya - Amu-Darya. Part of Wusuns stay and part of them move with Yuezhi, they were the same people after all, although they often warred between. That part of Wusuns who stayed gave rise to Ashina Turks, as Y. Zuev always pointed out - Ashina clan originated from Wusuns, who were Tochars( = the general name for Indo-European people of North China). After 2 century BC graves with artificially deformed skulls disappear from Tarim Basin. They appear in Kazahstan. Burials of podboy type also appear there. With the disintegration of Xiongnu descendants, Turkic migration was initiated and Ases - Tochars (Ases- Yuezhi- Wusuns) were pushed from Kazahstan into Europe during 4 century AD and became known as European Huns. Artificially deformed skulls disappear from Kazahstan and appear in Europe. European Huns can be traced back to North China by artificial circular type cranial deformation. Both Yuezhi and Bulgars did practice circular type cranial deformation.

This theory is supported by several key facts, well established, and they must be presented in the article to the reader:

1. There is no evidence that European Huns ( and Bulgars ) were Xiongnu:

   Otto Maenchen-Helfen questioned the lack of anthropological and 
   ethnographic proximity between European Huns and Xiongnu.  
   
   Edward Arthur Thompson in 1948 in his monograph on the Huns denies the 
   continuity of European Huns from Xiongnu.

2. There is no convincing evidence that the language of European Huns(and Bulgars) was Turkic, only 33 personal names have survived (Pritsak), indeed, they seem to be Turkic, but to judge from this that the hole nation was Turkic is too naive.

3.There are academic sources stating the connections: Utrigurs-> Yuezhi, Vokil-> Yuezhi

Edwin G. Pulleyblank and many modern Bulgarian scholars identify the Bulgar Utigurs as one of the tribes of the Yuezhi.

4. There are research papers showing that in modern Bulgarian language there are many Tocharian words. Yuezhi were Thocarian tribes and they spoke Tocharian language.

5. The genetic tests show that paternal ancestry between the Bulgarians and the Central Asian Turkic-speaking populations either did not exist or was negligible.

6. There are archaeological excavations of necropolises in northern Bulgaria and strikingly similar necropolises in Kazakhstan dated from 1 century BC till 3 century AD when Yuezhi lived there. Also on the right bank of the river Amu Darya, near the rock complexes Kara-Tyube and Chelpik was found the sign of Dulo- Upsilon "|Y|".

Summing the information from these 7 points( including the data about artificial cranial deformation) - linguistic, archaeological, academic - show that:

   European Huns (and Bulgars) originate from the pre-Turkic Indo-European   
   population from northern China and particularly from the people known to
   the Chinese as Yuezhi. During their movement (from 2 BC till 4 AD) to
   Europe they were influenced by different groups of people, especially   
   Turkic and Iranian groups.   

Instead of using phrases as "Turkic extraction" and "Turkicized Sarmatians" it is much better to use the the real names of these people because they are known actually - Yuezhi and Wusuns. To what extent the language was Turkic is difficult to say - it was a mixture of Tocharian, Turkic and Iranian languages. There is a research paper explaining this: " Was the Tocharian language really Tocharian?"

About Dulo clan article. I would suggest:

1. About the article intro - to remove the phrase "Western Turks" - it is not true. Western Turks are much later phenomenon. We could restate it with " Early Turks".

2. About the article intro - to remove the statement " they were claiming Attilid descend". This is knot known - some historians think so, some( in fact most) think they were descendants of Attila.

3. To include that Dulo was the ruling dynasty of the Utigur Huns - this is true, and that Utigurs are identified by Zuev and Pulleyblank as one of the tribes of Yuezhi. The name Yuezhi means " Moon clan". This is the explanation why Turks from Turkey have Moon on their flag - they incorporated that part of Wusuns and Yuezhi who didn't move to Europe. That part became their ruling dynasty Ashina, which is Tocharian word for clear, pale blue - Yasna. That's why they call themselves "sky Turks". This is the historical truth. Bulgars and Ashina Turks have common ancestors - Tochars.

4. To remove completely the last sentence from the section origin:

" Burmov, Peter B. Golden, Gyula Németh and Panos Sophoulis concluded that claiming of Attilid descent shows the intermingling of European Huns elements with newly arrived Oğuric Turkic groups, as the number of evidence of linguistic, ethnographic and socio-political nature show that Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples."(4 books cited here)

nowhere in the cited 4 books there is such conclusion - that " Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples" - where, which line? Also, this sentence is illogical - claiming Attilid descend shows....they were Turks. Why? This is completely Crovata's own conclusion. What is the implication here - that Attila was Turk or what ?

5. To move the information for the historical rulers of the clan into articles introduction - it is well documented information and the reader will read what is sure for these rulers. This information belongs to the article's intro, not Research History.

6. To include back the information about the Martenica - there are archaeological evidences that such adorments were used in Tarim basin and central Asia and they were brought to the Balkan peninsula by the Huns(Bulgars). PavelStaykov (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

References

LooneyTunerIan copyright and intimidation

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 recently nominated a few articles from User:LooneyTunerIan for speedy deletion due to copyright violations (see: Looney Tunes Presents (VHS Series) and Bugs and Friends). Both times, he's responded on my user talk page and claimed that he will recreate these pages. His language has been aggressive and intimidating. See diffs here: [41] [42]

I've also noticed other similar behavior by this user on various user and article talk pages. See diffs/pages here: [43] [44] [45]

I've attempted to politely explain the importance of our copyright policy to this editor when he's posted on my talk page, and I also posted a warning regarding appropriate interaction with other editors on his talk page back when it wasn't being directed at me. Could an administrator please take a look at this situation (both the intimidation and possibly explaining the copyright issues to this editor)? The most recent edit on my talk page in particular is making me a bit uncomfortable, and I'd like to remove myself from the situation. ~ Rob^Talk 02:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The aggressive commentary aside, what we have here sounds like a lack of competence. @LooneyTunerIan: needs to understand that copyright violations are dealt with very seriously. Threatening, or implying, to readd copyright violations is grounds for an immediate indefinite block. Edit warring over it is also foolish. Blackmane (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to note this instance of aggression as well: User_talk:LooneyTunerIan#October_2014 ~ Rob^Talk 03:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

LooneyTunerIan] has created 19 unsourced articles and shows no sign of stopping or working in collaboration with other editors. The editor is not here to contribute positively to the project. Flat Out (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter anymore. I have requested the articles that I have created to be deleted. That way, no one will ever know what Looney Tunes VHS/Laserdisc Collections there were or have been released ever again. For now on, the only Looney Tunes Home Video collection articles anyone will be looking for are either Blu-rays or DVDs. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Well that, or you could provide some sources to your articles and learn to work with other editors. Flat Out (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@LooneyTunerIan: If you wish to have those articles deleted, you can add {{Db-g7}} to the top of the article, provided that you are the only significant contributor to them. On the other hand, I'd much rather you stick around and improve the articles to meet WP:GNG and WP:V. No-one here has anything against you personally or Looney Tunes VHS/Laserdisc Collections. ~ Rob^Talk 05:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Flat Out: No. :( It's better if they all get taken down and deleted. I even nominated them for deletion myself. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: You mean to say that adding {{Db-g7}} to all of my articles that I have created will automatically delete them? Are you sure it'll work? --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@LooneyTunerIan: It wouldn't immediately delete them, but it would add a template to the page that would mark them for speedy deletion under the criteria of WP:G7 (artist requesting deletion). Adding them to the category you've created will not mark them for speedy deletion by itself. ~ Rob^Talk 05:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: In any case, I've done what you said. All of my articles that I have made have the {{Db-g7}} symbol on them. All I can do now is wait... and see if they get deleted. With any luck, they might. But after this, I am never creating another Looney Tunes-based article again. I'll leave that to the professionals. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This appears to have been resolved. ~ Rob^Talk 07:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Interaction ban request

I'm requesting a formal interaction ban between myself and Annvarie. I've been editing Nicki Minaj discography since March, and almost every edit I make seems like an uphill battle with the force of Annvarie. Within three hours of my inital edit to the page, right back in March, I had somehow found myself in an edit war with them. It's continued this way ever since.

No dispute is too small for Annvarie to get their teeth stuck into. From the capitalisation of letters to the colours in an discography infobox, that were origianlly changed to conform to Template:Infobox album/color. Annvarie can somehow word an argument for practically any change made to the article. Annvarie also shows no sign of compromise when editing. Every single dispute the two of us have had has resulted in either Annvarie barking at me on some platform, me asking an admin for their opinion, or me starting a discussion on the talk page. While you may sit there thinking "What's the issue in taking it to the talk page?", trust me, it gets to the point where you really have to ask yourself what you're doing with your life, opening a wordy talk page discussion motioning to to change a chart name from "US R&B" to "US R&B/HH" hindered by an initial edit war with Annvarie.

I started drafting this request at my sandbox, writing a large chunk of it and saving it under a hidden note to take a nap for a couple of hours. I guess Annvarie saw my draft, through flicking through my contributions or other means, based on their next edit summary, another revert of mine, saved with the most pageant-y edit summary I've seen since creating an account here: "I don't consider editing a competition. I follow guidelines and base my edits on samples provided. That said, I reverted this edit based on WP:Text formatting & the sample table on WP:Discog style." something extremely polarizing from the usual blank summary or occasional summary CAPITALIZING buzz words like GUIDELINES or POLICIES to REALLY GET ACROSS THE MESSAGE that they know what they're TALKING ABOUT. On the intuition Annvarie saw my sandbox and found out about my plans to request an IBAN, I tried one last time to extend the old olive branch, and ask to work through issues, stylistic differences, and any other conflicts we had. This was, as I predicted, met with a nice lengthy paragraph on how Annvarie only makes THESE EDITS because they're following STRICT GUIDELINES that I evidently don't, and I'm a liar for insinuating they revert all my edits. While I never actually accused Annvarie of reverting all my edits, here's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 reversions Annvarie has made to things I've contributed to the article, some with good reason as they unknowingly violated certain policies/guidelines, but a large majority just due to personal disagreement.

Admittedly, I have assumed bad faith in certain instances, which I hold my hands up to, but honestly, can anyone blame me for doing so? I just want to get this out of my hair at last because honestly, I'm so fed up with treading on eggshells on that article. It's now 9am and I've had no sleep after being up with a nasty cold, so some of this may make no sense/sound overly cunty/or even stupid in some parts. I apologize in advance if this is the case. I'm content with a mutually-sided IBAN, I have no reason to revert Annvarie, they're a helpful editor, we just have difference of opinion...a lot, as hopefully they see me in the same way and won't request a one-sided ban. Hope to hear others opinions, christ this is going to drain the shit out of me, Azealia911 _talk 09:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment it is clear that Annvarie is a WP:SPA see edit counter even in comparison to Azealia911 also demonstrated in edit counter results but this is mentioned just for context.

Personally I do not think that Ibans can ever work in situations in which editors work on the same content. I also have little knowledge of discography related issues and think that it may be worth pinging editors that have contributed to a relevant article, TP or Wikiproject to comment. However, having read through report related texts I think that issues of WP:OWN probably apply. A number of the edits and reversions seem to be about issues that didn't seem to me to have been of great consequence and I think that problems with the interactions may develop from problems arising from the actual edits. Issues here also relate to WP:AFG and WP:CIVIL.

Perhaps a topic ban on one or both editors would be appropriate. The length of such a ban may better be decided by editors who better know the topic but even a very short ban would get something on record so that if there was recurrence in behaviour then platform would be provided for further steps to be taken. Something needs to be done to better promote collaborative editing here. GregKaye 09:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think an interaction ban would be all bad, at least for a trial run for a couple of weeks or-so, to see how it plays out. After which time, if the article history then starts re-clogging up with constant action-revert-action-revert like it is now, we could re-discuss a longer or permanent interaction ban. The only con of the trial IBAN would be a possible reversion of all edits made during the trial with the excuse of "The IBAN's over, I can edit how I like"

I'd respectfully oppose a topic ban, I don't think that would be fair on Annvarie, who you aforementioned is a SPA, considering a topic ban on Nicki Minaj would leave them with no pages to edit, with them having only edited Mianj-related articles. But by the same token, I don't think it'd be fair on myself either, considering topic bans aim to reduce disruptive edits, which I personally don't think I've made on the article.

I'm pinging Kww, an admin who dabbles with the page. Don't really know who else to alert to be honest. Azealia911 _talk 12:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to issue either a topic ban or an interaction ban. Yes, I've noticed the two of you, and I think it's remarkable how petty both of you can be. Changing small text from 85% to 90%, and then edit warring over it? I'm more inclined to ban both of you from making purely cosmetic changes to discography articles, so that you stand a chance of learning how to interact over content.—Kww(talk) 13:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Kww The change you reference was nothing cosmetic, not on the main view of the article anyway. {{small|Insert text}} sets at 85%, and was a way of decreasing mess to the array of <span style="font-size:85%;">Insert text<span> I have no idea where you got 90% from. But really, a discography topic ban? That seems grossly unfair to both parties, rendering Annvarie unable to edit their primary edited page, which potentially leads to them just leaving the project all together, and unfair on myself, especially as I'm in the middle of a FLC, and responding to comments could get me reported. Azealia911 _talk 13:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't suggest a discography topic ban: I suggested a ban on making cosmetic changes to discographies. —Kww(talk) 13:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

What would that cover exactly? Could you give a few examples, relating to previous conflicts between myself and Annvarie? Sorry, it seems a tad vague, and could still cause problems at my FLC upon certain suggestions. Would it also just be NM discography? I edit many other discographies without issue from other editors. Azealia911 _talk 13:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm about to go to work for the day. Let me mull it over.—Kww(talk) 14:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing Azealia911 _talk 14:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (Non-administrator comment) I agree there is edit warring going on over some silly things, but in my few interactions with Azealia911 (eg at AfD, I remembered the colorful signature) I've not noticed anything unpleasant in his/her attitude. Annvarie as stated is a clear SPA: all of his/her edits are to Nicki Minaj articles, with 90 percent being to the discography article. Azealia911 has more than 5,000 edits; Annvarie has fewer than 500. That means a significant percentage of Annvarie's edits are actually reverts; I think WP:OWNERSHIP is going on. That Annvarie responded to something Azealia911 was writing on his/her sandbox indicates Annvarie is purposely tracking Azealia911's contributions for some reason. I have a thick skin but I would feel a bit troubled/violated if someone did that to me. That's just my 2 cents. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've placed a notice on Annvarie's talkpage, warning her that if she doesn't make comments here, I will place sanctions without her input. Let's leave this open a bit longer and give her a chance to respond.—Kww(talk) 14:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment First of all, I don't understand how my edit count translates to me making only reverts. I don't spend alot of my time on the internet so I when I do I edit on that discography article since I have a large interest in Nicki Minaj. I obviously don't consider myself an owner of the article, and my contributions to it are mostly chart/sales updates and new music additions. In my opinion, Azealia911 is overreacting since when I do revert their edit it's usually constructive and as they stated above, they took ownership of some of their mistakes. I take ownership for some of my wrong edits as well, but I don't make a big deal about my edits being reverted as long as its with good reason. When we have disagreements, we have third party involvements on the talk page and I stick with the consensus (Isn't this what Wikipedia advises it editors). To say I revert all their edits is absurd since I've reverted less than a quarter of their total edits to the page. I relation to responding to their sandbox (as implied above), we have had discussions on my talk page before in which we discussed this same topic. I can't believe I'm being accused of violating another editor when Azealia911 has repeatedly used foul language on MY talk page in simple discussions. To be honest, I don't know how to fix this supposed "issue" since I believe all my reverts (when necessary) are warranted but I have been a very constructive editor on that aricle.Annvarie (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry it took me a while to reply, I don't have this page on watch as it changes every few seconds. The ownership that was pointed out by a couple of editors, which I originally didn't consider at all but looking at some of the disputes has become somewhat frivolous to me, is the issue of you not letting edits "pass" for lack of a better phrase. Things like the chart name change, text size template changer (which after thinking about it, isn't stopped by the guideline you pointed out) could all have gone without you doing anything in return, yet your editing style to the page gives off a patroller-type style. This style is also backed up by your apparent tracking of my contributions and that edit summary, which was what really lead me to open this up. And as for the foul language accusation on your talk page, the only minor-obscene thing I've ever written there is the phrase "horseshit", which I apologise for if you really took it to heart. Other than that, I used the word "fucking" but it wasn't directed at you in any way, not that cussing's considered a WP:Personal attacks anyway. At this point, I have no idea what would be the best cause of action, as long as you stop reverting almost every damn stylistic edit to that page that I make. Azealia911 _talk 22:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Please block Dthomsen8 as a malfunctioning bot

Dthomsen8 (talk · contribs) keeps making pointless changes to hundreds of talk pages such as [46]. They serve no purpose and go against WP:COSMETICBOT and WP:NOTBROKEN (and WP:AWB rules in general). I warned them earlier, but they haven't changed their behaviour (e.g. [47]) or even replied to those concerns.

Someone please block them per WP:COSMETICBOT, or alternatively revoke their AWB access. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This isnt a bot so not sure why they would be blocked as a malfunctioning bot. Amortias (T)(C) 18:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The bot policy is clear that editors doing bot-like edits are under the same restrictions as any bot would be. See WP:MEATBOT in particular. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It was more of a it isnt malfunctioning but what it was set out to do wasnt constructive. Amortias (T)(C) 12:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Support; it's disruptive behavior and I've also complained at their userpage. Fgnievinski (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• If there's a problem then xyr AWB access should be revoked. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• User hasn't edited in almost 24 hours. Give them a chance to respond. If they start up again without responding, I'll yank the AWB. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• What's the problem with [48]? It looks like a constructive change IMHO (switching a project template to a correctly more specific template). Maybe not something I'd bother to make myself, clearly not one you'd make, but that's no reason to prevent Dthomsen8 if they wish to do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

See WP:COSMETICBOT and WP:NOTBROKEN. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

More obviously, [49]. WP Journals is, I'm surprised to find, a redirect to a WP Academic Journals. As such, then yes, NOTBROKEN would apply. Not that I'd seek a block over it though.

I would also note the we have a vast amount of pointless cosmetic and sub-cosmetic (invisible code-only whitespace stripping) 'bot and script editing and any challenge to chat gets seen as hostile edit-warring. We have far worse things than Dthomsen8 to worry about (or not). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

As the editor being discussed, I decided to sleep on the question and meanwhile do no edits at all. I have decided that I will stop using AWB for WikiProject changes, but I will note that many of the updates were adding WikiProject templates for other projects such as subjects and countries of Academic Journals. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your considered response. Have you read the COSMETICBOT policy linked above and are you happy to abide by it? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not WikiProject changes in general, the problem is doing purely cosmetic edits that clutter watchlists for no good reason. It's entirely fine to do cosmetic changes like {{WP Journals}} → {{WikiProject Academic Journals}} if you're also doing something else to the page, like adding another WikiProject Banner, or updating an article assessment. I'm also concerned it took an ANI thread to get you to think about those edits when the problem was pointed out to you, and that you don't seem to review your edits before saving them, but I'll let MSGJ and others deal with that if it becomes a more serious problem. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that the cosmetic edits are annoying: they uselessly increase the amount of diffs that the humans maintaining the articles have to examine, and the size of the article's edit history. Sometimes they also try to impose the bot operator's editorial choices on the article (changing one template to another when both are valid) though I don't know if that's happened here. So I'd support the request that these edits stop--thanks. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• I don't really see these as problematic or even cosmetic edits. Project templates on talk pages are not wiki links in articlespace, the intended object of wp:NOTBROKEN, if anything wp:BRINT is closer, but even that isn't appropriate. These talk pages have little content, and few watchers. The edits are therefore not cluttering many watch lists, nor extending huge page histories. They remove hidden redirections, avoid Easter eggs, improve the utility of what links here and improve the category allocations, so that academic journals are less likely to be conflated with journals in the sense of newsmagazines and the like. Would we prefer that the edits include a token talk page post to meet some wiki-legalistic constraint that serves to impede good work? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Dylann Storm Roof

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

---

An admin is needed ASAP on this, requesting move protection. Is there a way to restore the title Dylann Storm Roof? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup, admins! Could someone also get rid of some of the trollish redirects, if there are any left? Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Dylann Storm Roof was the original article title, the talk-page is also messed up still and yes thanks admins. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the offending account, deleted all the problematic redirects, and rev deleted the move vandalism to hid the possible BLP issues. Also move protected the article. Anything else? --Jayron32 00:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Well WP:RS is calling the subject "Dylann Storm Roof" but Dylann Roof works too if people want it that way. Thanks again for the admin help all around. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: also helped with the cleanup. --Jayron32 00:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes thanks to him as well =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I tried to, anyway. Jayron32 was too speedy. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Was Dylann Roof move protected? I tried adding the template but found I could still move the page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It has been now. I think all the different ways it was being moved made it hard to tell what was protected and what was not. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I guessed, thanks again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Clap along if you feel like a Storm without a Roof. Or is it the other way round? Guy (Help!) 11:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Request block review

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 jsut extended the bloock of User:J0eg0d. I did so primarily becauase of [50] this edit, which includes an unsupported accusation of socking. As that is what the current block is for, this seemed worth noting. Moreover, the edit includes a particualrly gross personal attack ("kapo" with a link to make the attack crystal clear to anyone who might miss it). In response to notification that this edit was improper here, and some further back-and-forth, User:J0eg0d made what seems to have been a final response here. As the previous blocking admin, I felt this was far out of line. I notifed the user of the block at [51] and in the subsequent edit. As this has considerable drama potential, I ask for one or more uninvolved admins, or the community at large, to review my block. DES ^(talk) 12:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The anti-semitic remark alone has earned him an indef block, I think. It's fairly clear that J0eg0d is WP:NOTHERE. He's simply going to escalate his behavior until he gets inevitably banned anyway, then go play martyr to his cheering fans on various Reddit forums dedicated to gaming Wikipedia articles. Gamaliel (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. This is an admin board, so I'm not sure whether or not I should respond, I come here to read the different disputes as a way to learn how (and how not to) behave/respond to certain circumstances. Again, not sure that I have a voice here, but DES did request the community's response, so I took a look. And having taken that look, I think it's clear that this individual has deep-rooted issues in dealing with the constraints that are put on editors in an effort to make this project more legitimate. We are similar in that we joined Wikipedia years ago (him in 2005, me in 2009), but did not become active until relatively recently (him this year, me at the end of 2013). However, his recent activity looks to be growing more antagonistic in a geometric fashion. I'm actually surprised at the restraint of only extending the block a single week. But hopefully when he comes back he'll have calmed down. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Onel5969. Just posting to clarify that although this is an admin board, all users are welcome to post relevant comments. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

J0eg0d isn't here to build an encyclopedia and never has been. He's an antagonistic user whose actions here have been odious, all amplified by his continual off-wiki activities. I for one do not think that the project will be affected one whit - positively or negatively - by his absence.--Jorm (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

And yes, exactly what Gamaliel said above: he's moved into the martyr phase. Any action taken here will be seen as a "victory" for him.--Jorm (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep however many days the personal attack contributes to the block extension, but decrease it by however many days the socking accusation contributes. The accusation of socking was not made “without any evidence”: The accusation mentions that the IP address matches the area of where the Wikipedia user has admitted to reside. For better or worse, people have clearly been banned under WP:DUCK for even less, so this shouldn't be sanctioned as a spurious accusation when it empirically exceeds evidence thresholds for taking action against socks. So dock from the ban extension however many days the accusation contributes. I hope all character attacks no matter how subtle are equally sanctioned going forward. 108.52.24.214 (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Start with the block DESiegal gave first. If that doesn't work, then an indef. 174.30.95.89 (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed his talk page access for continuing the personal attacks after the block. To be honest, an indef block might be justified at this point, but I've held off on that for now since an AE is open. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• DESiegel I've actually upped the block to indef. They may appeal to UTRS or BASC. DESiegel if you disagree with my change to your block parameters please feel free to undo without consulting me, but please do leave a comment here explaining why. Thanks... Zad68 19:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

General comments

I'd like to take a moment here, if I may, to ponder the human cost of these episodes and to ask whether it can be reduced. On the one hand, we have the troubles inflicted on this editor's targets, of whom I am not the least, and I can't say I've enjoyed the vituperation, the mud-slinging, the creepy stuff on-Wiki about my company’s offices, the IP-vandals travelling in the wake, the anti-Semitism. And of course there's the endless trouble it takes to construct, argue, and then to decide cases against editors of this ilk -- time that could better be spent on better things.

But I'd particularly urge reflection on the damage to the editors themselves. We’ve seen this repeatedly at Gamergate: newly-recruited editors plunge headlong into the fray and then, over a span of days or weeks, deteriorate until the decision to block or ban them is inescapable. The trajectory is familiar, but it consumes dozens, even hundreds of hours, of hard and unrewarding work and can leave scars across the encyclopedia.

It also, clearly, takes a heavy toll on the Gamergate editor. Read this editor's posts over the last week or two, looking not for violations but simply thinking about their state of mind. Wouldn’t things have been better for all -- including the editor himself -- if all this could have been stopped sooner? Could brakes have been applied to prevent or cushion the denouement? AE and AN/I are currently inclined to look for smoking guns, and so we await the ultimate explosion. I don’t know the solution, but I do wish we could both avoid the disruption and also avoid the pain and broken crockery. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I would echo Dr. Bernstien's sentiments: once and for all we must solve this gamergate problem. They're a blight on wikipedia and a threat to our culture of collaboration. 166.173.251.170 (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the "problem" lies entirely with a massive attack of cultish IPs whose ministry consists of breaching experiment after breaching experiment to try and whittle down any opposing culture clubs from their hateful Eden. I would argue that their constantly crossing the river is because they believe we would lose any war of attrition with them. They fancy themselves masters of puppets. I wonder how Reddit would react when we pointed their higher-ups to the Arbitration case and every event since then? After all, they have no love lost for Reddit's master. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Systems are already in place to deal with the situation. Insisting more be done 'for the sake of the editor' sounds as disingenuous as I'm sure it was implied. Thorrand (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

No, actually Thorrand, it's not disingenuous. Wikipedia is asking more of people than reasonable people should be asked to, or can, bear. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't asking anything. Sometimes when someone gets too invested in a topic, the best thing for them to do is back away. Saying Wikipedia is in any way responsible for the editors personal editing habits seems like an attempt to absolve individuals of personal responsibility. Respect WP:OWN and it will help to avoid WP:REICHSTAG. It's certainly not only gamergate editors who fall victim to that. Thorrand (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:Circlejerk Arkon (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Arkon:You forgot to cite your source.[52] Xenomancer (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest this conversation be closed / hatted. The proceeding in AN/I it relates to has ended so this is WP:FORUM and an unproductive opportunity for incivility. I do not direct that at any particular viewpoint - but all of them. Does anyone object if I hat it? Vordrak (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You should let someone who isn't involved do that. So I object, I guess.--Jorm (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

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

IP inserting original research beyond level 4 warnings

IP insists upon inserting original research despite level 4 warnings and being told it is his burden of proof. See User talk:172.56.35.90. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I've protected the page for a few hours, please take it to the article's talk page. Nakon 20:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The IP has returned

The IP has returned deleting verifiable information written by several full professors, e.g. Vern Bullough and by Dr. James Dobson, a notable evangelist. He has done this past level 4 warnings. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

See User talk:172.56.35.205. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Legal Threat?

Is THIS a legal threat? He says that people will be "charged". Also this page greatly needs pending changes protection.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• It is certainly a "threat", but it is not clear that the author means that editors who defy his preference will be "reported/charged" in an external legal setting. bd2412 T 03:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that it is intended as a legal threat - but given that the edit asserts in Wikipedia's voice that a deity exists, I'd already reverted it before seeing this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The article is already semi'd. Pending changes won't stop this particular person, who is autoconfirmed. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think it is a "legal" threat. But it is certainly improper. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It's clearly not a legal threat.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I read this more as a threat to report editors who violate Vikramadityachandel's POV to someone here in Wikipedia. This editor has a history of parochial edits like this [53] [54] [55]. Acroterion (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

So he regularly puts threats in his edits? Thats kind of funny.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Looking back at it though it does look alot like there's an ownership issue here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd call it WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes that would seem to be the case.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Meh. This is probably prompted by te international yoga day thing. Some of the user's edits are strongly Hindu nationalist in tone, but some are inoffensive. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Challenges with User:TheRedPenOfDoom

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

---

I'm not sure if this is appropriate, but when but it seems that User:TheRedPenOfDoom is stirring up a lot of commotion. I was surprised to see a userpage that has been blocked from recreating, and I cannot seem to find any logs explaining why. Anyway if this is me going to far too fast, please accept my apologies. BFG (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Also I have not notified him, please do if you think this is an appropriate complaint. BFG (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • What are you complaining about? What userpage? Who blocked? What policy violation did TRPoD commit that requires that an admin jump in and quickly take action? You have less than 300 edits, yet you managed to find ANI quick enough, so what is the deal? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • He seems to have been involved in a lot of edit wars, and causing a lot of backlash, I was more interested in feedback than to create an actual case BFG (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
      • TRPoD's userpage is protected from re-creation "per user request." I fail to see what is wrong with that. My feedback to you is to either present an actionable case or withdraw, since you appear to be here in response to a single edit by TRPoD at Hydra effect and have made no effort at interaction. Acroterion (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • If a user doesn't want to have a userpage, why should they be forced to have one? And if they really don't want one, why allow vandals the opportunity to create one with intent to harass an editor? Ravensfire (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This could just be simple retaliation from a new editor over TheRedPenOfDoom removing content from Hydra effect (which was created by the OP) and adding tags noting that the references could be improved and questioning the notability of the article. Ravensfire (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• • • • There is no wanting retaliation. Before I noticed that the user was involved in other edit wars and similar tagging, I never thought this was anything more. I simply wanted advice on how to proceed. If you think this is irrelevant, then surely it is. Let's just close down the issue. ̃BFG (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Just to underline that I have no agenda. I've reviewed some more of his edits, it might be that he just engages in controversial subjects, and is a really active editor. The issues that prompted me to ask here was Dog meat and Diamond Games, and of course the previously mentioned very strange deletion log which User:Manul put forward a perfectly good explanation for below. There is also Parapsychology and Gamergate controversy in recent days, but these are fundamentally controversial subjects. I have no strong feelings about upholding any complaint. BFG (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I've also changed your redirects from your user/talk space. You can't redirect your current account to an unused account. If you are both users and lost the password, or whatever, you need to declare this, otherwise, if you use both accounts without some declaration, you are violating WP:SOCK, which I'm guessing isn't your intent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I saw that, and that's an issue I would very much like to address. I leave that issue for my talk page. If you could help me resolve it, I'd be much obliged. BFG (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Fwiw, there is a declaration in the edit summary on the first revision of the user page[56]. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
      • This issue has now been adressed. Hopefully to everyones satisfaction. BFG (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that I've notified TheRedPenOfDoom about this discussion. — Strongjam (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• On the issue of the missing User:TheRedPenOfDoom page: evidently it is create-protected because people kept creating it. If the page existed then the name TheRedPenOfDoom would be colored blue in history pages, causing the Internet to be thrown into turmoil. Manul ~ talk 16:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

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

More eyes on Peter Schiff

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

---

Apparently Schiff has posted a YouTube video requesting corrections to balance out the liberal bias of Wikipedia on his article. There have been a fair number of edits from IP and new accounts pushing a very pro-Schiff viewpoint on things. The article does have Pending Changes enabled, but I'm at or darn close to 3 reverts unaccepting various changes. Would a couple of other folks mind reviewing what's pending and helping out? Alternative, it may make sense, given Schiff's call for edits, to semi the article for a day or two to force talk page discussions on requested changes. Ravensfire (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi protected three days. Deletions, unsourced assertions, additions of websites like about.com as sources... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate it. I've adding a talk page discussion for one of the targetted areas, inviting some discussion and pointing out the need for good sources. Ravensfire (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

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

multi-year vandalism from IP address

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.

---

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

After reverting the most recent edit from the above IP, I looked at a few earlier contributions and see other vandalism from the same address going back to 2010. I didn't look at enough to see if there are also good edits, or to form an opinion of whether the edits are all from the same person. I also didn't check whether any of the old vandalism is still around needing reversion. I may look into it later but have other things going on right now. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Definitely a long-term pattern of... uh, "unhelpful" edits (peppered with what looks like the occasional good-faith edit). But, ironically, I'm not sure if they are persistent enough to merit a block. They edit (much less) than once a month, on average. I think an actual "final" (personalized, gentle?) warning message from a bona fide Admin that any more of this nonsense will lead to a block might hopefully lead this IP down a different, more constructive path... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• I've blocked for 3 months. 3 months would ordinarily be too long for the first block of an IP, but given the long term pattern, and particularly the more recent clear BLP Violations, I think it is necessary. Hopefully it will be long enough that they try to edit while still blocked, and maybe get the message. Unfortunately, our normal counter vandalism practices can let vandals this intermittent slip through the cracks. Monty₈₄₅ 20:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks on userpage

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.

---

Lucd13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just recently created a user page that generally personally attacks users on Wikipedia and Wikipedia itself (or possibly me). This was created after they made an edit [57] where they added a source for the number of episodes at CSI: Cyber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The video was unfortunately inaccessible for me, therefore the source was temporarily wrong until another user was available to confirm the said content. It was an Australian website, so it must only be available for Australian residents. Based on that, I reverted them [58]. They reverted my edit [59] saying that the video is in fact accessible and the said content is truthful. I cannot confirm it since I can't access the video. Then they said that I "should be careful in the future before deleting people's honest contributions." (??). I eventually reverted them [60], stating that the video is unavailable for me. Thus, I can't confirm what they're adding is truthful or not. Then the userpage full of personal attacks was created shortly after. The user page generally attacks other users, but it was created after the little spat mentioned above so I may be the lead on the attacks. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 19:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

No admin action called for. The angry userpage is hardly polite, but there's nothing personal about it. "Generally personally attacks", as you say, is a contradiction — if it's general it's not personal. Nobody in particular is mentioned by name nor hinted at. Even if you feel sure that it was the spat with you that caused the remarks, and that you are in some sense "meant", your feeling about the motivation in the individual's head is not something we can sanction or even reproach them for. I for my part am not prepared to ask them to remove the sentiments, either. People traditionally have wide latitude on their userpages, including the freedom to criticize Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 20:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC).

I'm a big believer in WP:NOTCENSORED, however, WP:POLEMIC mandates this needs to dissapear. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 20:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I always forget about that page. Thanks. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 20:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It can be a useful page, Callmemirela, but it's not relevant here. WP:POLEMIC is about a) "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia", which this isn't — it's related to Wikipedia — and b) "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors", which this also isn't — no specific editors are alluded to, individually or as a group. The user is letting off steam, and I'm not sure I even blame them. Bishonen | talk 20:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC).

Letting off steam is a lot different in my world. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 20:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mirela, our verifiability policy contains a section (WP:SOURCEACCESS) stating that sources are not required to be accessible to all users. If the user asserted that they saw the video and it verified the information they inserted, you should leave it at that, unless you have a verifiable reason yourself to dispute the claim (in which case you need your own sources). The SOURCEACCESS section has some other suggestions for how you can verify a source that you can't access. None of this is an excuse to run amok and throw tantrums, but Lucd13's response was pretty tame compared to some I've seen, and I would agree did not violate WP:POLEMIC (though probably did violate WP:NOTFORUM). It's been blanked now anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Callmemirela, it's rather dubious to close a section you opened yourself, ensuring that you get the last word. I'll let your close stand (moving Ivanvector's pertinent comment into it), as it was a storm in a teacup anyway, but please think of this for the future. Bishonen | talk 21:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC).

I am not trying to get the last word. I am sorry I am giving that impression. You, an admin, said no action was required and so on. All I wanted to know, based on the situation, if anything could had been done. You said no and I closed it. I got an answer and that was it. I don't know how this is getting labeled as I want to have the last word? Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 21:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

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

User:TheAlexCortez48

TAC attempted to suppress the discussion of Template:WWE Programming at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 22 and de-tagged the article. Bazj (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• I took care of it on his talk page. If he does it again, a short block would likely be in order as it was made perfectly clear that his activities are unacceptable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Reporting an admin

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.

---

nothing to see here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am reporting an admin named Ponyo. She has a gay flag on her user page. She is showing she is not neutral on gay articles and sides with gays. She should not be trusted on any gay issue since she is a liberal on that issue and probably other issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:590:3C03:196:D716:960B:35BB:7F27 (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC) First, there is no prohibition from an editor displaying this flag. Next, editors of all political persuasions may edit here. Finally, any claim of bias must be backed up by examples of editing patterns which display said bias. For the record Ponyo is one of the most level-headed editors on WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 00:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC) A little searching shows that this person has also used this IP 2001:590:3c03:178:3e7a:78c9:2e39:aab (talk · contribs) earlier today to harass Ponyo. It might be worth closing this thread to avoid more of the same. MarnetteD|Talk 00:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC) I agree wholeheartedly with MarnetteD. On all counts. I may not agree with another editor on a certain political issue, but unless their edits show a bias in their edits, the mere fact that someone is interested in LGBT issues, or conservative issues, or feminist issues, etc., does not preclude them from editing in a fair and level fashion. And Ponyo certainly exhibits that levelness. Onel5969 TT me 00:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC) Yes, unless someone can show actual bias in the actual editing, this is a non-starter. For instance, I recently found out that a departing editor who I had a lot of respect for had political views almost 180 degree from mine, but I never knew it, because their editing never showed it. BMK (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I have, incidentally, blocked the IP for 31 hours. (If someone knows the tricks of IPv6 rangeblocks, feel free to place a slightly broader block if necessary.) It should be obvious that the original poster is WP:NOTHERE. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

2001:590:3c03:100::/56 should cover a range that includes the two IPs listed above, but with only two addresses to work from it could be either overkill or not enough, so I think we're best playing wait-and-see at this point. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI the ISP's range, according to ARIN, is 2001:590::/32. Typically individual IPs are handed out to end-users as /64, allowing 64 bits of subnetting within the home (128 bits total). I have no specific knowledge of this ISP, however. --Unready (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify above, if you're used to playing whack-a-mole in IPv4 with a.b.c.d/32, that corresponds directly to whack-a-mole in IPv6 to w:x:y:z::/64. HTH --Unready (talk) 06:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Should this edit be deleted because it contains an address?

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.

---

Should this edit be deleted. It appears to have an address in it. Probably not the right place for this, but I had to click on "one last link" before heading to bed, and now I haven't got the time to find out how to handle it properly. Thanks. And good night. Willondon (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've deleted the address and Gilliam has blocked the IP for 36 hours. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Idiotic IP

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

---

Would some admin mind looking at the behaviour of 108.65.249.149, who is behaving idiotically on Shark fin soup. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Epipelagic, I reported that case of disruptive editing and harassment of other users at wp:aiv. dont worry. --Fazbear7891 (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Hillary Clinton

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

---

Recently, it was decided that the Hillary Rodham Clinton article should be moved to Hillary Clinton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in this well attended move discussion; the major factor in the decision was that Hillary Clinton is her common name, per the closing panel [61]. Since then, users (myself included) have tried changing the name at the top of the infobox from Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton, per Template:Infobox_person#Parameters, which says it should be the "common name of person." Several users, however, have fought this vehemently essentially rearguing the move request. There are now two threads on the talk page. In the first, consensus seems to be for using the common "HC." So someone who didn't like that change started a second thread and again consensus seems to be in favor of sticking with the common name. But yet, some users won't drop the stick [62]. Calidum T|C 00:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

What action are you requesting from Admins in regards to this? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've full-protected this article for two weeks to prevent further edit warring. Use the talk page is the general answer to be applied here.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• I've just blocked admin Jonathunder for editing through that protection.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Berean Hunter Are you sure it wasn't inadvertent? The timestamps are awfully close. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I just noted this on Berean Hunter's talk page but, per a test on my sandbox page, it turns out that an admin who opens an edit window on an unprotected article receives no warning when they save that edit, if the article was protected while they were editing. I did not test if you preview, that may show the warning, but a straight open-edit, (type), "save" goes straight through. No sign of the red screen you normally get if you start editing a protected article... I did not previously know that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
      • It seems rather odd to protect the version that represents a change from a decade-long status quo. Isn't the general rule that the status quo stands until consensus exists to change it? Also, the block seems uncalled for in this case. bd2412 T 01:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Admins can block other admins? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Of course they can - if there's a reason to do so. bd2412 T 01:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) @BD2412: I agree the block seems uncalled for, as evidence is pretty clear that there's reasonable doubt he knew it was protected. However, BD2412 is incorrect regarding returning to the status quo in an edit war. Whatever state the article is in when it is protected is all that matters (absent egregious BLP issues, which this isn't). Admins aren't supposed to pick sides, and that includes not granting preference to a first mover or second mover, or really anyone. You click the "protect" button, and whatever state it is in when you click it, that's where it is supposed to stay. --Jayron32 01:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Agree that there's reasonable doubt; I recommend unblocking Jonathunder for now. If it continues, well... — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
            • Already unblocked but it didn't happen the way that it should. We were trying to work this out and BD2412 unblocked without checking first. I just wanted to know that Jona wasn't going to edit through the protection which seems reasonable to me.
               — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
              • That could have been accomplished with a warning. This is not the kind of circumstance justifying an approach of block first, ask questions later. bd2412 T 02:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I just filed a bug on mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Support desk about this. I would post on wikitech but my non-work email phone is in my pocket at the moment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Both actions seem like knee-jerk reactions, poorly thought-out. I would expect more from an admin. Omnedon (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm involved, so forgive me for commenting at all. However, I find it outrageous that a dispute that has only been a matter of content (not behaviour), and which is being discussed on the talk page, was brought to AN/I by an involved party for no reason whatsoever, merely because he didn't like how the discussion was going. The result was that his preferred version was protected, deviating from a decade-long status quo. Outrageous. RGloucester — ☎ 02:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• It amazes me that there's not already a guideline that Infobox titles have to match the article title. [sigh...] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Calidum and a couple of others are failing to get consensus on their preferred change so they began edit-warring to force their change and immediately came here to get their preferred version enforced by admin action. Berean Hunter kindly obliged, locking their version in for two weeks. Now Berean is whining that his block-first-ask-questions-later block was overturned. This is farcical. Undo the page protection and warn or sanction the editors who are trying (and now apparently succeeding with the help of Berean) to bully their way through a content dispute by edit-warring.

This was a brief edit war, precipitated by Callidm and his buddies, and should have been dealt with by a stern warning or two. Not by knee-jerk blocking and rewarding the edit-warriors by locking the article in their version for two weeks. Would someone please undo the page protection, warn all parties about edit-warring and then leave the editors to get on with editing the article in accordance with policy? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the one that is whining to try to get their way. You aren't really a neutral observer are you? I would have been unblocking so your assessment is off from a lack of understanding. I would have liked policy to have been adhered to regarding undoing another's admin action for the sake of courtesy. That's all. Okay, you can go back to bitching now.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey. I boldly edited that page once. It was reverted. It was discussed. That's how we do it here. That's not whining. That's not edit-warring to get my way, like Calidum and his buddies, whom you have just rewarded for their bullying by locking this highly topical article in their version for two damn weeks.

Per WP:ADMINACCT, would you please tell me what purpose that full page protection is serving? I see discussion occurring on the talk page and one trivial edit war which can be addressed with warnings. What are you seeing? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• This is taking lame edit wars to a whole new level. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring over name

• 1 Born2cycle
• 2 Anthonyhcole
• 3 GregKaye
• 4 Alanscottwalker
• 5 Calidum
• 6 Anthonyhcole
• 7 Calidum
• 8 Alanscottwalker
• 9 GregKaye
• 10 Alanscottwalker
• Full protection by NeilN
• 11 RGloucester
• 12 GregKaye
• 13 Anthonyhcole
• 14 Wasted Time R
• 15 RGloucester
• 16 Calidum
• 17 RGloucester
• 18 Calidum
• 19 RGloucester
• 20 Calidum
• 21 DD2K
• 22 Calidum
• 23 DD2K
• Full protection by Slon02
• 24 Calidum
• 25 Omnedon
• 26 GoodDay
• 27 Jonathunder (after full protection via edit conflict, removed)

• The last one shows that edit warring would have been continuing had it not been protected. I skipped several diffs concerning the image caption which boils down to more name bickering. Contrary to your claims above that you only reverted once, I count three. There are multiple threads on the talk page and none of them seem to reflect that you guys are anywhere near reaching a consensus.

• Infobox thread 1 on talk page
• Surname thread
• Infobox thread 2
• New Requested Move thread(!)

Per WP:FULL and WP:PREFER, locking that page down is spot on. Per the new move request, it shows that there are editors who are refusing to accept the finding of three impartial admins that determined consensus from the digital reams of paper that was the last move request. There is a great deal of I don't like it and I didn't hear that going on and a lot of wikilawyering. One of the chief aims of full protection here is stability. The edit warring needs to cease and two previous short term full protections didn't work so we're going with longer terms to see if that will be effective.

I hope that the database is only storing the changes (delta diffs) and not the bulk article size. If the latter is true then this 211K+ article has been edit-warred just in the incidences above to an extra 5.7 Megabytes of useless data bloat.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Endorse Berean Hunter's page protection. I take issue with the Hunter's description suggesting an aim of protection is stability. I'd assert that page protection is more properly for preventing undue instability. By documenting above the rampant edit warring, he's demonstrated adequately the necessity of full page protection. It appears BH has acknowledged error in prematurely blocking Jonathunder; in the future Jonathunder might show better sense, as a holder of community trust, in avoiding involvement with edit wars in live pagespace. Wikipedians expect better from administrators. BusterD (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, my change/revert would've been my only change/revert, regardless of page protection. Anyways, I support the page being protected, no matter what form it was in. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, GoodDay.

Please don't exaggerate, User:Berean Hunter; I reverted twice, with civil, explanatory edit summaries, and then immediately opened a talk page discussion. (I forgot about the second, they happened in quick succession.) My third edit in your list is a bold new edit which was reverted and then I opened a thread to discuss it. Textbook perfect editing. BRD. Unlike in the first instance, where Born2cycle boldly changed the woman's name in the infobox and I reverted with a clear, civil explanation. What happened there, Bearean? Did one of the edit-warring, POV-pushing bullies open a talk page thread to discuss their proposed change? No. One of them reverted me. I opened the talk page thread, inviting them to discuss it. Now look at what's happening there. There is no consensus on the talk page regarding the name in the infobox. There had been no edit-warring since 20 June. Calidum tried it on at 22:06 on 24 June; Omnedon reverted an hour later. An hour later GoodDay restored the disputed change, despite no consensus on the talk page. Then look at what you did. Brilliant. Fucking brilliant.

Nobody will tolerate another move request this soon. That's a red herring.

That you assert the problem is people not accepting the outcome of the RFC demonstrates your poor grasp of the situation. The RFC does not mandate we change the woman's name wherever it occurs in the article.

The discussion about what name to use in the infobox, in image captions and in the article is going on on the talk page. You should be warning and blocking User:Calidum and User:GregKaye and anyone else who repeatedly inserts a change that is contentious and being discussed on the talk page. Not locking the damn article in their version for two damn weeks. Truly pathetic behaviour... (I'm referring there to your inability to admit you were gamed by the biggest bully on that article, and your clear belief, even now, that you did a great bit of admin work there.) Take a look at the number of times those two appear on your list above. Take a look at what they actually did in those edits. Take a look at what was happening on the talk page when they made those changes. Ugh. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I am utterly indifferent to which name is used, but (while this seems to be a very nasty edit war), I'm also a bit nervous about having Clinton's article full-protected for two weeks while she's running for President; there probably won't be any major developments in the next two weeks (and minor developments can be covered in the appropriate subpages), but it's hard to be certain. Having the entire article locked for so long over a one-word disagreement seems unfortunate, either way. --Aquillion (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Page protection here seems (IMO) needed. While blocking can resolve edit wars, in this case and with this amount of editors, the most appropriate action is to protect (unless we want to block 6+ editors, some of whom have made only one edit). Note I have no opinion in reguards to the dispute (I closed the move discussion, so I'm probably mildly involved here as well). Mdann52 (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you looked at the edit war? Have you noticed that since it began, there has been an ongoing talk page discussion per WP:BRD yet one team is constantly pushing the disputed change into the article? Have you? Or have you paid as much attention to policy and argument in this case as you did when you closed the RM discussion? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Page protection is probably the preferable option here - as otherwise, as no one has crossed 3RR yet, then how are we going to decide on who to block? Protection allows the edit war to stop for a while by forcing the users to stop directing the page - it also acts as a warning to those involved to a degree. As for the move discussion, I'm not going to go back into that, mostly because it took a month to go through it the first time, and I cannot be bothered to revisit it frankly, unless there is a formal move review. Mdann52 (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Good Lord. You look at the actual talk page where actual discussion is happening and see that a few editors are pushing changes into the article while they're being discussed on the talk page. Discussions started by me. Not them, the people doing the shoving. And you warn them to stop. No need to block anyone. They're all pretty bright folks. What you don't do is lock the page after two bold edits and one revert and block a fellow admin who has the temerity to defy you without even asking them what's up. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• This is now the subject of an RFC on the talkpage. Calidum T|C 05:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Personal attack by SpyMagician

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.

---

Personal attack aimed at myself by User:SpyMagician: [63] Note that this comes immediately after I asked user to discuss the edits rather discussing me personally.173.252.18.173 (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

There was no personal attack and this is utter nonsense. The issue was this 173.252.18.173 is repeatedly claiming they have over a decade of experience on Wikipedia yet got upset when I reverted their badly worded, cited and added addition to the Soaked in Bleach page. I initially reverted their addition, and this editor reverted that reversion here and then started a discussion here in which they were indignant towards basic Wikipedia style regarding quotes and citations. The net result is I simply decided to look at the citations and properly reword and replace the core content here. This IP user (173.252.18.173) is simply being a troll about this all despite—when all is said and done—the section was expanded as they desired. But apparently this IP user is upset I did it the correct way with proper citations and proper quotes. --SpyMagician (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You referred to me as "delusional", which I take offense to. Stay on topic. You had the opportunity to discuss edits but chose instead to discuss me personally. You continue to do that here. 173.252.18.173 (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, a second personal attack ("troll") right on the administrator's noticeboard is unwise. 173.252.18.173 (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Taking offense at being called "delusional" or being a "troll" is patently ridiculous especially when you stated with your original reversion, “nonsense; this is an encyclopedia and opposition to encyclopedic information violates its fundamental principles”. By your logic I should be the one complaining about “abuse” since you said my reversion—which was initially based on article bloat but then anchored by the fact your additions did non properly cite/quote the reference—was described as “nonsense”. Are you saying now it would have been “encyclopedic” to leave in place your edit which provided an uncited, 100% incorrect quote and leave the original, non-fleshed out reference? Give us all a break. But again, your behavior speaks for itself. --SpyMagician (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

My behaviour speaks for itself? Need I remind you who the subject of this ANI is? 173.252.18.173 (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

And here [64] the same editor remarks that he feels I need to be stopped, and have no right to take offense to the personal attacks. 173.252.18.173 (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop crying wolf. Now. I'm just tired of people misinterpreting comments and failing to assume good faith on other editors. If you feel to be the victim of unlegitimate criticism discuss it with the user but don't go crying wolf. I simply feel annoyed for this stuff. --TL22 (talk) 02:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I don't want to take side here, but I think the unregistered editor is not assuming good faith. According to the statistics, SpyMagician is a user with eight–year experience and I have found nothing offensive in his replies at his talk page toward the Canadian user. I beleive there is no need for this procedure. If the intention is to solve the quotation issue, it could've been done at the article's talk. If the intention is to get SpyMagician blocked, then a boomerang might occure.--Retrohead (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, here's my comment on this: Retrohead may have a bias against me and this should be weighed when examining his involvement here. He asked me to edit an article on his behalf, and requested that I scan several pages from a book and email them to him [65] [66]. I declined. Now he's insinuating that I might receive a block... for being on the receiving end of a personal attack? My nationality ("Canadian user") is irrelevant, and this issue is about a personal attack and not "the quotation issue".173.252.18.173 (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

173.252.18.173, don't spin my words. I said ANI is the last resort for a dispute between editors and that it would have been better to resolve this at the article's talk. I see you were the one who blanked your personal talk page when SpyMagician tried to open a discussion, thus you have no right to blame him (or me) for being uncooperative and biased. My advice for you is to practice teamwork and take disagreements less painfully.--Retrohead (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I am entitled to do as I please with my own talk page; it's important to note that there was absolutely no discussion taking place on my talk page anyway. Please, this is not about editing, it's about abusive remarks being directed at me. 173.252.18.173 (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, weren't you the one who accused the other side of sockpuppetry? Look, I know you're trying to improve the article on Cobain's movie, but please take these trivialities less harsh.--Retrohead (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please just end this never ending roundabout this IP is trying to make or boomerang him/her? The IP has made no attempt to discuss with the accused on how any issue he/she has can be solved. So far, he/she blatantly twists everyone's words to make some sort of "case" and it's really annoying. We're here to build on articles and this kind of stuff just slows things down.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Non admin relisting AfDs that should be closed by an admin.

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.

---

Jaaron95 (talk · contribs) has been relisting a lot of AfDs , I'd like to my point out at least 3 examples of inappropriate relisting when there was clear deletion consensus:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Lando the only keep vote came from an editor who worked on no other article .
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Salmat unianimous delete consensus.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gennaro A. Jerry Marino

LibStar (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Relisting isn't done because of a lack of consensus on the page so much as a lack of participation. All of these are single relists where the AFD has never been relisted and the participation has been thin. I probably wouldn't have relisted Salmat but I probably would have the other two. The purpose of AFD isn't to dispose of articles as fast as we can, it is to determine what is best for Wikipedia, and often that means relisting. I'm not sure the relisting of Salmat, the worst of these, is ANI worthy. I'm not saying this necessarily perfect, but I don't see anything to sanction over. One person talked to him on his talk page, but I haven't seen where you have before bringing him here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I have contacted him earlier today but don't think he has been online to respond , but I think the issue here is that some of these relists should be left to an admin to close. Fine if there is a lack of participation or no consensus. LibStar (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm just saying that ones like the first and third, those are really arguably best relisted at least once. I would have, and I'm an admin. At worst, this is in the grey area like Salmat. If we have to err, it is better to err on the side of relisting once. Keep in mind, any admin may close any AFD before the week or relist period is up. It isn't like we are FORCED to wait another week. There may be better examples of his relisting things that didn't need it, but these aren't so bad. Talk, discuss, teach and learn. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The real issue is this influx of relist monkeys that exist at AfD and the lack of admins to make a decission after 7 days. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Amused that I'm brought to ANI this fast (won't even wait for a reply in my talk page?)... Dennis Brown has spoken for me on my relisting. But I'll add one more, as to why I relisted Salmat. The discussion had a reply by Shad Innet, who by the way randomly made comments in Afds not stating reasons, which I disregarded and relisted. The same applies to Gennaro A. Jerry Marino AfD. I believe this ANI thread is not because I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Eugenia Cárdenas Santa María (2nd nomination)? Regards --JAaron95 (Talk) 17:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

nothing to do with that AfD, I agree it's a keep outcome. LibStar (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

If it is a larger issue, then WP:AN would be a good place to discuss as a whole. The examples above are not terrible relists, even if 2 wasn't really necessary. Are you seeing worse judgement than this and can you give examples? If it is a systemic issue, we need to treat it as such, leave notices at WP:AN weekly, etc. In this case, I just can't sanction for the diffs provided, as I agree with at least two of them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

this one may be no consensus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shamoun Hanna Haydo, but under Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Appropriate_closures not an appropriate closure for a non admin. If in doubt as a non admin, I'd leave it to an admin to close or relist. LibStar (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

similarly Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Kind of Man Are You?, non admins are only supposed to do no consensus closures when there is low participation. LibStar (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The guideline is sort of a compromise, we don't want to encourage new or inexperienced editors to close when the outcome isn't obvious, but we also don't prohibit NAC closes so long as the closer isn't involved, and admin action isn't required. That is why the WP:BADNAC is silent on it, but the good section only mentions closing no-consensus when there are few comments. If a very experienced editor NAC closes a controversial discussion well, it will often be respected. So really the discussion should focus mostly on whether closes were substantively reasonable. Monty₈₄₅ 17:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say most admins would have deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janis Menken and another example of inappropriate relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Triangle Pest Control Scholarship Fund LibStar (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no inappropriate relisting, although I agree that a relist on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Triangle Pest Control Scholarship Fund was unnecessary.I erred as it was one of my initial relists. The policy states that no consensus closes should generally be avoided, not as non-admins are not allowed. But I should say I was WP:BOLD in closing AfDs as no consensus. I was very cautious about my contributions in AfDs that I asked Northamerica1000 to keep an eye on my works in this diff. If I've erred on no consensus closes, I will apologize and will restrict myself from performing such closures. Regards, --JAaron95 (Talk) 17:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

As for NAC, regardless of the exact wording of policy, consensus has been that best practice is for non-admin to never close any AFD where there is the slightest chance of it being contested. Period. NAC should be done only on the most obvious of cases. The reasoning is that admin are expected to answer to and explain any contested closing, whereas non-admin aren't held to the same standard. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I apologize for my previous no consensus closures and will restrict myself from closing any such in the future which might be challenged. If anyone comes up against my no consensus previous closure, I'll immediately open them for further discussion. Regards--JAaron95 (Talk) 18:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruption apparently from Eric Barbour and Wikipediocracy

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

---

At Metasonix and Talk:Metasonix, the IP6 user 2607:FB90:270B:F087:9AA3:417A:F4F1:6B0F has been trying to whitewash the article's COI connection with its major contributor, EricBarbour who is a leader of Wikipediocracy. The IP also posted a nasty little comment at the talk page of Coretheapple. What should be done here? Protect the article and/or talk page? Block the IP? Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

IP blocked for that clearly unacceptable comment and continuing in a similar vein on the article talk page. Article may have to be protected if socks show up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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

73.166.187.154 - League City, Texas IP

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

---

The user behind this IP has been brought to ANI at least three times, [67][68][69] sometimes from other IPs, but no admin has ever committed to addressing this editor's problematic behavior, which tends to include battleground editing and edit summaries, unsourced or improperly sourced content, edits that conform to their personal preference and not the preference of the various manuals of style and community consensus, and most recently BLP violations. This user tends to fall off my radar, until I start seeing problematic edits, the removal of comments and warnings from their talk page, and snippy edit summaries, then it becomes clear who they are. The most recent referral to ANI was here, but the editor escaped sanctions likely due to references to self-harm. I emailed the emergency team and didn't press the matter.

• From this most recent IP, editor has been instructed numerous times to stop submitting unsourced or improperly sourced content: [70][71][72][73][74]
• When the user submitted unsourced biographical content, then described Tefkasp's reversion as "foolish", I attempted to edify the user on WP:BLPPRIVACY concerns and explained very clearly what the community's expectations are. Their response was to blank the explanation, commenting "Dude just leave me alone, you aren't helping me." Clearly the explanation did not resonate, as they have continued to add unsourced and improperly sourced biographical content with no regard for WP:BLPPRIVACY. They have been warned by Binksternet and Yamaguchi先生. After Yamaguchi removed birthdate content attributed to a Twitter post, the IP added it back without a reference, seemingly in defiance of Yamaguchi and WP:BLPPRIVACY. An earlier warning from Binksternet about adding unsourced content was met with more ignoring of the problem "Honestly dude you are speaking just plain nonsense. :("
• User has been around long enough to understand that genre is subjective and should be referenced. This change was reverted, but the editor resubmitted it with the exasperated and baseless summary, "Seriously, the film has some intense moments that make it feel it's a thriller according to the trailer why dismiss them???" This clearly is not consistent with WP:OR.
• Before I knew that I was dealing with this same editor, I had a recent run-in with them at Talk:The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water on the issue of including unnecessary content to the film's plot section. I explained that there were derivative works/copyright concerns related to adding unnecessary info, they responded with this petulant link to a YouTube video of Peter Griffin saying "Who the hell cares?" They don't seem to be able to discuss content issues from the perspective of existing community guidelines, typically resorting to 'but I want it in there' emotional arguments.
• Personal attacks here, calling editors communists for upholding site wide consensus.
• User has previously acknowledged behavioral problems, but I don't see that they have done anything differently to manage their anger or to make their own experience here go smoother. I don't think the editor has the skills to edit here constructively. Apparently all attempts to guide this editor are resented, all warnings are ignored, and everybody other than this editor is in the wrong.

For these reasons I am requesting administrative sanctions. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible suicide threat (and I already contacted emergency@wikimedia.org). (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Because that's the truth. If you want to block me for what I say to all of you then do it because that's the last straw. I would rather drink cyanide and jump off a cliff and forget about what happend here, but the honest truth It seems that the WHOLE Wikipedia site is changing especially with YOUR views regarding on "Sources" and post-credit and mid-credit scenes. So good bye--73.166.187.154 (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC) :(

WP:NOTHERE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

IP editor, you've never made one coherent argument for why your preferred edits are consistent with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The sum of all your arguments amounts to "I don't like it, you're all unfair, I'm mad!" At some point, particularly when a dozen editors have challenged your edits, you have to acknowledge the possibility that your understanding of existing guidelines and policies may be woefully inaccurate. Since you've provided no explanation of why you feel things are changing, there's little anyone can do to discuss matters with you, although you are still welcome and encouraged to explain. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I did made my point, I am really baffled on the changes and rules you make regarding on twitter and facebook in the past few hours thinking they were never meant to be their at all. I don't want to have the twitter and facebook sources to be dismissed.--73.166.187.154 (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse administrative sanctions for the reasons outlined above by Cyphoidbomb. It is very clear that this user has elected to ignore our editorial policies and will continue to edit in a disruptive manner until such actions are taken. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 19:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse - Especially due to the above comment by the IP, in part due to the indication of suicidal thoughts. -- Orduin ^Discuss
• Endorse site ban for any editing that follows the pattern established by this person from the Greater Houston area of Texas. Far too much flaunting of WP:NOR, with a combined effect of NOTHERE. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse. The editor is NOTHERE, so they clearly shouldn't be here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse - Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. --TL22 (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• A glance at the IP's edits led me to believe that sanctions may be necessary, but the editor did make a few factual changes, and did start to put in references. Not sure what the best sanction - if any - would be, though.- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Nor am I. My request for sanctions isn't intended to be punitive, it's intended to inspire them to change their behavior. The problem is exacerbated when we start introducing statements about self-harm. I'll leave it at that, so as not to fan flames. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Ownership behavior on Harry Potter

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.

---

Tarc (talk · contribs) is in violation of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR for the refual to allow the addition of one word -- one word -- to the article Harry Potter, without having cited one single fact, source, guideline or policy to explain this. It's agreed that this change is more accurate, but Tarc wont' allow it because it is "pointless". This precisely fits the definition in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR: "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version."

The reason this small thing is such a big deal is that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We have to put our foot down when we see veteran editors who act as if they can veto anything they don't like for no good reason. I'd like a temporary block, or a topic ban, to give Tarc a mild reprimand to stop this type of behavior.

By the way, I also reverted 4 times instead of 3. I lost count. My bad. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Prior to this hitting ANI, I protected the article and issued 3RR warnings to both editors. Nakon 04:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Facepalm For fuck's sake, I do not "own" nor have ever asserted "ownership" over the article in question, having only edited it very occasionally over the years. This editor made a change to a passage in the article, was reverted by another editor @J.A.R. Huygebaert:, then raised a concern of accuracy of said passage on the talk page. Huygebaert explained his reasons, I chimed in that I agreed. We explained, and patiently re-explained those reasons, whereas Mr. Bratland became increasingly...shrill, as seen here when we had the audacity to, golly, disagree. When an editor fails to find consensus for their suggestions, just steamrolling along heedless in't a good idea. No wrongdoing on my part, nor Huygebaert, nor even really Bratland apart from an all-too-common-these-days inability to cope when confronted with people who do not agree with on's opinion. Maybe more will now see this (and really it is all over a single word), flock to the article and agree with him, then that will be that. Who knoiws? All I do no is at the time, his was the lone vice for the change.

There's an hour of Big Brother: After Dark left, and I intend to chillax and watch. Hopefully this will be the only response I'll have to make, as I find that exile from ANI (and this is a exception to the prohibition, dear readers) is rather quite refreshing, and I do not miss this hole in the wall at all. Tarc (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

PS - It's agreed that this change is more accurate, but Tarc wont' allow it because it is "pointless", I never agreed to the former, nor did I ever use the word "pointless" or anything similar in this exchange. I think the filer has confused my posts with the other editor, and added a bit of flourish on top. Tarc (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:OWNBEHAVIOR doesn't depend on how may edits you've made in the past. You're simply preferring one version over another, yet you've cited zero evidence that the other version is detrimental, only that it's "unnecessary". That's precisely how we define ownership behavior. I repeatedly asked if there is any source evidence that could change your mind -- and there is none! Facts, guidelines, and policies are not relevant. Which means you think you can get your way by voting: "we favor this over that, we don't need a reason, end of story". WP:CONSENSUS requires you have reasons; without reasons what you're doing is disruptive editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I, along with the other editor, explained our opinions in a rather detailed manner; for you to say there were no reasons given and that they were "just votes" is disingenuous, bordering on deliberate deception. We both gave reasons as to why changing from "X is Y" to "X is mostly Y" wasn't a good idea. I'm not going to rehash that here, as that's not what ANI is for. Anyone here can read the talk page themselves. This is purely for behavioral issues, and as your claim of "ownership" is based on a demonstrable falsehood (that we "just voted" without "giving reasons"), this this filing has no merit. And for for really real, sighing off for the night. Tarc (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• As Tarc has removed a poor addition (it makes the prose lumpy, is unnecessary and is, yes, pointless), my advice to Dennis Bratland is to read WP:BRD, re-read it, and then try not to edit war over such poor additions again. You should also read WP:BOOMERANG and not be surprised if this thread turns against you. - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Concur with SchroCat. GregJackP Boomer! 16:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to say that Dennis' addition of a term that he knows is going to be controversial, while discussion is ongoing, but to put it under the guise of "being bold" borders on disruptive editing - certainly antagonistic. Moreover, to say in the edit summary that he has done this "per talk discussion" insinuates that he has consensus, when that is clearly not the case. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

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

My message to Check Users and Administrators

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

---

I started my Wikipedia journey in 2010. After that due to POV pushing, edit warring and various reasons I was indefinitely blocked. Later on I became a SockMaster. I am going to end this journey. As a friendly suggestion, I must say check user tools are not always right. Sometimes I have seen accounts unrelated to me were blocked and tagged as my accounts. When those new users who didn't make a single bad faith edit would put unblock request, claiming innocence, then cold hearted administrators would ask them to accept the check user results. Check user tools are made in Heaven, they can't go wrong. Some of them were even kids. Administrators thought I was posing as a kid. Probably they were using the same ISP provider and lived in the same city.If I had three sock puppets, CU results will tag two more as my socks. What I will do. If I will tell them they are not mine, will they believe me?. Now when a user gets blocked indefinitely, some trolls abuse the blocking administrator. The troll IP users are blocked and tagged as sock trolls of the blocked user. These people make the blocked account user's unblock request more and more difficult. The administrator and check user don't care to check details. Someone is blocked and talk page access removed. A random account edits the talk page "unblock me". Instantly these New accounts are tagged as suspected sockpuppets. If any other sockmaster is reading my comment, I would request you to give your views. Whether any account not created by you were tagged as your sock puppets due to IP match and location match. Don't remove my comment from this page or close this discussion . I am trying to help.Message to you all (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

In 2013 I used to live in a small suburb where personal net connection was not available. There was only one cyber cafe. I used four accounts to push my view. An SPI was filed and i got blocked. I used to edit movie related articles. Another accounts which belonged to an old man who was a retired History teacher got blocked indefinitely as he also used the same cyber cafe. The population in that town was small and everybody new each other. He told me he was blocked as a sockpuppet of *******. Only I knew, I am *******. Two months ago, i got the news that he passed away. He edited only four History related edits.--223.176.5.247 (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It isn't really helpful if you don't identify which sock case(s) apply.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand why we should give a damn about this, and why this account hasn't already been blocked for admitted block evasions. This is not a puppetmaster's forum - go start a blog somewhere. BMK (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• My guess is that it is User:Vote (X) for Change, created in 2010 and banned in 2011 (see this discussion on AN/I). Several trolling IPs have been blocked lately as socks of that user. Thomas.W ^talk 20:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Re: "will they believe me?", No. They will not believe you. Creating sockpuppets is an act of deception in order to gain an advantage over those who follow the rules. It destroys your credibility -- why believe a known liar? Claiming that some of the socks are actually innocent bystanders would be an obvious claim to make by someone trying to continue the deception. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Block evasion by User:Futurewiki and User:Dragonrap2

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 edits of User:Mega22 are quite similar, including this smoking gun. Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Indeffed.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Berean Hunter beat me by a few seconds. Per WP:BEANS, I won't say why I know, but I know that it is him and I agree with BH's block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

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

User:MarnetteD

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

---

This user has repeatedly reverted my edits on the pages "the great intelligence" and "list of Doctor Who villains". There was no reason other than a feeling of superiority on their part, I believe due to their status as a administrator. They deleted my remonstrance unread on their talk page. I admit comments I made following this were unduly caustic, no the less they were aggrevated. I supplied both relevant information to the pages in question and an appropriate reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk • contribs) 15:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD is not an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm going to say this wasn't made in good faith, as they haven't been very civil to User:MarnetteD, see [75], [76], [77] (all use bastard or bigot). Also, this is wrong, a primary source is almost never better than a secondary source, and MarnetteD's reasons are clearly explained here. Frankly, there isn't an ANI issue about them, but there seems like a case for a WP:BOOMERANG. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, you're obliged to inform someone when you report them, which you didn't. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I removed each item [78], [79] once and once only so the use of the word repeatedly is a gross exaggeration. Next feel free to read the violations of WP:NPA by the OP and you will see why they were removed. As I see it this is an attempt at WP:HARASS. MarnetteD|Talk 15:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

That seems likely to me - the OP, User:Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh, has been editing under that name since yesterday (the 27th), and yet seems to have by their very first edit all the forms and formats down pat. I suggest there's an avoidance of WP:SCRUTINY going on here. Like Joseph2302, a WP:BOOMERANG appears to be approrpiate. BMK (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

My thanks to Joseph2302 for linking to the PAs on my talk page. I was choosing to not look at them a second time. MarnetteD|Talk 15:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the third of Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh's five posts to User talk:MarnetteD and immediately served a {{subst:uw-npa1}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a clear WP:Boomerang situation. WP:NPA to reach a point, which was opposed with clear and explicit reasons. This report won't go any further than it already is, based on harsh comments and personal attacks to MarnetteD's talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 15:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

OP has been blocked for a week by Bbb23 for disruptive editing, edit warring and personal attacks. BMK (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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

KWW / The Rambling Man

Now that a request for arbitration has been filed (permalink here), best to take any further comments there (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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

---

KWW and The Rambling Man had been engaged in an edit war on the Phillip Seymour Hoffman awards page, TRM adding awards and then coming back to add references and KWW removing everything not well referenced at time of addition. Neither was following adequate policy to discuss disputed changes. It escalated on their respective talk pages and finished with KWW blocking TRM for edit warring, an obvious involved block.

Due to a combination of the edit warring and the disruptive discussion and the involved block I have blocked KWW for 72 hrs. I would like to request other admins and editors review the situation writ large and in particular both blocks. I believe mine was a necessary stop to disruptive activity however others may not see it that way. Any admin consensus here to unblock may be acted upon with my blessings without specifically asking me first. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kww (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Adding links for convenience.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• The only article talk page contribution by The Rambling Man is a single paragraph of ad hominem. The bigger problem is KWW blocking him, which is arguably a textbook violation of WP:INVOLVED, and precisely what the policy is there to prevent. The rationale was "Violations of the Biographies of living persons" which would theoretically be an exception, but I don't see how lists of awards would qualify, nor can I conceive that the majority of admin would agree, per the exceptions. TRM's actions are a different story, and the edit warring could have been handled here or by any uninvolved admin. Not sure what to do there. The block duration is fine, but the rationale is wrong, as is the blocking party. There isn't much we can do at ANI about that, and the loss of RFC/U means ARB is the only possible venue to even hear the case. That is where it needs to be. Either way, I think you did the right thing with what you had to work with, George. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• For uncontentious facts, it's better to use {{cn}}, even on a BLP. Removing very-likely-true-and-harmless-if-mistaken facts is really not protecting anyone from anything, which is the main purpose of BLP policy; BLP isn't a tool in a game of Nomic. There's no justification to wield the BLP Hammer here. This wholesale removal of facts, which editors were in the process of sourcing, serves no purpose. Jesus, just give them a couple of days to source everything. Save the BLP card for when it's really needed, like when someone's reputation is at stake. Using it as an ace in the hole here devalues WP:BLP - makes it less likely to be respected in the future as a legitimate rationale.

As for the blocks: Kww's was way out of order, and I was a keystroke away from undoing it when I saw Kww had been blocked too, and I (uncharacteristically) decided to not to act unilaterally once I saw it was getting more complicated. He was "involved", and (this is an aside, not my main argument) Philip Seymour Hoffman is not a BLP. His death a year and a half ago doesn't count as "recent". So if nothing else, Kww was involved in an edit war and was using BLP as a justification when it wasn't. And blocked the person he was in a non-BLP dispute with.

I'd strongly suggest both be unblocked so they can participate in the discussion here. Both were handling this suboptimally, but if I have to choose sides, Kww's behavior here was shameful, while TRM's was just dumb. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Additional note: See here: User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert#Trying_to_nip_in_the_bud, where GWH says he's Ok with someone unblocking both so they can participate here. I have to leave, so in case there's some kind of fallout I'm not going to do that myself, but I suggest an uninvolved admin consider it. Might help throw water on the fire. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Certainly seems to be the textbook definition on an involved block; I don't see any way in which BLP issues are even close to excusing it. An unblock for TRM, at least, is in order; I think I'm going to go do that. Unblocking Kww to participate makes sense, I suppose. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

KWW was on the correct side of policy until the decision to use admin tools when involved in a content dispute. It would have been better to bring TRM's behaviour to public scrutiny. I think neither party comes out well in the end, I suggest we let the blocks expire(no objection to unblocking for the purposes of participating in this discussion of course). I think that George's block was reasonable given the circumstances. Chillum 22:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

No he wasn't Chiillum. Another example of your piss poor understanding of content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The burden of verifying something before replacing it once challenged is clear in our policy. I think you just enjoy finding fault in me. Chillum 15:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Unblocking both seems sensible. Neither user has covered themselves in glory here, but the big concern for me is Kww's clearly involved block. Might be the sort of thing ArbCom needs to sort out. Jenks24 (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

TRM has been unblocked. I think it's only fair that Kww also be unblocked so that both can contribute here. Unblocking one and not the other isn't going to help. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Per this discussion I have unblocked KWW and urged him to discuss here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Kww abused his tools. He should be desysopped let alone anything else. Cassianto^Talk 22:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

As for why I blocked TRM, that wasn't until his disruption spread to List of awards and nominations received by Hugh Jackman. Take a look at the timeline:

1. TRM undoes a three-week old edit on the Hugh Jackman article, using an unsuitable user-generated section of IMDB as a source
2. he restores it after I pointed out that his source was unsuitable
3. he adds a source that doesn't substantiate most of the material he added
4. After I clean out some of the unsubstantiated material, he reverts
5. I warn that I will block
6. I revert, specifically calling out BLP and BURDEN. This is Hugh Jackman, BTW, no doubt that he's alive

1. he reverts again
2. And finally, I block him.

As I've said, no different than I would have treated any other editor that insisted on edit-warring unsourced material into a BLP. TRM's experience level doesn't give him special privileges in that regard.—Kww(talk) 23:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You are still not addressing any of the criticisms; if you do not adequately do so, I will file an arbcom case promptly. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

20 minutes. I am at work, and have to do what I'm paid for.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

(by promptly I mean like, tomorrow IF there's no progress on meaningful discussion... I don't mean, drop everything in your life and bring me a shrubbery right now. Sorry if I left that impression...) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Using your example, you deleting sections of what he was working on just three minutes after his last edit [80], which was just the first of seven edits deleting wholesale the awards. He was actively working on and sourcing them when you did this.

I would also note that WP:BLP is meant to protect living persons from negative material about them, it isn't a catch all for any content whatsoever in an article about them. Adding an prestigious award may or may not be correct, but it isn't what BLP was designed to "protect" them from, so claiming an exception to 3RR isn't really valid here. And that makes you WP:INVOLVED, even if not intentional. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

OK,

1. This isn't a content dispute. It began as intentional policy violations by TRM, policy violations that he has never acknowledged and shows no sign of understanding.
2. As to the contention that TRM was somehow justified: no. His "last edit" was a wholesale restoration of unsourced material. That's not in line with either the letter or spirit of either WP:V or WP:BLP: the citation had to be in place when he restored the material, not at some unspecified time after. At the time he began disrupting List of awards and nominations received by Hugh Jackman, it's not clear that he had found a single acceptable source.
3. BLP is intended to prevent inaccurate material about living people. Both unsourced praise and unsourced criticism fall under it. The notion that the material has to be malevolent is inaccurate. From the nutshell: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." WP:BLP clearly and unambiguously applies to the material I had removed and TRM was inserting. Winning an award is a contentious item, as miscrediting the award does do harm to the person that actually won.
4. WP:INVOLVED shouldn't apply here, because of the "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area" applies. I don't have any involvement with TRM, and my involvement with the area is strictly administrative: I remove material that isn't sourced sufficiently to satisfy WP:BLP and WP:V. As for Hoffman being covered by WP:BLP, there's legitimate dispute there: I had thought the time limit was two years, but I see that it is phrased more softly than that, with the expiration coming between 6 months and 2 years, depending on nebulous factors. However, as the timeline shows, TRM was blocked for disrupting the Hugh Jackman article: no nebulosity there at all.—Kww(talk) 23:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Removing unsourced material is the act of an editor, not an admin. Thus, this was a content dispute, and so you were involved. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Removing BLP violations isn't acting in an administrative capacity? That's an interesting assertion, but not one that I think would have wide support.—Kww(talk) 23:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Asserting one's actions are "removing BLP violations" is not a trump card that makes your actions outside of scrutiny. The actual action should actually be "removing BLP violations". Your claim of them as such is not enough to make it so. If you want to know whether or not they were clear BLP violations, read this discussion for consensus. --Jayron32 03:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• WK, if the BLP is invoked, the implication is that it's not a content dispute, and I believe we have to take the admin at good faith (Jayron, whether something is a BLP violation or not is frequently up for debate). Part of protecting the BLP is protecting the protectors. That's not to say that Kww's invocation of the BLP here was reasonable; I have no opinion on that right now, but AGF should extend to these cases. If an admin in all honesty makes a reasonable claim that they are protecting the BLP, we should accept that. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Drmies: To the extent of blocking the other party in a dispute? No, I don't think I agree. I could see the normal exception in WP:INVOLVED being invoked (i.e. straightforward case...obvious action...any reasonable admin would have [done] the same) in such a case, which as always is used at one's peril, but I don't think that invoking a BLP gives one a blanket exception to the policy against involved blocks; that's too slippery a slope. The ability to judge a situation dispassionately is too often the first thing to go in a dispute, and blocks specifically are too powerful a tool to be used in its possible absence. (Keep in mind that I am talking about only Kww's block of TRM here, not any other aspect of the situation.) Other admin tools, like deletion or page protection, might be a different story. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, User:Writ Keeper, I wasn't talking about the block. I haven't read everything here yet, much less followed the diffs, but that block smells bad a mile away. I mean, most blocks stink, of course, but if one makes a block like this, even when uninvolved (and I have not yet measures, let alone judged Kww's supposed involvement here), it should be a reasonably crystal-clear BLP violation, not some business about getting awards or someone putting them in one article and thus denying them of another subject, or something like that. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Either ArbCom both, or ArbCom neither, here. I lean in the direction of "ArbCom" neither, as this is mostly silliness, not malevolence... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No, ArbCom is invoked here for alleged abuse of tools, which, if I understand it correctly, applies only to one of the two. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Déjà vu. An editor was AE-blocked for a week earlier this year for re-adding unsourced or poorly sourced (IMDB) awards section. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive215#Is_it_okay_to_add_back_a_completely_unsourced_awards_sect_about_BLPs.3F --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Certainly was. I had forgotten that case: Cwobeel was AE-blocked for behaving precisely and exactly as TRM was doing.—Kww(talk) 23:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• That entire thread at AE is about how it is no big deal, followed by a week long block. Have we long our collective minds? Utterly overkill, and if actually enforced evenly, we would be blocking hundreds of people per day, none with any intent of malice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, most of this is prevented by filter 661, which prevents a very large subset of these edits from occurring in the first place. There are leaks, but generally the only time it becomes a problem is when someone edit-wars to preserve the BLP violations that have accumulated in an existing awards article. The filter was the only solution I could come up with that corrected the problem without creating these tempests.—Kww(talk) 23:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• As quoted above from BLP "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately" (emphasis added.) Enlighten me, just how was this content "Contentious"? I understand that not all contentious content is negative (although BLP is most often cited in connection with negative content), but it can't reasonably mean "all content". What is being defined as "Contentious" here? DES ^(talk) 23:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Miscredited material damages the person that legitimately won the award. How do we ensure that material isn't miscredited? Citations to reliable sources.—Kww(talk) 23:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't agree. By that standard, pretty much all content in a BLP is "contentious" as it could always indirectly affect someone if it is inaccurate. I think there needs to be a good faith belief that it is actually incorrect or likely to be incorrect, or else a request for sources that has not been responded to for a significant length of time, before this sort of BLP removal applies to not obviously contentious content. DES ^(talk) 00:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Obvious involved block by KWW, but the worst part is the wikilawyering above about how WP:INVOLVED should not apply here... which sounds like "I'm ready to do it again". Right or wrong he was about the contents of the edit warring(s), his interpretation of WP:INVOLVED boundaries is clearly silly nonsense. Kww should drop the stick and recognize he was patently wrong, otherwise that's probably stuff for Arbcom. Cavarrone 00:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of BLP our verifiability policy is clear about burden, but that is hardly the point. You were involved in a dispute over content, it was your edits that were being reverted. Another admin should have made the call. Chillum 00:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Textbook involved block. Unforgivable. I'm looking for serious sanctions here against KWW. --Dweller (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Instead of a pound of flesh would you be happy with a recognition of error and a promise to not repeat it? I would. Chillum 00:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Between the bizarre interpretation of BLP ("it's contentious because I say it's contentious", seems to be the flavour) blocking another admin in breach of involved and the self-righteous issue-avoiding responses on the topic, I've lost a fair whack of faith in KWW and I'm not entirely sure that recognition of error and promises not to repeat (even if forthcoming, never mind the grovelling apology that's due) will restore it. --Dweller (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Are we really prepared to state that removing BLP violations creates involvement? Given the AE decision, the notion that the edits weren't BLP violations don't hold water. We certainly don't believe that admins that revert and remove vandalism become involved as a result, so I do not see why BLP violation would be treated differently.—Kww(talk) 00:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• It seems that collectively, we are resorting to blocks way to quick to start with (and with much too cavalier an attitude about it), plus the involvement, plus the lack of acknowledgement. You can't promise to not repeat what you don't claim to understand or be guilty of. At least not sincerely. Maybe we need to sleep on it, but this isn't a singular or trivial issue in my eyes. At the very least, I want more clarity than an apology can offer. I'm I really expected to block someone for adding back an award on a BLP? If not, where is the consistency? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Why yes, Dennis, if you notice people inserting unsourced material into BLPs, I expect you to remove it. If editors persist in inserting the material without providing citations, I expect you to block them for doing so.—Kww(talk) 00:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the comparison with the earlier AE - I think it's clear that Cwobeel was not making an effort to put in generally reliable sources on articles and did this repeatedly over months without fixing things. TRM did by the time he was done with (at least the Hoffman one) put in a long list including The Guardian, Bafta, the Golden Globes, NY Times, film critics groups who issue awards, etc. That result appears to me to match our community expectations and policies on source reliability and coverage. Even if we grant you the "contentious material" point, which I do not, refusing to allow sufficient time to put in reliable sources which one is in fact doing is the problem. The "immediately" does not reasonably mean "without exception and without allowing someone any time whatsoever to source something".

You appear to be asserting that it does, and if that's really going to be your final position, then this will end up at Arbcom. Much less the speed of escalation or the block involvement. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment(uninvolved non admin) Its a shame, and the actions here, edit warring by both, and and an involved block and then twisting policy to try and sweep it under a rug are far from what should be expected from admins. They should be examples of good behaviour not bad. Definitely an ARBCOM case in the making. Actions like this are why some question admin actions and put a mark on all admins. AlbinoFerret 00:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to make absolutely clear, I AM asserting that the edits were not a violation of BLP per the prior AE finding, prior WP history and community expectations. The prior AE was regarding ongoing patterns of edits that were never adequately sourced, not edits which were in the process of being adequately sourced in a prompt and ongoing manner. Cwobeel never fixed the problem. TRM was fixing the problem with what clearly appears to be a correct result (to me), and you allowed him no room to do so. Your rules and prior case interpretation are evidently so literal that your judgement is suspect. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

If we're in the practice of making things absolutely clear, I'm asserting that the sourcing needs to be provided prior to the restoration. None of this storm would have occurred if TRM had followed the basics of WP:V, much less WP:BLP, by restoring the material after he had found sources to substantiate it. His repeated insertions of IMDB, his edit warring over individual items that were not covered by his new sources while not providing citations, his repeated insults and attacks, all made it clear that he had no intention of abiding by our fundamental sourcing policies. If you can excuse this misbehaviour, I will point at your judgement as being suspect. This was, and remains, a case of an editor intentionally violating WP:BLP and WP:V.—Kww(talk) 00:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Go back to the Hoffman article. As it stands, when he was done, please tell me if you believe that the end result of his editing work was a standards compliant sourced article or not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's see: he reverted in a set of unsourced awards and as of now, he has never introduced a source that substantiates that material, so no. There are numerous other awards in the "Film Critics Award" and "Miscellaneous Awards" sections that have no sources, such as the IGN awards, Gransito awards, Gold Derby awards, the International Online Film Critic award, the Venice Volpi cup, the Utah Film Critics awards, and more. Have you been defending his edits without checking to make certain that the sources he supplied actually substantiated his edits? That's the point: he restored challenged material without providing any substantiating sources, in violation of WP:V, much less WP:BLP. He provided sources that substantiated about half the article, and then tried to claim he was done.—Kww(talk) 00:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The specifics of what's still not sourced adequately to your or policy satisfaction makes for a perfectly good article or user talk page discussion.

The question of whether his "done" point is good enough makes for another one.

The point is, you have now acknowledged that at least half of what he restored now *is* adequately sourced. You repeatedly acted in ways which attempted to frustrate giving him enough space and time to do at least that much sourcing and improvement work.

The point also is, whether the material is justifiably describable as controversial or as normal content (which, though needing correct sourcing, would not require immediate draconian action, much less edit warring).

The point also is, whether it is reasonable to read the policy or prior precedent in such a manner that prior fixes of the sourcing problems are required before re-adding material in general.

The point nearly finally is, whether any of this was suitably serious of a violation to edit war over, act in an escalating confrontational manner in general, issue warnings and finally a block over, versus being something which should have been fixed in the normal way of things with discussion. In other words, was it abusive behavior or merely imperfect editing.

And lastly, whether the block was involved or not.

As I said elsewhere, TRM could have fixed this by acting differently. That's not the question. The questions are whether he actually edit warred (probably), introduced false or bad or controversial material by normal standards of controversy (probably not), introduced not yet sourced material (true), eventually corrected much of the lack of sourcing (you have yourself admitted, at least half of it he did). This picture, from a normal non-involved viewpoint, does not argue that edit warring to stop him, warning him, or blocking him were good choices, much less policy supported. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, since his material about Vancouver contradicts the only source that he provided about Vancouver, I would say that he did probably introduce false material. I reverted obvious and intentional violations of our sourcing policies that were being accompanied by abusive edit summaries and talk page comments that made it clear that he had no intention of complying with them. As for whether his "done" point is "good enough", no, that is not a point of discussion. The material had been challenged. He had restored it against WP:BURDEN, and has not found references that support it. There is no policy-based argument for keeping such material. Sourcing about "half" of one's edits while reverting against both WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN is not some kind of success marker: it's a sign of absolute and abject failure to comply with WP:V, especially given that the article he was eventually blocked for was unequivocally a BLP.—Kww(talk) 01:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Kww, you have a such a monumentally WP:IDONTHEARYOU attitdue to all this, that I am staggered as to how you became an admin in the first place. This is not the first place that you have shown such an inflexible and arrogant stance, while hiding behind your interpretation of rules that everyone else sees differently. However you try and twist things, you were WP:INVOLVED. That's not the sign of good admin, but it is somthing that is a massive red flag to all. Sadly I suspect you'll dodge an ArbCom bullet in this instance, but unless you start changing your approach and attitude, your admin days will be severly numbered. - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, this is not surprising in the least. Recently, an ArbCom case was filed against Kww and I added to it, warning the committee that I had seen problems in Kww's behavior. He seems to assume his biases are neutral POV, and therefore, everyone who disagrees with him is breaking policy. So edit warring is restoring an encyclopedia against disruptive editors, and it doesn't matter to be civil towards them because they're second class Wikipedians. Edit warring, disruption, incivility, all in the name of preserving the encyclopedia, of course. So it comes as no surprise to me that he edit warred here and abused his tools, it wasn't hard to see this coming. LesVegas (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Really? So we're just going to ignore the elephant in the room? It takes two to tango, and this wasn't the isolated actions of a single Admin. Was Kww blameless or "innocent" here? Heck no! But I've seen enough from The Rambling Man to have concerns on that end as well. Again, if this goes to ArbCom, the actions of both Admins should be examined here. If this turns into a "let's lynch Kww" (who, in my experience, I've found to be one of the better Admins at smoking out socks and vandals), I'll swiftly be joining the camp whove lost confidence in the Admin corps in general. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The Rambling Man could have de-escalated or proposed sources on talk or could have edited sources into a sandbox version or several other approaches. I think that those are obvious and givens. That said; "it takes two to tango" does not mean that both parties actually did something worthy of an arbcom case. I think looking at both in the incident would be unavoidable, but the amount of button pushing seemed asymmetrical. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

All he had to do was not violate WP:V by restoring challenged material without providing an inline citation that supported the material he had provided, and especially not do it with respect to BLPs. That's not some major expectation that is beyond his capacity. As it stands, many of the claims in the article still aren't supported by citations.—Kww(talk) 00:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, if you view it in isolation, and ignore the pattern of behavior... Anyway, I can already tell this isn't going to end well. For the project. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

For the Watch. Arkon (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (Edit conflict with several) (Following up Dennis's post of 23:08). I agree with Dennis that this looks like WP:CRYBLP rather than a valid BLP issue. Kww also described the reversions on the PSH list as challenging the list's veracity[81] which is obviously an editorial choice (thus, involvement), though he also considered the PSH award list edits to also be under BLP[82]. A few seconds with a search engine was enough to verify several of the awards, so this all comes across to me as Kww trying to make a POINT (one that in my opinion didn't need to be made). PSH's more important awards are also already listed and cited in the main PSH biography article, which as an FA has presumably been carefully vetted, also deflating the BLP argument if the disputed awards were the relatively minor ones. Anyway, wiping out the whole list was excessive. I'll leave aside the block issue for now, but at minimum I see battleground conduct backed by bureaucratic overzealousness and/or seriously lousy editing judgment here. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Kww have you lost your mind?? These are famous actors who win oodles of awards, much of which can be verified with some digging. Saying this is contentious is really pushing it to justify edit-warring while involved. This behaviour is extremely punitive to all content-editors and undermines what's left of the egalitarian nature of this place. You could have looked and found sources but your nose was out of joint so you turned it into a battleground. If we apply this behaviour across the 'pedia, we'd have no editors. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

NB: As Kww has no insight into the problem, I suggest a case be filed at arbitration for misuse of tools. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I belive it's true that an arbitratable issue is involved, but I don't believe it's hopeless than KWW can be shown the error of his ways through discussion. We should only file cases we can't deal with otherwise. We're not there yet. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it was normal edit warring in the sense of trying to push an opinion about the events described in the article. It seems to have been more about imposing an absolutist approach to Wikipedia policy enforcement (WP:BURO) for its own sake, in a situation where it wasn't helpful in the slightest. It would be great if Kww could lighten up about this, and realize that Wikipedia policies are means to an end, rather than ends in themselves. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• I echo the multiple people who note the WP:INVOLVED nature of this. Whether or not TRM needed to be blocked for edit warring or not is now irrelevant. If he did, KWW needed only reporting him at WP:ANEW. There's hundreds of active admins, someone would have taken care of it. Admins should not use their tools when interacting with people whom they are in an active dispute. This is a textbook case of an involved block. It may or may not have even been a bad block, but that's now irrelevant. I'm not sure any firm action needs to be taken against KWW, except WP:TROUT and to log this in our collective personal memories incase this becomes a pattern, though. It was a bad action, but I don't see evidence that it was more than a singular, isolated bad action, and I don't believe we need to arbitrate or demand resignation or anything else like that. We don't even need an apology, an allocution, an admission or anything like that. It'd be nice, but really what we need is just to all know that KWW has done this once, and if it becomes a pattern, act later. It's documented, it's almost universally agreed to be a bad thing, and we should move on and just keep an eye open for further problems. --Jayron32 01:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• If an admin is unable to understand when a block is legitimate or not, when WP:INVOLVED applies and how to proceed in case of content disputes and edit warring, he is unfit to use the block buttons. Competence is required, let alone measure and common sense. And the major issue is not the block, but the persistence by KWW to justify it through a biased interpretation of WP:INVOLVED. So far, his responses read like "I'm ready to do everything I did again", which is unacceptable. Cavarrone 01:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Meh. People say stupid shit in the middle of an argument all the time. Have they actually used their tools inappropriately after everyone has told them it was inappropriate? If they haven't, we can chalk it all up to "people saying stupid shit when they are angry". If they DO use their tools inappropriately again, then we have something to work on. But I generally tend to ignore the bullshit people yell when they are pissed, because it is meaningless. --Jayron32 01:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• The protection war with Philippe a while back[83] didn't involve blocking anyone but it did involve tools, and resulted in an arbcom admonition. The tool use seems like a technicality in both cases though. The issue as I see it is poor judgement combined with an overbearing attitude. I wish he would use a much different approach. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Actually, Jayron, if you believe I am writing this way because I am angry, you are only partially right. I am a little torqued, but it is primarily because people seem to be treating this as a content dispute, and that's primarily because of TRM's involvement. WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP, combined with a supporting AE decision, make this pretty much black-letter law. I remove unsourced material from award articles all the time: it's one of our chronic forms of BLP violation. I warn editors that restore that unsourced material all the time. If someone insists on restoring unsourced material to a BLP, I routinely block them. It's not some case of me getting a hair up my ass about article content in any way that's different from reverting vandalism or other, more egregious BLP violations. What happened today was that the editor that chose to violate policy has a support base and people are more inclined to look upon it as a content dispute for that reason. If this had been an IP editor inserting unsourced claims about K-Pop bands, no one would have batted an eye.—Kww(talk) 02:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• There's hundreds of active admins. You didn't have to be the one to do it. You're right, if this had been someone you'd not recently interacted with, no one would bat an eye. If it is a person you have a recent history with, ask for outside help. That's the proper way to do it. --Jayron32 02:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• I cannot remember any time in history that I have had a content dispute with The Rambling Man. Today was strictly about behaviour from the start.—Kww(talk) 02:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• You were in one with him. On multiple articles. Immediately before you blocked him. As others have pointed out, WP:BLP is not a license to edit war indiscriminately on BLP articles, nor does it mean you can just block someone because you don't like what they are doing on a BLP. Even if what they are doing is unreferenced for a few minutes. If you are unsure as to whether or not others would have blocked TRM in this case, look around at this discussion. Almost unilaterally, no one else would have. Your argument is invalid. If you had asked here or at WP:ANEW before blocking them, consensus would have been to not block them. Ergo, you're wrong. Any other ex-post-facto justification of your block is invalid. If you are going back and forth with an editor on any issue except eggregious vandalism or negative unsourced information about a BLP, it is your responsibility to ask another admin to do the review the situation. And again, if you're belief is "maybe it was negative". Read this discussion. No it wasn't. So just stop. --Jayron32 02:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Let me clear up any confusion: I'm not TRM's fan. The dismissive and ease of which you are saying you block someone over them adding an award bothers me, particularly since it isn't exactly a great way to keep new editors and smacks of the love of rules over the end product (an encyclopedia), but the involved issue is the biggest concern. But again, my comments are not due to any love for TRM. Assigning the concern to a fan base would be a big mistake here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Kww: Alternately; you're overreacting to editors generally known to do good editing, and rather than AGF with them you treated them like IP editors inserting random garbage, which is all sorts of wrong.

It's not "just" a content dispute (on Hugh Jackman, that's a BLP) but you cried BLP on the Hoffman Awards list article and picked a fight with TRM, when everyone else above seems to agree that was the wrong thing for you to have done, and there seems consensus your application of BLP there was defective. That seems to have set the stage for whatever came next. Which took a grand total of 16 minutes and 11 of your reverts there, two warnings on TRM's talk page neither of which specified which article and which edits you meant.

And you did not evidently give him sufficient time to make similar cleanups there as he'd done with the other one.

Dude, sixteen minutes. You reverted 11 times, in sixteen minutes, without talking to him about the specifics or letting him fix things he was clearly in process of at least partly fixing.

If your trigger is set that sensitively, it's off. You need to stop that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

(clarification) that's 11 times in 16 minutes on the Hugh Jackman article, which is the now-specified reason for the block (not clear at the time). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming that TRM needs to be given specific instructions about what it means for a citation to support the material he is adding? That TRM did not know that the material he was restoring wasn't supported by inline citations at the time he made the restoration? And as for the eleven reverts, please: sequential reverts count as one revert. You would rather that I hadn't taken the time to look at the material he was adding and only removed the violating sections? I picked through his wholesale reversion and only removed the points that still violated policy after he had added an incomplete source.—Kww(talk) 02:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• (ec) I don't think I'm part of TRM's support base, and I do think (as others have said here) that reverting uncontentious and undisputed material is much different from reverting vandalism or egregious BLP vios. Treating stuff like that as a binary rather than a matter of good judgment is what I mean by absolutism and bureaucracy. And a good faith challenge over sourcing requires (IMHO) a material concern that the stuff being challenged is actually erroneous. While it's true that the BURDEN is on the one who put it there, challenging verifiable material (especially uncontentious material) too many times is either a battleground problem or a competence problem, take your pick. Per WP:AGF we are not supposed to treat people's edits as vandalism unless there's actual evidence of a problem. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• (ec) I'm torn. (Not about wanting to hit KWW with the fish, 'cause I'm completely on board with that.) Part of me agrees with Jayron32 that we should stick this in our brains in case a pattern emerges, and if that's what everybody wants to do, I'm okay with that. OTOH, I have two worries. The first has to do with something KWW said to Jayron32 above, about an IP editor inserting unsourced claims, and it is that we wouldn't be here munching popcorn and watching the show if TRM weren't an admin. This would have been a regular old unblock request, through a regular old procedure, and we might maybe possibly could have a thread about it here hours or even days later. The lack of scrutiny prior to today's events could be enough to have Arbcom examine KWW's past admin behavior. My second concern is that it appears that if KWW himself has any argument with any phrase in any article/list about a BLP, he believes it to be "contentious," and that's not what I take the BLP policy to mean. It does not require or encourage the removal of all unsourced statements. If KWW really thinks it does, that's a problem, and it certainly appears that is indeed the case. KrakatoaKatie 02:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• "Contentious" simply means that any reasonable person might believe the claim to be untrue. That does apply to most facts, yes, and WP:BLUE doesn't apply to winning regional film awards. I think Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive160#Cwobeel makes it pretty clear that these kind of additions do fail WP:BLP. I may not have remembered this exact case earlier, but I was a participant in the discussion and have taken numerous actions based on its conclusions. I do so habitually and without relying on some list of links to previous discussions.—Kww(talk) 02:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel was a problem in that he repeatedly failed to properly reliably source, over months, despite many warnings and much chance to do the right thing. You've already admitted that even by your standards TRM at least half-correctly sourced the changes on the Hoffman article, and you aren't disputing the timeline that shows that you didn't give him a fair chance to try to do so on the Jackman article.

Even if you dispute eventualism, failing to give TRM 16 revert-free minutes to make fixes is nowhere near the same as months.

The situations are not comparable. That you keep coming back to Cwobeel is part of the indication of a problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"Contentious" simply means that any reasonable person might believe the claim to be untrue. Kww, that is a drastic stretch or attempt to redefine the English language, to the point where the word means nothing and there was no reason to include it in the policy page. I'll go with wikt:contentious: "1. Marked by heated arguments or controversy. [quotations ▼] 2. Given to struggling with others out of jealousy or discord." I can't imagine a sane BLPN discussion that would find those award mentions to be contentious, unless there was an ongoing dispute or issue with someone with a history of making bad edits. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Your right that Kww's reading would make our use of the word contentious superfluous. But I would adopt a much more expansive interpretation: first, if someone is making a good faith claim that something in a BLP is not just uncited, but is factually wrong, its contentious under BLP policy. And second, all negative assertions about a living person should be considered automatically contentious. BLP has never required a citation for every single positive factual claim about a living person, and it shouldn't be read to do so. Monty₈₄₅ 04:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd say if you think something uncited might be factually wrong, you can revert it under WP:V without regard to whether it's a BLP article or not, as a content decision. While if it's a contentious claim in a BLP (and if it's negative, it's presumptively controversial and therefore contentious) you must revert it as a policy matter. The difference is if you make content decisions about an article, you are editorially involved in it and should stay away from it administratively.

I'll also add that the practice of flat-out removing stuff on suspicion of problems or DONTLIKE is obnoxious even if the stuff really isn't in good enough shape for the article (plausible uncited claim that you have good faith doubts about). The right thing to do is transfer it to the talk page and say what the problem is, per WP:PRESERVE which is a part of WP:Editing policy that nobody seems to remember. The talk post then alerts other editors of the issue, and maybe someone can find a good citation or figure out that it's actually a misstatement of something verifiable, etc. (Obviously there are exceptions like bad BLP vios). What happens now is the stuff just disappears and the only way to find it is by grovelling through the article's revision history, looking at piles of edits that turn out to be contentless, and often made by de facto unflagged and unapproved bots. Hope that's not too tangential. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• I was catching up on this thread and almost commented earlier, at which time I would have said "per Jayron32". But I got pulled away, and now that I've come back, and seen the adamant "I'm right you're all wrong" position... I'm starting to think there's a more serious problem, if Kww is unwilling to accept a fairly clear consensus about interpreting BLP (not, as he seems to think, about whether BLP is important or not, or needs to be "enforced" or not, but on interpreting what it means). He doens't need to agree, but he needs to accept consensus is against him - this was not "BLP enforcement" in any meaningful interpretation of the term. I remember that stupid ArbCom case someone above refered to (I was one of the Arbs, though in the minority): I opposed any sanction on Kww because the rules were being interpreted in a strict, sanctimonious, irrational way, to browbeat someone who was doing something that was actually fairly reasonable. But now it's Kww interpreting rules in a strict, sanctimonious, irrational way, to browbeat someone who was actively trying to do something about the problem (albeit in typical über-grump unproductive fashion). ArbCom was wrong to sanction Kww then, but Kww was wrong to block TRM now. If he doesn't see that, if he's going to stay in IDHT mode, then I'm not sure leaving this until it happens again is the best approach. Probably best to let him sleep on it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've certainly gotten the drift that many people don't think unsourced awards violate WP:BLP (although their reasoning eludes me). What seems to be happening here, however, is that people don't even wish to view TRM's edits through the lens of WP:V. There was nothing so urgent about having a list of awards for anybody that justified restoring the material prior to providing a source. Even if you all line up and say that everything I believe WP:BLP means is wrong and I just have to accept it, when did WP:BURDEN lose all of its teeth? Why is everyone so sympathetic to the restoration of unsourced material? Georgewilliamherbert keeps hammering at me for the "speed" with which I undid TRM's edits without noting that it was a sequence problem: if TRM had found sources for his material, added them, and then hit the "save" button, there wouldn't have been any reverts at all. I gave him his fair chance: I looked over his edits, removed only the material that remained unsourced while preserving every part of his additions that met policy. He responded by restoring them all en masse without providing a single source to back them up.—Kww(talk) 03:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yet you've admitted he fixed at least half of it on the Hoffman article, given time (despite the edit warring). That demonstrates that he was making progress towards an article adequately sourced by community standards.

Getting into the edit war was not the right response, you were assuming bad faith and not allowing reasonable time for him to work on fixes to the article. The faster you go on these things the more it blows up in your face. You should have been able to tell from the first valid reliable sources on the first article that he was working in the right direction. Failure to AGF on that point and let him work on it some is the problem. You responded like they were outright vandalism, not works-in-progress. You can't treat known-good editor making in-progress-eventually-good-edits like a vandal. If you disagree with the incremental manner you ask them to sandbox or talk page, not edit war over it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I did tell him the acceptable sequence, which he proceeded to ignore. Somehow, his constant use of the words "pathetic", "vindictive", and "ongoing destruction" didn't reassure me much.—Kww(talk) 03:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Starting that (linked) discussion with "Do not..." kind of makes my point, not yours. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I will ask you to bear context in mind: even if we 100% accept your perspective that I was dead wrong about it being a BLP problem, at the time I was interacting, I sincerely believed that I was dealing with an editor that was intentionally inserting BLP violations. That tends to influence my tone and demeanour.—Kww(talk) 06:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

TRM's response wasn't ideal, but I somewhat understand the dynamic. Sitush said something recently that stuck with me: "Content creation is a world that too many policers do not understand... In situations such as this, the stalker has the advantage because we all makes mistakes in content from time to time but the stalker only has to find one to push the button"[84] (referencing a dispute unrelated to this one and whose details aren't relevant here). There's an understandable impatience that content editors have when they're told how to edit by people who don't write content themselves. Best thing to do is lead by example instead of acting like a supervisor and expecting people to respond like underlings. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

KWW, regardless, the appropriate response to someone actively working on an article, and slowly adding refs is not "edit war, edit war, edit war, scream WP:BLP, then block". The appropriate response is slow down, let them finish their work, and ask for outside input. If TRM had no intention of providing refs, then such lack of intention would have become evident if you had allowed them time to do it the wrong way. Instead, you edit warred repeatedly, played the BLP trump card, and blocked them. Now we're here discussing your behavior, and more than one person above have called for your tools because of it. If you'd done nothing for 24 hours, and TRM had actually done the wrong thing you're claiming you think they were going to do before you stopped them, we'd not be having this discussion at all. There's no loss to the encyclopedia if you actually let someone break the rules a bit before blocking them, rather than stopping them before they have a chance to break a rule you think they might be on the path to breaking. --Jayron32 03:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)t

Actually, TRM wasn't adding any material to any article; he was replacing the mass deletions or blankings that Kww had made without any warning, discussion, consensus, attempt at finding/providing references, or even tagging. Kww seems to have conflated part of the Cwobeel AE discussion into blanket permission for him to mass delete from any and all awards articles or lists as he pleases, and either block or edit war if his mass deletions are attempted to be reverted. It is a longstanding principle and guideline that the correct way to remedy a list or list article that may need, or would benefit from, additional citations is to either (1) discuss the issue on Talk regarding the most pressing of the concerns and enlist help or input, (2) place "citation needed" tag(s) on the item(s) that seem problematic, (3) place a refimprove tag at the top, and/or (4) better yet, provide the needed citations oneself. Softlavender (talk) 06:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• It seems to me that there are at least two different readings of "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately" and to avoid further dustups like this we should either remove the word contentious or the words "– whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable –" this would either give us what seems to be KWW's position "material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately" or what I suspect may be the Rambling Man's "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately". Either option would be shorter and clearer, on balance I prefer "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately". But we need to clarify the situation because this is not the only occasion where people have clashed due to different interpretations of the same policy. ϢereSpielChequers 14:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  The problem there is that we end up with people wikilawyering that unsourced, contentions positive statements fall outside of BLP, which I think is not the intention. The word "contentious" is the problem. By definition, this became contentious as soon as Kww objected. As such, the most literal interpretation of the policy backs Kww (insofar as the Jackman article is concerned) - though that essentially creates a first mover advantage. The question, however, is what a reasonable person would expect. And in my view, it is reasonable to think that an unsourced list of awards can be allowed for a short period of time when challenged. I think Kww was right to challenge, and certainly right to challenge IMDB. But reasonably, he should have allowed TRM time to sufficiently source. So from that perspective - and despite obviously lacking some background interaction between the two - my read is that Kww started the edit war on the Hoffman awards page (not a BLP) and improperly cited BLP as an argument. Consequently, I don't believe he had the 3RR exemption he thought he did, and he certainly was INVOLVED in a content dispute. However, I have to wonder just what TRM was doing to go to the Jackman awards article specifically to revert Kww's clearing of that page from three weeks ago. I find it hard to view that as anything but WP:POINT and a conscious decision to open up a second front on their little battle as that was little more than an effort to provoke. Resolute 15:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  The best read I've seen on this so far. Challenging was fine, blocking this early would have been wrong from any admin as overkill, no less an involved admin. TRM isn't innocent, his issues just pale in comparison. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  Hi Resolute. I suspect that one problem we have is that one person's positive statement is another person's contentious one. But more pertinently, my reading of the current policy is that KWW is not taking it literally. Taken literally the sentence starts with "Contentious material" and therefore does not apply to anything uncontentious. I'm aware that there is a different interpretation, hence my suggestion that we go for something that we are all likely to interpret the same. ϢereSpielChequers 16:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  But you also have to use some judgement in how you react as an admin. Even if you believe "John won an Academy Award" is a BLP violation, you don't react as if someone said "John is a pedophile". Contentious might be "disputed", but you also have to consider the actual damage done to the subject when determining how to react. In some cases, blocking, in others, tagging or discussing further, per WP:BRD. Everything isn't as black and white as Kww appears to be making it, that all unsourced edits remotely tied to a living person are block worthy if the editor disagrees with him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  I largely agree with Resolute. But I think the description of the material being "contentious" goes too far. Kww didn't seem to be objecting on the basis that the information was incorrect, or likely incorrect. Just that the reliable sources had not yet been added, even though the sources indicated that the information was likely correct, and it does not appear that Kww did any checking to determine whether there was a need to object to the information. So I would not say the information was contentious. If TRM did not add reliable sources in a reasonable amount of time, there would be adequate reason to revert. But it was not necessary to immediately revert the information when Kww had no reason to believe it was incorrect, had at least some reason to believe it was correct (as IMDB is usually correct on these matters), and could have waited for TRM to provide sources. And, of course, even if the material was contentious, that does not excuse an involved block. Another admin could have handled that if it was necessary. Rlendog (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've started an RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Defining_the_term_Contentious to try and clarify how we want Contentious defined. This is hardly the first time it has been an issue. Comments welcome. Monty₈₄₅ 16:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Background info

Kww has been on a deletion spree, devoid of prior discussion or notice or consensus, on Lists of awards and nominations articles, and has created his own special edit-blocking filter which prevents anyone from restoring the awards. I bumped into this on List of awards and nominations received by Hugh Jackman. When I tried to restore the 60 awards and noms (out of 62) that Kww had deleted, I was unable to, even after several tries -- instead a big red warning message with the STOP sign and the following text appeared:

Awards and nominations must have citations to reliable sources validating each and every award received. If this edit is not an attempt to add unsourced material related to awards and nominations, please report this error.

I reported the issue on Talk:Hugh_Jackman#Eyes_needed_at_List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Hugh_Jackman, and with some repeated questioning Kww revealed that this was an invisible tool he created and was deploying himself, after gutting awards articles, so that no one could add the awards and noms back to the articles unless each one had a citation. Please read the entire discussion in that thread. He stated that "Bear in mind: if you had actually succeeded with the edit, I would have blocked you if you persisted in making it after a warning." Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit filter 661 has been in place since the Cwobeel arbitration decision. It does, indeed, prevent people from making most additions of unsourced awards to awards lists. I've referenced it in the discussion above. It does tend to keep this problem from growing without provoking edit wars, simply by getting the editor to include the source when the material is originally introduced rather than letting it linger unsourced in articles.—Kww(talk) 04:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I asked you twice about the genesis/aegis/origin/discussion of this edit-block filter, and your entire response was: It's intentionally invisible, and I am the author of the filter. It simply enforces a fairly obvious consequence of WP:BLP, and, if you wish to discuss it, I would suggest that WT:BLP is the appropriate location. Be certain to mention that the reason you discovered it was because you attempted to add a massive amount of material about a living person without taking the time to verify that it was true, in violation of WP:BLP, restoring it after its veracity had been challenged, in violation of WP:BURDEN. Bear in mind: if you had actually succeeded with the edit, I would have blocked you if you persisted in making it after a warning. That's not what you are saying now. Again, please direct me with a link to the precise discussion/origin/aegis of this edit filter, if indeed it is the same one you posted on List of awards and nominations received by Hugh Jackman. Whatever its origin/aegis, I can guarantee it is being used against Wikipedia policy when, after gutting an article of 60+ public-record awards and nominations without warning, cause, discussion, or even tagging, it is placed on the article while WP:INVOLVED, again without discussion, consensus, or permission. Softlavender (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand where you see that I am contradicting myself. Yes, I wrote that filter. I wrote it and installed it shortly after the Cwobeel arbitration enforcement. Yes, it is invisible to anyone without edit filter privileges, and it is invisible on purpose. It enforces what I believe to be an obvious consequence of BLP (a belief supported at the time I wrote it by that Cwobeel arbitration enforcement, although this discussion makes that less clear). Even if you reject my stance on BLP, it certainly prevents a widespread problem of editors violating WP:V. Any filter editor that reviews its history and content will see that it has been reasonably effective at blocking unsourced award additions, and is in no way specific to any particular awards article.—Kww(talk) 04:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Under the circumstances could you make it public, so there's no question what it's doing? (I can see, but others in the discn can't). Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That would make it fairly useless, and I don't know how I could make it useful again after exposure. I assume that no one would believe that you are going to make false statements on my behalf at this stage of the discussion, so you should be able to reassure people that the filter was put in place roughly one week after the Cwobeel discussion, that I haven't edited it in months, and that it has no logic to look for any specific award article (although it does have logic to determine that the article it is dealing with is an awards article).—Kww(talk) 05:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

For the record, created 31 Jan 2015, last edited by KWW on 10 Feb 2015, on 4 June 2015 User:This, that and the other changed it to limit it to mainspace (previously had no namespace restriction so it would affect userspace). The targeting logic applies to the class of awards articles, not specific ones. I still feel that it should be made public but, yes, you have characterized it accurately there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Without bothering to verify it was true is ABF on your part, and the filter is massive overreach. If you watch the Oscar ceremony on live TV and see your favorite actress Jane Schmoe receive an Oscar and give a memorable speech, the need or lack of it for durable sourcing when you add it to an article is one thing, but it's bizarre to say you haven't verified that Jane really received the award. Stuff like that happens all the time whenever there's a live TV event like an important football game and someone updates an article with the score. And in general, people have knowledge that generally derives from RS even if they don't have the citations at hand, which they use when editing. Do I know that Austin is the capital of Texas? Yes. Do I remember where I learned that fact? No. Can you say I haven't verified it? That's silly, maybe I used to live there. You're using admin tools to impose an extremist vision on Wikipedia content editing. Please stop that. I'd go as far as to say are editorially involved in this whole awards thing by now, so you shouldn't be doing anything administratively in it. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Kww, Please link the discussion(s) regarding the (1) request for creation of, (2) the guidelines for deployment of, and (3) the permissions required to use, that filter. There is no directive or request for such a thing on the Cwobeel AE; the decision was simply that Cwobeel was "Blocked for a week and banned from editing BLP awards and nominations lists." [85]. Softlavender (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I have never claimed that any of those three things exist. I created the filter on my own accord, based on my understanding of WP:V, WP:BURDEN, and WP:BLP, and did so after the Cwobeel decision reinforced my understanding of the BLP consequences of unsourced awards. I have had the authority to do so since the edit filter was first deployed. Edit filters are generally pretty cautious (this one is, actually, because its logic weights it towards large additions), but they are not generally publicly discussed because it makes them too easy to bypass. Review of its history shows an extremely low false positive rate: only a handful of edits that it has blocked weren't additions of unsourced awards.—Kww(talk) 05:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• I find it shocking that you are so,dismissive of this, and the fact that genuine GF edits have been blocked by your filter, with the associated loss of goodwill involved from thos (and other) editors. Can I strongly suggest you get rid of this filter pronto. – SchroCat (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm very concerned by such auto-restrictive blocks, especially when it's the whim of one person who has put it there. Are there other examples of these active that I've never come across? Are these common? "Wikipedia- the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit unless they run into Kww's filters"! This really does seem to be over-stepping the mark as much as trying to claim Philip Seymour Hoffman is a BLP. - SchroCat (talk) 05:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There are currently 54 invisible filters active on Wikipedia. Some are monitor only, but most prevent edits. Many are targeted against individual editors, some prevent certain classes of edits. I'm responsible for three of them that prevent edits and one that simply lets me know that I need to examine some edits to see if it's a repeat block evader.—Kww(talk) 05:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

We are deep into sledgehammer and nut territory. An ArbCom decision to take action against someone whose behavioural patterns in this sphere necessitated action does not give anyone carte blanche to stick in such a disruptive filter without specific consensus to do so. IF this flagged up an issue to you directly so you could make a subsequent jugement call, I would have no issue with that, but it's just awful and obstructive as it stands. I strongly advise this is removed immediately. - SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Added: making the filter invisible is more ABF. Saying it becomes useless if visible shows a presumption that everyone who encounters it is going to analyze it and try to work around it and is basically a vandal. It goes against our principles of openness. The filter should be turned off, but it should also not have been invisible. Even actual anti-vandal scripts protecting the project from real vandals are visible[86] and their effectiveness doesn't seem impaired, so hiding the edit filter is just secretive and obnoxious. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Previous time KWW's edits were brought into question for the exact same thing. But hey, he's an admin, so that's fine. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

A number of anti-disruption filters are hidden. With some there's no point because it's obvious what they're filtering and therefore obvious how to avoid them, but with more complex ones, and ones used against persistent and determined vandals, it's often better to hide the actual regex that it's using. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

When a filter is targeted to a specific deliberate vandalism (edits made to harm the encyclopedia on purpose), the ABF inherent in hiding the filter (or writing it in the first place) is justified by evidence, and hiding it is understandable on a pragmatic basis even by those of us with philosophical discomfort over hiding stuff (I've never made an issue of the mere existence of hidden filters, though I think they are overused). In this case the edits targeted by the (now disabled) filter weren't vandalism, so the ABF was obnoxious. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Examination and discussion of these hidden filters is long overdue. But it's just a smokescreen here. Sure, we all know the TRM can be a pointy chain-yanker. But Kww should be made to hand in his little tin sherrif's badge, 'cos his trigger-happy attitude stinks to high heaven. 194.150.177.10 (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• These filters seem set to spring like traps upon unwary editors and then do nasty stuff to them such as removing permission bits. I'm not liking the award lists either which seem inherently intended to collect adulation of particular people in a way that violates WP:NPOV. For example, there seem to be few scientists but lots of pornstars. As for BLP issues, the idea that you can automate this by checking for sources is absurd. In browsing the lists, one finds the topical example of list of honours received by Sepp Blatter which well demonstrates the problematic nature of the concept. This contains a blatant BLP violation in the lead which has easily slipped through. I'm usually an inclusionist but think you could save a lot of aggravation by deleting every one of these lists. If subjects have significant awards then these will be for their notable deeds, discoveries, roles, &c. These should be covered in their main article and the giving of the award, such as the Nobel prize, will go best there too, endorsing the importance of that aspect. As for Sepp Blatter, I'm not touching his list for fear that some tiger or trap will spring upon me. Admins who act too protectively will find that they are making work for themselves as no-one sensible will touch such stuff. Andrew D. (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• No filter that I have ever worked on has taken any action against the editor that made the edit, Andrew D. In theory, the filter allows for automatic blocking and removal of autoconfirmed status. Automatic blocking of an editor was disabled on English Wikipedia before first deployment, because very few trusted an automatic process to do that. The ability to remove autoconfirmed status is still there on the menu, but I have never tried it. At this point, no filter on English Wikipedia automatically modifies any user right. They all log the edit, tag the edit, warn the editor about a potential problem and allow him to proceed, or warn the editor and prevent the edit from occuring.—Kww(talk) 18:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• The trouble is, as I have documented and referenced thoroughly, an edit filter error on a good faith edit might as well say "get stuffed". It stops the edit, but also stops the editor. The general vibe that comes down from the WMF is that we are the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Just look at how passionate we are about the importance of drive-by, one-off editors or how grumpy people can get about protection, disallowed edits due to a filter are the complete anathema to what the Foundation wants. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• (e/c with Kww) I thought of asking for an admin to revert that edit (so they could fix any resulting filter actions that non-admins can't), but then realized I have no permission bits to remove, so I went ahead and reverted just now. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Take this to ArbCom and examine both administrators' actions and history

If you want to take it to ArbCom, go for it. Calling for a collective hanging from the yardarms first isn't necessary. There is no need to carry on this part of the discussion. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

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

---

This current dispute is between two very hard-nosed admins. As it happens, I !voted against Kww's adminship due to temperment concerns. Note the many opposes. There were a lot of reasons not to give this editor extra buttons. He prevailed in his fourth Rfa. A major violation of WP:INVOLVED? No doubt in my book. As for TRM, he's been here forever. Pretty comfortable throwing his weight around at WP:ITN, where I have been watching him for years, as he drifts into borderline abuse repeatedly. I banned him from my Talk page just yesterday for posting what is a fine example of WP:BAIT: here is an admin coming to my page looking for a fight. In my long term observation, TRM is a bully who should desysopped. Am I, and others who take issue with his hostile bluster, correct? I propose the community send this admin shootout to ArbCom, who can take evidence, look at the long term histories of both admins carefully, and apply sanctions. Common justice and the long term health of the 'pedia calls for no less. Jusdafax 06:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this may be a good idea, since right now TRM is (or was) blocked and can't speak up at this ANI. We should at least let him have his say somewhere -- either unblock him and let him speak here, or let ArbCom check into the situation. Either way, no matter what, I think Kww's secret edit-block filter and his mass deletions/blankings of awards articles have both got to go. If it takes ArbCom for that, ArbCom it should be. Softlavender (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

TRM is unblocked[87] but might be asleep or something. Any arb proceeding would of course have to look at both. Floq's suggestion of waiting overnight and seeing if people are thinking more clearly tomorrow sounds good from the perspective of arb cases being messy proceedings that we should try to avoid. On the other hand, there's enough evidence of long term problems that maybe we need a case. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I received a brief email from TRM (who I don't know from Adam and have never interacted with or received communications from) that "I am actually unblocked but in these circumstances I usually just let things play out." (I guess he noticed my post above.) I agree on both points that you made. Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Since when it P.S. Hoffman a BLP anyway? He's been dead 18 months. I'm utterly astounded that an editor as shitty as Kww is an admin in all honesty. He completely lacks the temperament and fair minded approach to content to be worth of admin tools. If The Rambling Man agrees I'd suggest a desysopping of Kww and topic ban from editing award articles. His editing was disruptive, and TRM was clearly trying to protect content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• I was confused about this as well, but then looked at the two editing histories. Hoffman is dead, but Hugh Jackman isn't. Black Kite (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yet it all started from Hoffman. Look at the timeline, he started blanking the Hoffman article, edit warring with TRM, claiming he was exempt from 3RR and warning him using the justification it was a BLP. Then, to prove his point, he moved to the Jackman's article. But all started from the Hoffman "BLP". I have to agree with Blofeld, I used to (also publicly) apprecciate Kww, but at this point he should be desypopped and topic banned from awards articles as a minimum. Except if he will post an extensive and convincing apology for all the bullshit he made and said in the last hours, obviously. Cavarrone 10:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. TRM has done nothing to warrant an ArbCom sanction here. If it wasn't for the awful WP:INVOLVED and against-policy step Kww took in blocking him, this would never have reached ANI, let alone anything more. I do, however, support taking Kww to ArbCom. Flagrant misuse of the tools, and his subsequent refusal to see any other point but his own (an inflexibility of attitude he has shown in other quarters) do warrant a closer scrutiny. - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• If you take Kww to ArbCom, TRM will be a named party anyway and his conduct will be examined. In the end it doesn't really matter whether the title of the proposed case is "Kww" or "Kww and TRM". Black Kite (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support although this discussion isn't required, as any person can file at Arb. That said, there are several questions here, beyond the involved block, and the only body empowered with deciding these issues is Arb, leaving us no choice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Let's see if this can't be worked out without going to Arbcom over it. bd2412 T 13:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – Show me a pattern of abuse here (see: AntonioMartin case, etc.). Right now, all I see is a very ill-advised one-off. Neither Admin's hands are clean here. But I don't see a pattern of abuse of Admin tools here, just one case of over zealousness in "enforcing" Wikipedia guidelines. It is somewhat disquieting that Kww will concede no fault in this instance, but I'd rather AGF in regards to all the other good this Admin has done and assume Kww won't make a mistake like this again. If the community "lynches" every Admin who makes a mistake with the tools, there will quickly be no Admins left, and certainly no one running for RfA (anyone thinking about running for Admin should look carefully at what's happening here and consider very carefully before making that jump...). Let's call this a "collective reprimand" and move on... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You want a pattern of abuse? Well, let's try the against consensus revdelling of the Best known for IP that other admins, particularly I, Chillum and Drmies all strongly opposed. [88] [89] plus lengthy talk page discussions on that page. Then, spinning back a bit further we have this kerfuffle with Floquenbeam over an unblock not being the letter of the law [90]. Spinning back further, we have this dramafest where he took an admin who had the sheer chuzpah to dare to unblock Eric Corbett to Arbcom, resulting in the loss of said admin. Anyway - Kww does do good work around here, but the "just doin' my job, ma'am" attitude really does cause more harm than good at times. I don't particularly want an Arbcom case either - they really cause more harm than good - but rather I would like all parties involved in this dispute to realise that something is seriously wrong here and take steps to correct it under their own steam.Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support Although, as Dennis said, it's meaningless to vote on this sort of thing. In Kww's case, he has a horrible combination of poor temperament, hubris, and misunderstanding of policy. His gross misunderstanding of applied BLP policy is just the latest evidence in a longer pattern. Just recently, he suggested that Cochrane Reviews are unreliable if their authors are Chinese. Inflammatory comments that at the same time show a lack of the ability to read policies and guidelines reveal that there is a deeper problem we are dealing with. Additionally, Kww's default position has always seemed to be to assume bad faith, a long pattern I complained about just last week and this very attitude has now culminated in an involved block of TRM. If Kww fails to see where he is wrong, how can we assume he'll act appropriately in the future? He has shown that he's not here to build an encyclopedia, he's here to promote agendas and exercise his power even if it means abusing it. Seriously, do we want TIGERS running around with tools? LesVegas (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose take what to Arbcom? The fact that KWW actualy enforced BLP on an article? There's no question that's what he was doing, and there's no question his block was correct. I have a better idea, shut down that idea and lay off KWW KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 15:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• No, his block was deeply flawed, and his action as an WP:INVOLVED admin is what is being very rightly questioned by most people here. If we don't examine the circumstances of an admin's misuse of the tools, then we open the door to a possible problems for everyone in the future. - SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Except that it's not admin misuse. KWW removed unsourced items in a BLP, that's what has to be done per WP:BLP, The Rambling Man reverted the unsourced items back in which is totally wrong, so if you want to take about admin misuse , look there instead. KWW did right to block him as he was repeatedly adding in unsourced stuff to a BLP rather than looking for references then adding it back in once the references are found. Remember, the WP:BURDEN is on the individual adding material in, not the one challenging. No arbcom over this, it's straight up a good block, even if it is a bit WP:IAR. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Except that this also involves Kww edit warring while claiming BLP on someone who is not an LP, or a recent one. He was out of line on this one. He went from there to a rather petulant block of the same editor: that's a problem in my book, and most other people here, given the weight of opinion expressed so far in the thread. – SchroCat (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Proposal: disable Kww's filter

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 Kww's filter is disabled immediately. If he wants to have a filter or bot that flags up to him when edits are being made I don't have an issue, but I do object to this mindless/automated process which does this. Valid edits have been blocked by this filter, which should have been a red flag to anyone with a more flexible approach. The loss of the information from those edits, and the associated goodwill makes it clear this should be removed. I'd also strongly suggest to Kww, that rather than the knee-jerk reversions he seems so fond of, it takes only a shade longer to look for a bloody source! These are high profile people and are normally high-profile awards, so a simple search shows whether there is a problem. That is how you build an encyclopaedia, not by relying on flaming filters and bots to block good faith contributions. - SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Support. The secret edit-block filter, and the mass-deletion & content-restoration–prevention way it is being used, are a mind-bogglingly unilateral defiance of Wikipedia policies. Softlavender (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I was going to make this comment above but here seems the better option now. I wanted to make the point that there are genuine reasons for keeping some edit filters hidden; some are quite easy to avoid if you know how the filter works. This is particularly important for LTA cases and other high priority vandalism. I've known some LTA users to vandalise the edit filter requests page, making it quite clear that they know there is an edit filter logging their edits. On the other hand if a filter is set to disallow, it's not hard to get to that filter if it disallows your edit. Being able to read what it does would make some filters alarmingly easy to get around. That said, I'm not at all convinced that this is the kind of filter that should be set to hidden. It's not the kind that would be detrimental to the project if avoided, and I agree that transparency should only be avoided if absolutely necessary. Sam Walton (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Support -- as per SchroCat's rationale above. Cassianto^Talk 08:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support per above, and further possible sanctions. I did try to restore Jackman's awards page and starting sourcing it and the filter blocked me with a ridiculous warning that every single award should be sourced and that anything else isn't acceptable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support. To be blocking edits automatically based on a non-existent "BLP" rule invented by the creator is completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. I'd go so far as to say that the very existence of this filter illustrates a sufficient competence issue that I'd support desysopping, even though it would mean the timesink of an Arbcom case since I presume KWW's "I'm right, the rest of the world is wrong" reactions above signify that he'd rather go down in flames than admit he's made a mistake, let alone resign voluntarily. – iridescent 08:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I have to agree with this this proposal. If it simply warns an administrator about a potentially poor addition that's one thing. But that's too much power for a personal bot. The thing is, this is one personal administrative bot that we know of. Is this type of thing common among administrators? I mean I really have no idea if multiple other invisible bots like this exist and this just happened to be one we found out about. It gives the feel of some Philip K. Dick dystopian society. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Filters shouldn't be unilaterally implemented, as it opens them up to abuse. There needs to be consensus. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support - this filter appears to have been added unilaterally without any noticeboard discussion or consensus viz the policy "Implementation of AbuseFilter on Wikipedia is done with due caution — most abuse filters should be tested for a few days (in "log only" mode) before being brought to full force ("warn", "disallow" or "throttle" modes)." I see no evidence this happened. Sam is right that per WP:BEANS we shouldn't publicly disclose filters, but just a reassurance from other admins that the filters are okay would help, which we don't have. After all, ClueBot NG does all its vandalism reverting out in the open using a Bayesian filter, which means keeping filter regexes secret is not necessary, as machine learning will stop them anyway. Work smarter, not harder! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - conditional on complete transparency regarding all other such filters. I had no idea such things existed, and per Fyunck, I am uneasy regarding all such "bots" in operation without scrutiny and oversight. I'd like to see a complete list of such bots. Jusdafax 08:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Their existence is not a state secret—you can see the full list here (KWW's filter is #661). As Sam Walton says above, the exact rules of some of the anti-vandal ones are intentionally kept secret to prevent people working around them. – iridescent 08:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support I can understand the need for circumspection when filters are intended to catch out LTA stuff but not otherwise. That this one appears to have slipped through (or, at least, no-one saw it as a potential problem) makes me think we may need some sort of review mechanism for filters current and future. - Sitush (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support Per much of what the others say. --Dweller (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I've gone through the edit filter log, and checked the filters in question, #640 and #661 (which is what I assume we're talking about here). They're hidden so I can't tell you what they do but I think the implementation is weak, with admins complaining about false positives. I see that other admins have had problems with the top 100 filter. And I think the Best known for IP filter could be implemented more intelligently. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Ritchie333, the Top 100 filter had a disastrous error in it for an hour in Jan 2014. I don't think it has malfunctioned since then. 661 generated a false positive in userspace, which was the only complaint against it (since corrected) and 640 theoretically tripped in talk space (corrected, but it never actually happened).—Kww(talk) 13:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment it seems pointless to actually disable these filters, as they don't actually seem to produce many false positives. I assume therefore we are talking about setting the filters to log-only or warn, as opposed to disallow? Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• But they do produce false positives, with all the crappy side effects that go with it (loss of goodwill, annoyance with the Wikipedia software etc) It's disheartening for good faith editors doing the right thing and then not being allowed to save their work. If Kww wants to reconfigure this filter to ping him when there is a problem so that he can deal with it directly, that's fine, but not as this obstructive faceless and Orwellian mechanism that does little good to anyone. - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Set them to log-only, then - the user doesn't see a thing then. Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support I would be very happy to see such a filter applied to controversial awards such as from the porn industry. I could understand extending the filter to other specific awards if we had a bunch of vandals repeatedly adding that award in a vandalising way, such as claiming various Islamic scholars had been awarded a lifetime achievement award by the Israeli Defense Force. I might also support changing our software generally to prompt people for a source either for all articles or all BLPs, but only if such a change was reflected in our policies, guidelines, training material and the user interface in a way that was consistent and user friendly. ϢereSpielChequers 09:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per SchroCat. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Burn it with fire per Ritchie333, Blofeld and Iridescent. Also a close review of other filters eventually created/used by KWW is necessary if not urgent. Cavarrone 11:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Convert to Warn. Blocking is unjustified, but unsourced cruft is a plague on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• This seems like an eminently reasonable solution to me. I wonder if anyone will listen?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support per iridescent, at least for now. Ultimately, Arb should decide the fate of all this. This is simply too large an issue for ANI, where we lack any tools to sanction admin actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose take what to Arbcom? The fact that KWW actualy enforced BLP on an article? There's no question that's what he was doing, and there's no question his block was correct. I have a better idea, shut down that idea and lay off KWW KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC) _{wrong section for my comment - striking out KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)}

What's that got to do with edit filters? If we blocked everyone who violated one admin's opinion of BLP, we'd have no editors left. It drives me nuts about people adding tabloidish sources to Katie Hopkins all the time, but I've never block over it unless there are repeated ad-hominem attacks added to it. Which is not what we have here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support There needs to be some sort of discussion and consensus before such a filter is delployed, in future. Not of the details of the regex or other filter logic, perhaps, but of the general existance, scope and purpose. Musch like the pre-approval needed for bots, I would think. DES ^(talk) 12:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I have deleted filter 661 as an inappropriate use of the edit filter. The edit filter is designed to catch abusive edits; it is not to enforce content disputes. And no, Kww, contrary to your demands of me earlier, I will not "discuss with you" before I remove inappropriate filters like I have before. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Filters disabled

As a result of this discussion, I have disabled and deleted the majority of my filters. The ones that remain are 550 (as it is used to monitor for "nowiki" markup insertion by a number of editors, including the WMF), 601 (currently disabled, but it's very effective against Colton Cosmic, so any filter editor may want to reenable it when he begins to act up again), and 667, which is a monitor-only filter. For anyone that's curious, the filter that Reaper Eternal refers to above (693) blocked the addition of the word "trans" to any article about Drake Bell: no false positives ever occurred. I put it in place after Drake Bell came under attack during the Caitlyn Jenner announcements. As a result of that filter being removed, Drake Bell has been on full-protection now for 24 days, all to allow for people that suddenly might want to discuss trans fat and transmissions in regard to Drake Bell. Seems like a poor tradeoff to me, but YMMV.—Kww(talk) 14:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know whether to be annoyed or flattered that variations on my username appear several times in your Colton Cosmic filter. Probably both. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

He liked to talk about you a lot.—Kww(talk) 14:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

If you think that is the main problem with your filter, then I don't even know what else to say, other than that you should have never given yourself 'abusefilter'. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I've made 693 visible so that anyone can take a look and comment as to whether full-protecting Drake Bell was a preferable alternative to that filter (or an enhanced version of the filter if it actually presented false positive problems).—Kww(talk) 15:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I only see 4 logged hits[91] from filter 693, all of them edits from the same user, who has been editing through 2008. They are repeated attempts to make the same edit, about a controversial tweet by Bell, sourced to an IBTimes article. While there are problems with the edit, it looks like something the normal BRD process could have handled just fine. Are there unlogged hits or expired logs? If there have only been 4 hits, it would have been much better to discuss the issue with the user. Even if the filter was needed, it should be seen as a limited form of page protection and discussed on the article talk page. I also don't see any reason to have kept it hidden. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I put the filter in place after a flurry of attacks on Bell. Reaper Eternal disabled the filter, and the page was put on full protection by User:Panyd a few hours later. The page has remained on full protection for most of the last four weeks. The filter has remained disabled since then, and even if it was enabled, the full-protection would prevent it from firing. It was intended to keep us from needed to fully protect the page, but others apparently find the full protection preferable.—Kww(talk) 23:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree that your edit filter seems preferable – full protection for an article like Drake Bell seems slightly crazy to me... I think I may even take this to WP:RFPP elsewhere. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the background info. It looks to me like the long lasting full protection on that article was excessive, though it may have been justified for a little while after the tweet drama (June 1 aiui). Pending changes was (and is) another possibility that doesn't seem to have been considered. Taking the filter as a reasonable third option, IMHO the right way to deploy it would have been 1) announce it openly (like protection), posting about it on the talk page to let people know what was happening and discuss whether it was wanted; 2) have it display a message when it disallows an edit, saying what the problem was and inviting the person to post an edit request on the article talk page if it had stopped what they thought was a valid edit. The one edit that it did stop was reasonably valid: it had a decent source, though the wording could have been improved. The person retried several times, then gave up, making no attempt to use the talk page. Someone else then tried to add the same info without a source and was reverted (not as vandalism). However a quick web search shows there are tons of RS documenting the incident, and there was relatively little talkpage discussion about keeping it out.

Overall I'd say this filter was a basically reasonable idea, but executed with too much secrecy at both the technical level (it didn't need to be private) and the communication level (it should have been discussed on the talk page). Getting a good edit stopped by a filter is immensely frustrating because you have no idea what you wrote that the filter didn't like. Overall I prefer pending changes to techno-fixes like filters, in situations where just one article is affected. The most useful (and most dangerous) capability of filters is their ability to act across the whole site, supplementing Cluebot and what's left of the RC patrol. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting it, but looking at some of these edit filters...I don't know. Let's look at 616. In its current form, it reads simply (user_name="187.109.239.254")&(article_namespace=0), which, invisibly and (had MusikAnimal not disabled it a month after it was started) permanently prevents IP 187.109.239.254 from editing anything in mainspace. I'm having trouble seeing any reason why this shouldn't have just been a month-long block of 187.109.239.254, which would have served much the same purpose--it's not like the IP was contributing to any other namespace--and have been transparent and non-permanent, as we require of such restrictions to IP editing. Why would you make this edit filter? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It permitted the IP to contribute to talk page discussions of articles he was interested in, not just his own talk page. The IP's problem was that he refused to discuss changes. That filter was, admittedly, an experiment to see if I could find an approach short of blocking an IP that would permit the IP to still contribute. It failed. I would have disabled it myself short order.—Kww(talk) 15:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

If this is supposed to be a less harsh alternative to blocking, why would the filter be flagged as hidden from public view? And, especially given that the IP in question was showing no desire to contribute anywhere but in mainspace, how could that rationale possibly justify a completely-invisible-to-anyone-else pseudo-block? An edit filter, particularly one hidden from public view and particularly one that is permanent since you apparently forgot about it, does not provide the transparency required for admins to be held accountable for their actions. If that wasn't self-evident before you made the edit filter, then I don't really know what else to say. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Look, if it's continual abuse from a blocked/banned user or something like that, then those filters can be a big help. But there still needs to be oversight. Perhaps all these invisible filters can be put in a special administrative section that passes muster amongst many administrators first? If a few others find it will be useful and helpful with minimal collateral damage, then it gets implemented with a watchful eye to make sure it does what it says. I don't want administrators trying to stop real vandalism with one hand tied behind their backs. But all administrators should be made aware of an invisible filter so we have checks and balances. Most admins I've dealt with have been as straight and narrow as they can be, even if they're yelling at me, but not all. I can't believe the filter we were mainly talking about would have been given the ok by any group of administrators. Far too restrictive and isn't really targeted at a particular user. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I certainly think there needs to be a talk page for each edit filter, like every article, and every page. People can then discuss issues and suggest alternatives, and gain consensus. There is an area for discussion, but it's not structured like a talk page (more like an ad hoc revision history) and if the filter is hidden, non-admins can't get at it. They might still want to discuss the purpose of a filter rather than the specific content. Also, some filters like 667 are probably better off written as a script using the API or PyWikipedia so they can do machine learning. (Yes, I'd like to write something like that if I ever have time). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Would editors find it useful to have some structured non-ANI discussions (at one of the village pumps) about edit filters and when it should be appropriate to hide them? Sam Walton (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

If there aren't any other problems besides this one, not sure what it would help. There aren't that many, and if an admin wasn't to question a hidden filter, he can at WP:AN without disclosing the hidden info since other admin can see it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There certainly has been a "What!? There are filters?! Nobody told me about filters!" element to this discussion, and that's coming from editors with a fair amount of experience. That would indicate that we should consider elevating the visibility of the existence of filters.—Kww(talk) 17:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think at least raising some awareness would be appropriate in the circumstances. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Myself, I'm aware of filters and I assumed that administrators had a set of "special" filters to help them combat big problems. But I also assumed they were listed on a restricted page for all administers to use and comment on their effectiveness. Sort of what we all have on our preferences or gadgets tab. I did not know that administrators could create them and use them with no real oversight. Obviously some of these filters need to stay hidden or they lose their ability to work. We need to trust, when multiple administrators test and evaluate these hidden filters, that they work well and as intended. But when I see many administrators shaking their heads in wonder and surprise at this over-reaching filter that Kww created, then we know their policy on filters needs a big tweak to be fair to all wikipedians, including themselves. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI There is a full list of filters and their current status at Special:AbuseFilter. Sam Walton (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes but obviously not the invisible ones. Kww is being hit as having some underhanded agenda with this invisible filter. I'm not talking about his blocking a fellow admin while being deeply involved. That's a separate issue. But this misuse of an invisible tool. Having a vetting process where he submitted it to three other admins (that aren't his bff's) would also be protecting himself right now. So it's better for everyone involved. Instead of defending himself he'd be saying things like... I made it with good intentions and three other random administrators said they approved of it's functions. It might still get deleted if someone later complained, but it's end of story as far as some secret abuse of power. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Fyunck, FYI I know that at least one of the Edit Filter Managers and Admins should be able to see the invisible filters. I could see 661 fine when I went to look. So it's not "private secret" to the creating user; it's only hidden from people outside (I think either of those groups, but not 100% sure). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand that George. But the way it sounds and looks, there are over 250 filters that I can actually see. I have no idea the number of invisible filters. It sounds like an administrator can create an invisible filter and simply add it to the list and that no one actually checked on what this Kww filter actually did. It got lost in the giant list of filters. At least if it undergoes formal scrutiny by other admins before it is ever activated, it has a better chance of being weeded out as this one should have been. It sounds like no one really checked this one out, and that shouldn't happen. There needs to be something in place to verify the usefulness before they go live. Maybe there is, but I haven't heard anyone talk about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I might be reading what you're saying wrong, but I just want to clarify that a 'hidden' filter isn't hidden from the list; you can still see the name and log. It's only the filter details (conditions, actions, notes) that are hidden. Sam Walton (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Should there be a systematic review of the edit filters that exist? Perhaps there are some which are no longer needed that could be deleted or disabled. I don't think editors are objecting to the existence of filters just that an edit filter can be easily created and forgotten without any oversight. And I think there shouldn't be an edit filter for an IP address which might be shared by other editors (or future editors). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There probably needs to be a centralized page where all the edit filters in use (and maybe even those that are "suspended" from use) are listed out, including what they do, and when they were instituted, so even though of us in the peanut gallery can see them. Doing so shouldn't be a big deal... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Since we're pretty tight on processing power for filters, old or inactive filters are regularly disabled. Sam Walton (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

IJBall, as Samwalton9 noted, you can see the visible filters at Special:AbuseFilter. If there are other, hidden filters, then that is the issue. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Every filter is on that list - 'hidden' refers to the filter's conditions, notes, and log, such as Special:AbuseFilter/696. Sam Walton (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Well, then the conditions of some filters are hidden but I can click on others (like Special:AbuseFilter/11) and see the conditions that trigger the filter. So, it is the filters whose conditions are hidden that should be checked by those who can view them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, yeah – after perusing, there are a lot of edit filters marked "Private", and one could legitimately ask how many of those need to be "Private" and not "Public"... But, in general, this whole thing is above my pay grade... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit Filter policy

There has never really been a documented policy on what edit filters should or should not be used for, or on precisely how accurate a filter needs to be in order to considered suitable for its task. I think everyone agrees that countering vandalism is a Good Thing and that interfering with good faith editing is a Bad Thing, but very little has been written about what that should really mean in the context of edit filters. In practice, the edit filters have been managed via the mutual agreement of a small handful of the most active edit filter managers. There are about 170 users with the filter manager user right, and all but about 20 of those are also current admins (many of the exceptions are former admins or WMF staff). So, the group of people working in this area is generally an experienced and thoughtful lot, but there are still only a small number of people that are really active in managing the filters. At its inception (2009) I was one of the most active filter managers, but except for a brief burst of activity a few months ago, I haven't been very active on the filters for years. It is probably well past time that we write out some sort of policy on what edit filters should and shouldn't be used for, when the private setting is appropriate, and what minimum level of accuracy a filter should have before it is allowed to give warnings or disallow edits. Dragons flight (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this would be a good thing. Wikipedia:Edit filter should really be primarily a guideline on how the community expects filters to be used, rather than an out of date guide. Sam Walton (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I've created a centralised discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea_lab)#Edit filter policy. Sam Walton (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. I also used to be a very active edit filter manager (even before I was an administrator). A little over two years ago I raised concerns that the edit filter system was being abused and that many of the people that are currently editing them have very little understanding of the internals of how it is implemented (which is different from if they understand how the filtering works/how to write filter code). Since that time that abuse has been extended to the point where a fairly significant number of edits hit the filter (we have moved from "hitting the filter is generally suspicious" to "hitting the filter is a fairly common thing for newer editors"). I note that even log only filters used to be "no false positives". In a similar vein, there have been filters that have been turned onto disallow without even being tested, and several instances of filters that hit nearly edit being activated. I recognize that times can change, but honestly I gave up this argument years ago because it seemed like nobody cared. At the end of the day, the edit filter is really a backwoods area that only a very small portion of the community even knows exist (and then a much smaller proportion of that knows how to use it), and so if one speaks up with "this really needs to be fixed" the general response I have received is "who cares?" I'm glad to see at least I'm not the only one recognizing these problems, but I would hate to see the current use of the filter system actually get codified into policy. If we do that, then we are literally writing into policy "we do not trust new users to edit without intense supervision", which is what a lot of our current edit filters since become. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Arb case request

Well, since nobody else seems to be stepping up, I guess it falls to me. I've filed an arbitration case request, seeking resolution of the issues here, particularly of Kww's block of TRM. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you. I felt I had to consider filing since I called for it here, but frankly, it's better coming from you. Nobody likes admitting it, but Wikipedia is all about "clout," which is also actually what this ArbCom case is really all about, as I see it... Two angry admins with chips on their shoulders who would not back down. Bravo, and thanks again. Jusdafax 16:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Kww's edit filters

After seeing the above discussion, I decided to take the time to review edit filters created by User:Kww. A summary of my conclusions follows:

• #693: Drake Bell attack: Gross technically deficiency in design, e.g. failure consider interplay of added_lines / removed_lines, possibility of "trans" occurring in neutral phrases like "transmit", or use on talk pages.
• #640: Vevo: Technically deficient design, e.g. failure consider interplay of added_lines / removed_lines, possibility of "vevo" occurring in neutral phrases (such words are rare, but I noticed "Groovevolt Music" in the log). In his initial version it also prohibited "Vevo" to be mentioned on talk pages. Not entirely clear on the motivations, but this is not necessarily a bad idea for a filter if there is general agreement (WP:SINGLEVENDOR?) that Vevo awards are not suitable for inclusion Wikipedia.
• #617: Mathias Sandell: Affected a wide swath of IPs without offering a warning message to explain what is happening to any false positives. Unable to judge the need for this filter or its historical origin because its motivation is not explained in the comment box. Something like this might be okay in the event of severe ongoing vandalism, but such events should be rare and this was active for a long time.
• #616: disruption of music articles: The targeted block of one IP from article space, correctly implemented. Personally, I think this is a waste of the somewhat limited abuse filter resources, but there has been no rule against it, and Kww apparently was looking for an option less extreme than a full block (a good intention).
• #526: hot100brasil insertions: Technically deficient design due to failure to consider interplay of added_lines / removed_lines. As a result this filter is simply swimming in false positives such that an editor will see a warning even though they didn't perform the indicated action.
• #529: chartnews: Same added / removed problem. Of the filters that Kww created, this actually seems the best motivated from looking at the log, assuming we agree that anonymous twitter accounts claiming to repeat third-party news is not by itself a RS (i.e. WP:TWITTER). A better version of this may be worth restoring.
• #661: unsourced section added to awards article: This is the one that already got a bit of attention because TRM triggered it. It is grossly deficient in design (same added / removed issue, no consideration of citation templates) and based on the discussion above seems very dubious from a policy perspective.

Based on this review, my opinion that Kww should not be writing filters. (I also think it is symptomatic of the fact we don't have enough written policy or internal review in the abuse filter space.) If it is deemed necessary, Kww's edit filter manager user right could be removed. However, I would hope that as an admin Kww would be willing to take criticism seriously and refrain from editing the filter on his own accord. Dragons flight (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Can these filters be made public? Isa (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I've made public those filters which were hidden as they were all disabled/deleted or did not warrant being hidden. Sam Walton (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

That said, if 617 was reinstated it would make sense to hide it. Sam Walton (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I doubt I'm going to be doing much with filters in the future. Responses, though:

• 693: This thing has been beaten to death. A simple filter, prohibiting the addition of the phrase "trans". Is it a filter that could have been left up, unattended, for months? No. As a quick "stop the attacks for a day or two in lieu of full protecting the article" it did fine. Since the phrase "trans" doesn't occur in the article and the filter prohibits its addition, theres no need for "added lines"/"removed lines" checking. That would have been an unnecessary waste of resources. For those that are unaware, Bell made a very unpopular tweet about Caitlyn Jenner and became a target of online attacks. His article remains full-protected today, nearly a month later.

• 640: I had not spotted the "groovevolt" false positive, but again, since VEVO was not in any of the target articles and the filter prohibited insertion, and "added lines"/"removed lines" check would have been an unnecessary waste of resources.

• 617: User:Mathiassandell has been evading blocks for years. There's not a lot of anonymous Finnish IPs editing Christina Aguilera and Mariah Carey articles, and the alternative would have been rangeblock Finland or to semiprotect an enormous group of articles. I'm unaware of any false positives, and also unaware of any improvements I could make to the warning that didn't give Mathias instructions on how to bypass it.—Kww(talk) 13:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• 616: An experiment in "less than blocking" an IP. It failed, and it's inactive.

• 526: Once again, if the string doesn't exist, there's no need to consider "added lines"/"removed lines", which would be an unnecessary waste of resources.

• 529: Again: if the string doesn't exist currently, "added lines"/"removed lines" checks are unnecessary.

• 661: The normal citation templates don't embed the "<ref" string, which is what the filter fed off of. This filter was actually fairly permissive, as it looked for the addition of entire new awards tables without providing a single citation for one of the awards. In theory, there are some edits to completely unsourced tables it would have prevented, and someone could have started the use of {{refn}}. The defects here are not "gross deficiencies in design", they are optimisations based on the real world consideration: a filter that tries to evaluate every possible edit so that it can run unattended forever requires far more resources than a filter that takes advantage of known information and is monitored. I do look at 661 violations regularly. Beyond the repaired case of firing in userspace, the only other false positives it actually saw were an editor that decided to use template formatting of an existing, completely unsourced table.—Kww(talk) 13:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to reply to all of these, but let me pick one. For #526, here are examples of users who saw a warning despite not adding the Brazilian 100 trigger text themselves, since there was no check on whether that text already existed in the line they edited: [92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103]. And that's only from the first 40 or so hits in the log. Several of these involved people seeing a warning about adding a bad chart after making a simple typographical change in a line/paragraph that merely happened to already reference the chart. You say "they are optimisations based on the real world consideration". What you call "optimisations", I would call lazy implementation. A filter is unlikely to be perfect, but we do routinely expect filter editors to think through their implementations more than you have done with many of these. Dragons flight (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Active sockpuppetry, WP:OR and WP:POV violations by LORT44125

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.

---

Road8985 appeared over a week ago, making pointy edits to the Russian Othodox church article which were reverted by other users and attempts to reason with the editor at Talk:Russian_Orthodox_Church#Interesting_facts proved futile, as they became hostile and aggressive, tossing out warnings against anyone that disagreed with them until they were blocked on WP:NOTHERE grounds. LORT44125 then appeared, writing in exactly the same stilted English, using the same phrases and defending the other edits and claiming simply to be "a friend" of Road8985. Other editors in the talk section voiced the suspicion that neither may be a new account. On my looking at their edits, it became clear that it was a blocked sockmaster, Need1521, back in another guise. Having attempted to reason with that editor in the past and seen numerous other editors and admins attempt to do so and seen the newest account blank and ignore attempts at discussion on their own talk, I believe discussion with them to be futile as they lack the spirit of collaboration necessary. I have filed a sockpuppet report here detailing the similarities, however, LORT44125 is now active on another page, still adding their own POV based on their own interpretations of sources and that disruption needs to stop. Valenciano (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Valenciano must be stoped (vandalism - war of edits and slander). He got the invitation. LORT44125 (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC).

• LORT44125 blocked as an obvious sock of Road8985. Tying back to Need1521 is impossible with CU and difficult with behavior alone, given the small number of edits all these accounts have produced, but not necessary anyway. For the record, you normally want to report socks to WP:SPI or use the template built into the Twinkle interface when you are at their user page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. I've already filed an SPI and it's linked above. Usually I'd wait for the outcome of that, but the SPI was filed 2 days ago and the LORT account was involved in fresh disruption so ANI was the only route, given the account's refusal to engage on their talk page. Valenciano (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on links provided at the end of the sock investigation, there is actually a larger issue here of a longer sock farm dating back to at least September 2011 and also involving Russian Wikipedia. I'm horrified that this nonsense has been going on so long. Valenciano (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

No admin or CU has come in on that one yet, but it may very well be large. That is why SPI is the best place for sockpuppet issues. We can do quick and dirty blocks for obvious cases, like I did here, but there, they dig deeper than we can in this environment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Understood and I agree. In this case a quick block was needed, as the disruption was ongoing, but the larger issue will hopefully be sorted at SPI. We can close this section. Valenciano (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Personal attack by Singora

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

---

Can someone please do something about the ongoing harassment of me. I'm sick to the back teeth of this and it has now gone on for two weeks. Furthermore, Chillum, whose talk page has been instrumental in this harassment, has just received this message from some creature called Singora. Both Chillum, as an involved party, and Singora, as the author of such comments, have been notified. Cassianto^Talk 20:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• I just hit him with a 72 hour block, knowing comfortably that it was deserved solely for this edit [104]. If other admin want to take a look at the total circumstances and feel that an adjustment is needed, no prior permission is required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Dennis, much appreciated. Cassianto^Talk 21:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

No idea about any ongoing harassment, but that linked comment is as severe and calculated a personal attack as I've seen in some while. 72 hours is the least he should expect. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the block was a good move, I was on my way to do the same thing. People have been using my talk page for general nastiness a little too much lately. This whole "call them as I see them" nonsense is a contagious and lame excuse for childish name calling. I would not tolerate even a drive by vandal being talked to that way, Cassianto certainly does not deserve it. The user could have made a cogent and compelling argument without resorting to personal attacks. Chillum 21:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

An indef of that Singora would be well-justified. And wasn't some drive-by making the same obscene slam recently? Coincidence? Or the same guy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. I would wager that they are the same specimen. Cassianto^Talk 22:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

My first instinct was that this was a drive by troll and to indef, but then I saw they had over 500 edits and had been here over a year. I have not looked at their contributions enough to determine if they are here to make an encyclopedia or not. I would hesitate to block indef if there are any significant contributions. After all if we indefed people for isolated(I think) incidences of name calling this thread would be a bit shorter. I probably would have given a 2 week block, but I think the block given is well within the realm of reason. Chillum 22:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Their contributions haven't exactly set the world of Wikipedia on flames, let me tell you. They worked on an obscure featured article which didn't even cut it as a GA, let alone an FA, and produced a load of unhelpful and dubious comments at the recent FAC of Burning of Parliament. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I'm sure I've come across them before somewhere. Cassianto^Talk 23:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SN: Cassianto, the title of this thread made it sound as though you were the one being reported for harassment. It probably would have been better if you'd left your name out of the title; when I read the first post, I initially was like, "He's reporting himself?" (And my apologies if you're not a "he".) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC) Dealt with. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It has been harassment as it has been going on for two weeks now. However, this was more about the PA on Chillum's page which has kindly been dealt with. I have adjusted the title of this thread having seen its ambiguity. Thanks. Cassianto^Talk 23:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

If it continues, and it is part of a pattern, by all means come back with a list. My 72 hour block was done to be as generous as I possibly could justify, as he hadn't been blocked before and had a little time under his belt. If it happens again any time soon and you can show a pattern, he won't get the same benefit of the doubt. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. Cassianto^Talk 06:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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

The behaviour of Fayenatic london at Selmelier

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 left a prod at Selmelier. The 7 day period expired, and Fayenatic reset the time on the basis that the creator had not been notified. I pointed out that per WP:PRODNOM notifying the creator was not required, and that the creator [had not edited in four years]. Fayenatic then reverted to their preferred version, and used their privileges to block non-autoconfirmed users (obviously targeting me exclusively, as nobody else has edited the article in a year and a half) from the article. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Stretching the PROD out seems unnecessarily bureaucratic, I admit, but isn't the biggest issue. Notification isn't required but it is strongly preferred most of the time. In this case, the editor hasn't edited in 3.5 years so it borders on overkill to force the issue. At first glance, it looks like Fayenatic london got into an edit war with this IP over the time stamp (purely editor actions), then used PC to protect the article (admin action), seemingly to give himself an advantage. In the least, this is unusual, and under WP:ADMINACCT, requires explanation here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

79.97.226.247, you apparently didn't see the bright orange bar saying you need to alert Fayenatic london about this discussion so I posted one on your behalf. You need to disclose to the editor that you've brought a complaint to a noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• FL could have removed the prod altogether (anyone can). Instead he decided to allow another week, which seems reasonable, and harmless. You shouldn't be repeatedly reverting to the old timestamp. I agree with Dennis that it would have been better for FL to ask another admin to review and install pending changes if needed, instead of doing it himself. Processing prod's could maybe be considered an admin action, but it's borderline. The best solution, of course, is for you (IP) to agree to either (1) let the prod run 7 more days, or (2) start an AFD instead, in which case I'll undo the pending changes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The part that bothered me was adding PC just to stop this one IP without discussing. In a way it is a slap in the face of IPs to do that, which is why policy says we don't do it for a problem with ONE ip, if this is indeed a problem. Or maybe there is more I just don't know, but it looks odd. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I know, Dennis, I'm sort of agreeing. But it's a grey area; if an editor interfered with, say, an admin processing an AFD/CSD tag, we wouldn't allow them to revert it forever. I'm not sure I consider this edit warring over content, it's more like edit warring over how an admin processes a tag intended for admins to process. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
      • We're on the same page, it is grey indeed. I think I would have preferred he tried to communicate outside of a summary, at least once. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. I left an edit summary noting that an inactive editor may have set preference to be emailed about notices on his user talk page, so I thought another 7 days wait was reasonable. Note that I did not protect the page, which would have blocked the IP editor from reverting again. Instead of that, I activated pending changes, which would force an independent admin/reviewer to decide on any further reversion. Note also that having activated pending changes, I did not review the IP's further edits myself. – Fayenatic London 23:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes is not meant to be used for this sort of case. PC's for protection against vandalism/ BLP issues/ copyvios. This isn't remotely related to any of those. "Like semi-protection, PC protection should never be used in genuine content disputes, where there is a risk of placing a particular group of editors at a disadvantage." 79.97.226.247 (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see this as a content dispute. It's just a judgment call on whether best practice is necessary for this page, resulting in a timing issue over when to let a PROD expire or whether to require a discussion at AfD (or, perhaps now, RfD, since another editor has redirected the page). – Fayenatic London 00:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• I have to agree with 79.*.*.* on the use of PC here. I don't see a need to labor it, but really, it shouldn't have been used and instead you should have just put a note on the IP's page. This is outside what PC is designed to be used for, which is really not much different than semi-protection in this case. Again, no need make a big deal over one time, but in the future it shouldn't be done that way (per the policy), no matter how effective it is. We are supposed to treat IPs the same as registered users under most circumstances.

• To the IP, I would say you probably shouldn't have edit warred over the timestamp either. The point of PROD isn't to quickly get rid of articles, it is an intentionally slow process for uncontested deletions. Once he changed the time stamp, you might have seen that as a "partial objection, give more time", and knowing he could have simply removed the PROD altogether, you would have been better not fighting over it. As Floq points out above, it is a quasi-admin function to do that. He chose to extend rather than delete outright, and admin technically have the choice of extending, deleting, or removing the PROD altogether. If it is really uncontested, it will eventually get deleted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Dennis: fair enough. Although the IP's conduct wasn't vandalism, I viewed it as wp:disruptive editing, reverting what I still considered a fair decision on use of admin responsibilities (deferring deletion of a page). As for putting a note on the IP's page for all to see, I thought that would have been an escalation, and more inflammatory than using PC to call in the attention of an independent reviewer. However, I've learnt to do that in future, thanks. (I wasn't sure which of us you meant in your 22:48 comment above until you wrote this.) – Fayenatic London 07:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruptive user is back

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 disruptive user is back as 85.247.77.19 (talk · contribs) (previously 85.245.81.227). SLBedit (talk). See also this JamesBWatson's subpage. SLBedit (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Block evasion by User:Nu Yawk NY

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

---

In February 2015 Nu Yawk NY was indefinitely blocked for "persistent disruptive editing."[105] This user apparently reappeared as User talk:71.178.130.74 and in May was temporarily blocked "for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule."[106] Same apparent user has reappeared as Nu Yawk Sity (talk) and is making the same repeated disruptive edits featuring largely original research. (diff) —J D (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:DUCK. Could somebody add tags please? I'm in a bit of a rush. Bishonen | talk 23:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC).

I've added {{sockpuppet}} tag to the User page (addendum: and added the {{sockpuppeteer}} tag to the master account), though it's been suggested previously that only Admins (and maybe only SPI Admins) should do that in most cases. As this is an Admin request, I'll hope that it was OK that I added the tags here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Walter Görlitz behavior

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 am experiencing troubles with Walter Görlitz about a few short modifications I tried to make on the article Icon for Hire. I am directy starting a discussion about the editor rather than a dispute about the article itself, because it's just impossible to talk to him, he directly deletes anything I try to write on his talk page, and he seems to be a "serial reverter": When I look at the history of the article I tried to modify, he reverted everything anyone tried to do and the last comments on his talk page are pointing in the same direction.

Please have a look at the deleted discussion beetween us on his talk page. I did my best to stay open and polite even if I am pretty angry about people who never build but spend their time destroying other people work. I did my best to try to discuss and reach something while taking care of everything he had to say. Unfortunately, there seem to be no way.

Thank you. Mevo Wiki (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

There's an edit notice on my page indicating that discussions about a specific article are to be carried out at that article. I tried to explain the problems with the editor's first attempt but the editor misinterpreted my statements and misrepresented my actions in the revert. I have started a discussion on the article's talk page, but this editor continues to wikihound me on my talk page. I probably could have explained that better, but feel free to look into the issue at Icon for Hire. The edit history is on the main page article and the suggestions made on my talk page have not been entirely ignored. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please ping me if you need my attention. This page is not on my watchlist. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Floquenbeam's actions at AN

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.

---

Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) has:

1. Edit-warred at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: [107][108][109][110][111][112][113] and as good as admitted that they intend to continue to edit-war[114].
2. Used rollback inappropriately: [115]
3. Blocked a user with whom they were in dispute without an appropriate rationale: [116]
4. Called another editor an ass and accused them of hypocrisy: [117] and admits that their actions are motivated by a desire to annoy another user: [118]. DrKiernan (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Floquenstein's monster (talk · contribs) could have done better. This is some seriously "time-out" worthy behavior. Doc talk 09:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Just drop the entire thing. Resolute's statement is gross bad faith anyway because Bish is on record as not wanting to interact with EC and because she has a pretty good rep for independence of thought (eg: she and I get on ok but nonetheless she hauled me here about something). Exacerbating an already bad situation with yet another strand is part of what I have called the "miasma" that surrounds disputes about Eric Corbett - it isn't helpful. - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

DRKiernan is an admin, questioning the clearly questionable actions of another admin, here at AN/I. Don't attempt to drown it out. And you know what's actually "helpful" to Wikipedia? Encouraging debate among dissenting opinions rather than shutting it down in favor of what's "helpful". Doc talk 09:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Ohh, they're an admin, whooh, and that earns them immunity from being "drowned out" by a non-admin commenting (once), does it? I recommend one of the people who reverted the post back in, or why not User:Resolute himself, to take it to RfAR. That's the place to ask for a desysop. They'll look at the actions of everybody involved, but you won't mind that. Bishonen | talk 09:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC).

I don't agree with Resolute's comment, but we seem to be in a position where unambiguous edit-warring and blocking editors we don't like is treated far, far less seriously than an editor being rude. I would also characterize Flo's comments as much more uncivil than either Eric's or Resolute's. The misbehavior of some editors is being dismissed as appropriate and welcome, while less serious faults by other editors are being treated with great stricture. DrKiernan (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, DrKiernan, I forgot to mention you, too, as someone who could take the matter to RfAR. Seriously, since you feel that way about it, why don't you? I realize ArbCom may soon be quite busy with a shitstorm desysop request over Reaper Eternal's unblock of Eric Corbett, which I just noticed, but still. Bishonen | talk 11:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC).

I've not seen anyone dismissing stuff as appropriate and welcome. Certainly, my point is that nothing is to be gained from this. Everyone is het-up, as so often in this situation, and the fall-out and fallings-out are happening across numerous venues. Let's just draw a line rather than escalate it further. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I would normally agree with that sort of sentiment, there seems to be some sort of admin full moon at the moment, looking at current (unrelated) cases here, AN, and ArbCom. They need to get a grip. DeCausa (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

They do indeed. In this instance, Resolute shouldn't have posted that nonsense (not the only example of sensationalism from them) and Floq should have called it a day much sooner than they did. It is done now and kicking off another inquisition isn't going to improve matters.- Sitush (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The full moon is the best rationale I've seen to explain the past 96 hours. Usually things quiet down on noticeboards on the weekend but not this one. It's startling how one talk page comment about an email list caused this chain reaction of complaints and edit/admin reversals. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

At best, the comment in question is an unhelpful generalisation and hard to interpret as not incorporating a personal attack. It is polarising and making things worse and should be removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit. I disagree with your characterization. Doc talk 09:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh goody, more scutiny-evading IPs. Floq was right to block the IP too. And Doc, here's a challenge, try to come up with some constructive comments. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You're thick as thieves. I know how it is with you lot from the Merridew days. Same ones sticking together. Dissent, is there? Shut it down. Doc talk 09:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

That statement shows you have no idea about who is "thick" with whom then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said at Floquenbeam's talk page, the comment made by Resolute is rude and in bad faith but in no way a personal attack. I restored it not because I have "no class," as Floquenbeam put it, but because AN is not someone's user talk page. It's a point of principle. The talk page guidelines say that "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Is accusing someone of having "no class" a personal attack? How about if it's from an admin? How about if it's from an admin with a lot of buddies, who can step on some toes? Doc talk 09:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Suppose you are right and everything Floq has done in the last 24 hours is horrible. Why would you want to make a big deal of it? Is your personal freedom in peril because your reverts were reverted? Do you think it is likely the fiendish behavior will continue until Floq is indeffed? Or are you merely wanting a small tar-and-feather party to celebrate the ongoing dramas? Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not open this thread, nor did I ask anyone to open a thread about it. But I will comment on it, obviously. What "tar-and-feather" party are you talking about? Questioning an editor in this vein is now a crime? Shaddup. Doc talk 10:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop being dramatic. It's a simple, clear-cut case of edit warring. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the point of the report—does anyone imagine that Floquenbeam is going to make a habit of this? What I find most irritating about the related drama is that WP:AE struggles to attract admin attention for the gamergate issue—serious and prolonged off-wiki organization ensures that waves of civil POV pushers promote the view that Wikipedia should be "neutral" and discount all the reliable sources which say gamergate is about credible threats of rape and murder directed at women. Firm admin handling of that is a bit too tedious I guess. Johnuniq (talk) 10:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

My point is that misbehavior by one editor should not excuse misbehavior by another. DrKiernan (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course, no one has suggested otherwise. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not the right place for rigid enforcement of rules, and it is always desirable to think about the context and aim for a good outcome that benefits the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• DrKiernan, you obviously have every right to open this thread, but it seems moot at this point. Once I noticed the edit warring, I went to Floquenbeam's talk page, made it clear that reverting wasn't within policy and in a subtle way, indicated action would have to be taken if it continued. He hasn't reverted since then. Doc was understandably upset, we chatted, and I attempted to cool the situation down for the purpose of "preventing disruption". This isn't unlike what I have done for dozens of other edit warring situations, admin or not. Note, that I wasn't the only admin there. As far as I'm concerned, the situation got out of hand and was handled by using discussion to stop the actions that were causing disruption, ie: Floq's reverting. Doing anything else at this stage would be punitive. I'm not here to met out justice, I'm here to stop disruption, prevent dramah, and get people back to doing constructive things. From my perspective, this has already been accomplished and this thread is superfluous. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• These allegations against Floquen need to be investigated by an impartial individual or group. I can't see any reason for avoiding this. TodayIsMyBirthday (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't really see a reason to not block you for being an obvious sock that is avoiding scrutiny. First edit at AN and now joining this? I don't necessarily believe in having to figure out who you are; your behavior is telling. Does any admin disagree with blocking this sock?
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Dammit K-----o, you should know better than to get mixed in this as you and Flo have a history.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Le sigh. FWIW, I didn't re-revert Floquenbeam's second removal of my comment deliberately, specifically because an edit war wasn't worth it. It was pretty clear that he was going to do exactly this to protect against a view he didn't like, and I saw no profit in fighting over it. To that end, I recommend everyone else just step away from all of this as well as I do not require proxies fighting on my behalf, and there is still no profit in continuing this drama. As far as my comment itself goes, Bishonen and Eric do have a long history, and if they have had a falling out that I was unaware of, then yes, I can accept my viewpoint was in error. Consequently, I do offer an apology to Bishonen. That said, I continue to believe that proposing to strip away one of the few venues that cannot (ordinarily) be so easily gamed by an editor's allies to paralyze enforcement of sanctions is a tremendously bad and damaging idea. Resolute 14:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

See also Non-apology apology. I know it's good form on Wikipedia to pretend to value grudging 'I-was-right-all-along-but-whatever' apologies, but I'm not into that. I've even written a little essay about it, which concludes "If you're not sorry for something you did, don't apologize for it… You'll both feel better." That's good advice, Resolute. I notice you've left your original comment still standing proudly on WP:AN. Further: after putting me to the trouble of digging out diffs to show the true state of my relations with Eric Corbett,[119] you for your part still can't be arsed to provide a single example of the (mythical) "long history" you still claim I have with him? That's as good as calling me a liar when I told you on your page today that "I admire [E. C.]'s work but have always avoided conversing with him" (emphasis added). Bishonen | talk 17:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC).

Well, Bish, tabloid journalists often follow the maxim of "never let the truth get in the way of a good story." - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It's cute and all that you are nipping at Bishonen's heels like this Sitush, but I am certain she can handle herself just fine. Bishonen - For someone who "always avoided conversing with him", you've come up on his talk page frequently - either with a comment yourself, or by reference from another user. However, fair enough. I midjudged by calling you a friend of his, and that is what I offer an apology for. It is, of course, entirely up to you to accept or not. And I never went back to check if my comment remained standing or not, because I wasn't involved in this little edit war, had no idea whether it still stood or not, and given the section had been archived, stopped worrying about it. However, I will now go back and adjust that too. (or would have had it not already been done for me.) Resolute 18:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not nipping at anyone's heels. I commented before Bish in this thread, and I'd previously raised another example of your sensationalist wording on your own talk page. I'm fed up of the behaviour of a lot of admins at the moment. Grow up. - Sitush (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Recommend this thread be closed. If necessary, the proper place to handle this, would've been the Edit Warring page. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• I still very much disagree with Resolute about... well, probably almost everything. But I note his partial retraction above, as well as the fact that he only reverted, I think, once. Or maybe twice, but at least it was his own comment. I thank Doc and Ed for demonstrating clearly how "civility" is really only a weapon in their arsenal, rather than something that actually matters to them. That's useful information for the rest of us. I've removed the baseless accusation, which Resolute no longer stands behind, again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

As Floquenbeam has reverted once again, after concerns were raised about the edit-warring and while the issue was under discussion at ANI, I have blocked them. DrKiernan (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The admin corps have gone fucking mad this weekend. Why not all offer yourselves up for recall? There are times to apply the letter of the law and times to use common sense: too many are doing the former. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It's been difficult for lowly editors to make sense of the past 48 hours of admin behavior. I hope everyone takes a few days off and comes back when the atmosphere is a little cooler. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Would it be too much to ask for someone to block everyone for 2 days and semi protect everything to get 2 days of pure non-disruption. I'd happily sacrifice my clean block log. Amortias (T)(C) 20:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Alternately, disable the block button for a week. —SpacemanSpiff 20:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Good grief, was that really necessary? Was there any imminent harm to the encyclopedia? Was there any indication that Floquenbeam wasn't going to accept this as a compromise and walk away? Is it appropriate that User:DrKiernan, who started this thread gets to act as prosecutor, judge, and jury? ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sure Floq can use a break, but this block was obviously a mistake. DrKiernan, I assume you didn't see where Resolute said he was going to, or already would have, removed his post if Floq hadn't done so? Resolute had acknowledged his post was erroneous and (sort of) apologized to me for it. Don't feel bad, nobody can read everything. Please see [120] ("I've removed the baseless accusation, which Resolute no longer stands behind, again") , [121] and [122]. I can't believe you'd have blocked if you'd been cognizant of the context. I feel a little too involved to unblock; somebody else had better do it. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Is it? Bishonen | talk 20:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC).

I admit that there appears to be back-story with which I am unfamiliar. I see two admins (Bish and Adjwilley) and the editors above questioning the block. I will be offline shortly and so if consensus here is to unblock then that decision should be taken without me.

I have always supported the right of editors to remove their own posts. If Adjwilley or Resolute wish to remove the now hatted material, then that would strike me as a wise gesture. DrKiernan (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@DrKiernan: do you feel the discussion was more helpful with the comment in or our of that conversation? If so, then can you block everyone who edit warred to keep the comment in once a wiki-scuffle commenced? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Rojava ethnic warring

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 highly enthusiastic editor User:Multi-gesture with strong opinions is editing Rojava page. It does seems as a one purpose account looking at his edits [[123]]. He focus on portraying Kurd forces as angels and as portraying Arab forces as demons. For him, any accusation against Arabs is fact. Any accusation against Kurds is a mere claim.

Now, whats important is his constant attempts make it ethnic.

1-In the Human rights section, he created new sub-section called Arab Militias ! even though the struggle in Syria is between factions not ethnicities.. At the same time he didnt use the title Kurdish Militias but YPG militia.[124]

2-He deleted the violations committed by YPG [125]. When I brought them back [126] he deleted again [127] and only restored them after I told him that I reported him for edit warring [128].

In the end he got blocked for 24 hours for Edit warring.

3-He insist on making ISIS for Arab [129]. First saying its led by them (not true considering there are Turkmens and Chechens leading) and then claiming that the whole Multi-Ethnic terrorist organization is Arabs ! [130]

4- Keep in mind that before I step in, Syrian opposition was given the title Arab Militia by him. He then made this funny edit in the Syrian opposition section which I created after I eliminated the Ethnic titles he made.[131] as you can see, a totally irrelevant statement by none other than the notorious pravda bashing all Syrian opposition as thieves, murderers and degenerates even though it mention nothing about Rojava or Kurds. He only added this out of no where just to bash Arabs !

5-Finally he made it very clear that for Him ISIS is just Arab [132] and then he reintroduced the pravda thing which I deleted [133]. As you will notice, I tried to communicate and reach a consensus with him on the talk page but all he wanted is to prove ISIS as Arab

6- He insert his POV as if he own the page [134]

This is getting tiring for me. He is trying to make it ethnic and to portray Arabs as criminals. I want to know if this is going to continue, and if Pravda statements have any relevance to Rojava.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You are not allowed to delete sourced files before any agreement between you and other users [135] but in the case of Pravda.Ru you deleted sourced content which I was added before, two times in a 24 hour (which is in one revert restriction law)[136][137]. You also added wrong information to a sourced content here[138]. Every claims I made was based on well-known creditable references. But while you were deleting pro-Kurdish poor-sourced contents from the article, when I asked you to do the same for the pro-Arabic poor-sourced contents too, you just gave unacceptable reasons. I also have a complaint about you and I hope for a consideration.--Multi-gesture (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Good, now let the admins decide if Pravda opinion from 2013 have anything to do with Rojava. And actually, I am allowed to delete totally irrelevant info even if sourced. Pravda opinion on FSA in regard to Rojava is as relevant as a sourced sentence about Whale migration in the winter. On the other hand, you deleted sourced info that have everything to do with Rojava [139].

By the way, when you asked me to delete liveleaks I did it [140], only to see you using it yourself[141]. I also deleted the Kurdish leader of Kobani attack which you didnt like because it was irrelevant [142].

However, we agreed on asking the wikipedia reliable sources opinion on Kurdwatch reliability but you deleted every thing about them before doing that [143]. This all prove my well intention and that your accusations are false. Not to mention that you just got out of a block and immediately went back to your normal behavior reverting here [144] and completely reverting some of other editor edits here [145] without discussing first.

And how do you say that this is adding false information [146]. They were talking about Kobani and about ISIS attack on Kobani being the bloodiest since its offensive began. Its obvious they are talking about Kobani offensive !--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It's the community who decide that an information is relevant or irrelevant to the article, not you alone! If in your opinion adding an irrevelant content is a fulse error, so why did you do the same here [147]? the totally unacceptable claim that you made which you claimed that the IP [148] is mine, shows that how unfounded your claims are (this can be proved by an easy IP check by the administrators). Why do you think that you are excluded to respect to the community's laws?-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Multi-gesture (talk • contribs) 23:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I added this [149] to show you that you need to stop writing that ISIS is led by Arabs which is totally irrelevant to what the article is talking about. However, I deleted the info after thinking that you calmed and understood that this isnt a forum for racist and biased people [150]. I was mistaken obviously. Anyway, its been more than 5 hours arguing with you and Im tired, let the admins decide because obviously we came to dead end.

Now, you are denying that the IP [151] is yours !!!! But you admited that it was you who removed those Info which are sourced by Kurdwatch [152]. Are you planning on sockpupetry ?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

If I added something that ISIS is led by Arabs it was based on CNBC website not my own! But what about the same claim yo added that the battle fo Kurdish city of Kobani was led by a Kurdish ISIS? You use every mean to prevent to growing a useful and natural article.--Multi-gesture (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

And how is it relevant to Rojava ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

OK I wait for the result. It's late at night and I must sleep. Bye.--Multi-gesture (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked this user indefinitely, as it's fairly obvious he's only hear to push an agenda. Not a single edit was in the least bit constructive; every single one was an obvious POV push, with most having an added element of blatant racism. We do not need to humor editors like that around here. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

---

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

User:A3HARIBACARDI

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.

---

Newly registered user: inappropriate behavior towards other editors in user talk pages.

• [153]
• [154]
• [155]

A new user who doesn't understand behavior policy yet nor any policy most likely. Can someone help? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Single warning issued with added comment. I would normally make an indeff block but let's see if this works. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Terre Haute Indiana IP vandal - Muppets vandalism continued

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.

---

Hiya, this is a continuation of this closed ANI report. Basically, a vandal who uses IPs geolocating to Terre Haute, Indiana, US and other Indiana cities is on a long-term campaign to disrupt articles related to the beloved Muppets. Kudpung was kind enough to protect a number of articles, but the user is back at a different IP (50.104.196.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) messing with the articles that were not protected. Kudpung didn't see egregious vandalism from this IP, but my argument was that the IP should be blocked per WP:REVERTBAN since they have been vandalizing Muppets-related articles for quite some time and are de facto not welcome here.

• This report demonstrates some, but not all, of the scope of the problem. I only started noting geolocations in my edit summaries late last year or so. Their disruptions are not limited to Muppets stuff, but they are focused on that subject.
• Though I know that blocks aren't punitive, the vandal continues to avoid virtually every standard we have for discussion, sourcing, etc. They have never discussed anything as far as I know, they never submit references, and there's no presumption that anything that comes out of these socks should be considered correct. It's just a distraction.
• Here, for instance, they keep submitting the same giant list of pointless Muppet cameos in spite of a number of other editors rejecting the content. Other examples of that same edit here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. That's a combination of POV/ownership/edit-warring/ignoring what the community wants and is absolutely disruptive. The persistent unsourced date changes are no better. Even if they hop IPs, they should be held to a basic standard, which they have never achieved. Thus, de facto banned. If you're still not convinced that this is the same person, please note the reported IP's unexplained removal of content here at Steve Whitmire (the puppeteer behind Kermit the Frog) and then some of the other removals here, here, here, here and you can probably continue the pattern.

So basically I'd like to get some clearance to treat this as a REVERTBAN/RBI situation so I can ask admins block the IPs on sight. It would also be nice to get some additional page protections on the articles that were most recently vandalized by 50.104.196.249. Thanks, and don't forget to change your mop water. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that this is a continuation of an even earlier ANI report, and in that one the IP was originally using a 50.104.200.xx address – is there anyway we can get some kind of rangeblock on 50.104.xx.xx here? Or will that cover too much territory for a rangeblock?... In any case, I support whatever it takes to stop this IP vandal once and for all... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for that ANI link, IJBall! They have also edited from 172.78.xx.xx range and 50.106.xx.xx. They tend to edit from Frontier Communications IPs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: Diannaa blocked the IP above for 36 hours. That's all well and good, but I'm with Cyphoidbomb that this is a more persistent problem, and I really think we may need to look at a rangeblock here (if it can't be done, it can't be done, but I'd at least like the possibility investigated...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• There's an opportunity for a range block at Range 50.104.192.0/19 (covers 8192 IP addresses). I have gone ahead and done that (blocked for 3 months).
• 172.78.98.129 is from a different range, and is currently blocked for 3 months. You say there's been other edits from this range, but a range block cannot be calculated from only one IP. We need at least two, and preferably more.
• 50.121.7.53 is from a different range, is not currently blocked, and was last used on June 24.
• 50.195.250.46 is from a different range, was last used in April, and is not currently blocked.
• I suggest you prepare a WP:LTA case file for this user. A combination of range blocks and article protection has been used effectively in the past. You can expect to get quick action on your posts at AIV if you have an LTA case page already in place. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Cleanup after a user 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.

---

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

After creating a blank article called "Deleted this article" and repeatedly contesting its deletion, Ranagolam has blanked another user's page and moved it to two different locations. I don't have the permission to move it back. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'll take care of it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see anything really blockable, just strange, so I just deleted the whole mess. The user page he blanked was basically an inappropriate userspace bio that hadn't been written by the user anyway. M's original userpage, the only real user involved here besides Rangolam, was deleted at user request in 2009. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd've just dismissed it as a user not knowing what they're doing, but the page creation has me leaving their contributions page open in another tab. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is it even possible for anyone to create a blank page? There's no possible good reason to create a page with nothing on it at all. Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I could see it being useful outside of article space (someone wants to get rid of their redlink username, but not actually wanting a userpage), but it would make some sense to have a filter preventing blank articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Cali11298

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.

---

Cali11298 is a edit-warrior, personal-attacker, and prolific socker who already has 45 confirmed socks to his name. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive: he has over 12 SPI cases with multiple sleepers found on almost every case.

He needs to be banned. I'm also sending an abuse report to Verizon as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esquivalience (talk • contribs) 23:03, 27 June 2015‎ (UTC)

I don't think complaining to the ISP has ever accomplished anything, but it would be great to hear a positive story. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Am I missing something? He appears to have been banned in April... what did I miss? Ogress _smash! 08:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• The place to propose a community ban is WP:AN, not WP:ANI (although we aren't usually slavish to it). I don't recommend it, but if you must, you need to do so in a proper format and such. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, he's already de facto banned anyway per the provisions of WP:BANBLOCKDIFF and WP:IAR (there is not a snowball's chance in hell that an admin would unblock), archive at will.Someone will yell WP:PII, moving to WP:AN. Esquivalience ^t 17:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Sylvain.nahas

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.

---

Sylvain.nahas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has no clue how the English Wikipedia works, can someone please help this person? Canvassing, removal of chunks of text from an AfD and so on, in definite need of guidance. Guy (Help!)

I think the explanations/advice by admin Guy should be enough for the time being. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess I (unwillingly) misbehaved! Kind like an elephant in a china shop. I apologize, and thank Guy for his understanding. I begin to perceive the complexity of it all, and assuming I'd like to learn these rules, I do not even know where to begin. Would you be kind enough to give some advices on that? Syl Syl 16:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sylvain.nahas: try Wikipedia:A primer for newcomers. JohnCD (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@JohnCD: Seems exactly to be what I needed! Thank you. Syl 22:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threats

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 [156] constitutes a clear legal threat, not against Wikipedia, but individuals at FBI, CIA, DOD and DHS. Whilst WP:NLT seems only to apply to legal threats against Wikipedia, I wasn't sure how to proceed. Seems they're WP:NOTHERE, as their talkpage is also a statement claiming to be to the United States Court of Appeals. Either they're very confused and think Wikipedia is affiliated with all these organisations, or they're WP:NOTHERE, and are trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for their legal threats against organisations. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

My interpretation is that he knows that Wikipedia is not affiliated with the US Government, and is using his sandbox and his talk page to what he perceives as great wrongs, in a way that is not in the scope of what Wikipedia is. However, this is really a matter for WMF Legal. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• It was a soapbox/webhost. Deleted sandbox, blanked talk page (note that user page was already deleted with same info), and indef blocked/no talk page for wp:nothere. Since it wasn't direct at enwp, contacting legal@ really isn't required, but you certainly can if you think it is best. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

WMF concluded that it was ranting. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Johnwest1999

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.

---

Johnwest1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Johnwest1999's common behavior includes:

• Continually drafting hoax articles on his userpage.
• Regularly running up to uw4-vandalism warnings, waiting a bit, and then removing them ([157], [158], [159]). Yes, it's his right to remove them, but people really need to check backlogs before starting over at uw1 again (why I avoided Twinkle for so long).
• Unsourced changes to various articles, despite repeated explanations and warnings not to.

Some highlights of his behavior include:

• Blanking a user's talk page archives for reverting the next edit
• Posting nonsense conspiracy theories about NASA trying to use time travel to rewrite episodes of My Little Pony (something this IP also did)
• Inserting errors at Delta III
• Citing the My Little Pony Wikia as a source on a Russian news station that went defunct in 1991 -- to justify this deletion
• Inserting more errors despite clear instructions not to at Canada
• Attempting to push one of the hoax articles he was drafting
• Blanking out a user's page after they warned him for edit warring (while making personal attacks) to vandalize an article
• More personal attacks
• More blanking user pages, for which he received final warnings

Can someone show me how his continued activity doesn't violate WP:NOTHERE? If he is here to improve the encyclopedia, the costs of keeping him prevents his less negative activity from being worthwhile. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

With the exception of his user page, can someone show me how his edits since coming off his last block are disruptive? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

None yet, but the block was for just the NASA/MLP bit and the talk archive blanking, not the totality of his (recurring) behavior. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• I kind of have to say that I do believe that a block will likely be inevitable here. It's kind of a question of how much WP:ROPE we want to give them before we block. I kind of see him continuing to work on his hoax userspace page as kind of a bad sign. In any case, we do have to let him screw up again before blocking him. It's kind of an antsy waiting game at this point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand that he's not going to be blocked right away, but there's still enough reason that the community could propose some other solution in case he decides to do his usual tactic of waiting until everyone forgets about him. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Like Tokyogirl79 says : WP:ROPE, In the meantime we can slap a CSD on his user page. Anyone like to do the honours? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Johnwest1999 has blanked this section here and here. Probably should be blocked for these actions alone. MarnetteD|Talk 11:20 am, Today (UTC−4)

• WP:ROPE has gone to work, as Johnwest1999 just vandalized the discussion about himself. [160] ~ Rob^Talk 15:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've blocked indef. Enough of this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well that was quick. J has been blocked by NeilN. MarnetteD|Talk 15:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Figura2000

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.

---

Figura2000 has made a number of moves to the page on the 2016 Olympic Stadium, now at Estádio Nilton Santos (Rio de Janeiro). The background is that one of the tenants, the football club Botafogo de Futebol e Regatas, has been allowed to refer to the stadium as Estádio Nilton Santos but the stadium remains officially the Estádio Olímpico Municipal João Havelange. According to the last two RMs, the consensus has been to call the article Estádio Olímpico João Havelange per common usage. Would I be right to revert to the previous page name without opening a new RM? Hack (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

There was a discussion at Talk:Estádio_Nilton_Santos_(Rio_de_Janeiro)#Requesting_move with a February close. There was protection which expired on May 20th but Figura2000 seems to have popped up in June and just moved the pages without any further discussion. Pages removed and locked, editor has been blocked for a block for 24 hours with a warning to knock it off or start another RM. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Newly created disruption-only accounts: urgent action 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.

---

AKHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), ILiriaALB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) share a typical disruptive pattern and continuously remove the alternative names in a limited number of articles. Seeing that their target articles are mostly the same ones it appears that both of the accounts are involved in some short of meatpuppetry, not to mention they were both created the very same day (June 20). It appears that indef blocks can't be avoided in this case, since they avoid any kind of talkpage participation and continue this kind of activity.Alexikoua (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Both are  Confirmed socks of one another and have been indefinitely blocked. Best, Tiptoety ^talk 06:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Gial Ackbar

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

---

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Gial Ackbar's behavior is going wrong. I would mind banning him from the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwest1999 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The reporter is trying to get revange that I reported him for vandalism once. Please bann him. Gial Ackbar (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks and threats from Tarc

Going nowhere. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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

---

This is too much (diff 1). Its threatening edit summary is: "no YOU did not remove it, I DID. If you wish to participate in this discussio then by all means do so, but you will cease tagging my comments in any way, shape, or form. Immediately."
Fact is I did remove it (diff 2); Tarc did not remove it. (Where "it" is a personal attack by Tarc on Coretheapple.) it followed on the heels of
this (diff). I commented on its threatening edit summary, and Tarc replied flippantly here (permalink to short section of talk:Tarc), stating that he ignores all tag-based warnings about policy violations!!!

Did I do something wrong in the way I removed the personal attack (diff 2 above), or corrected misinformation, reiterating that I removed the personal attack (diff). Tarc reverted that reiteration note (diff 1 above) and I have decided not to restore it because I feel threatened, but ask that my note be restored)

Admins:

• Please confirm/refute that I removed a personal attack by Tarc on User:Coretheapple
  
• Please consider enforcement action regarding the policies Tarc was recently warned about, including WP:CIVIL (diff), WP:NPA (diff) , WP:OWN (diff) - by User:Dennis Bratland, and WP:EW (diff).

Why keep around a user who is this much trouble for the project?--Elvey^(t•c) 18:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC) I wasn't aware that Tarc was brought to ANI a few days ago, or that a restriction keeps Tarc from participating ANI in some cases, or of his extensive interactions with the ArbCom noted just below. How can I determine what restrictions Tarc is under? Is there a single place to find that info?--Elvey^(t•c) 21:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, this user has engaged in edit warring (e.g., [161][162][163][164]) and battleground conduct (e.g., [165], [166], [167], [168]). Tarc has already been sanctioned in three previous cases (Feb 2012, Oct 2013, Oct 2014 Oct 2014), according to ArbCom (11 ArbCom members) in January. Marc was "strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee", was topic-banned indefinitely, and was blocked for 3 days (AE) for violating that ban in February. (diff). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talk • contribs)

I would rather be left alone, to be perfectly honest, and the claim of "threats" is 100% horseshit, and ther ewere no personal attacks aimed at Elvey either. Yes, I said something untowards last night to Coretheapple, then the OP above left a templated message which I removed unread as I usually do, Wp:DNFTT and all. The next day, today, OP removes my message entirely. I reverted that BUT redacted the problematic portion, and that should have been the end of it. But this person (who was not involved at all in the discussion) seems intent on claiming some sort of brownie point by my post "redacted by Elvey". I removed that, and warned the user on my talk page thread to knock it off.

Let's observe here that neither the recipient of my now-regrettable remark nor anyone else in the discussion saw it as so egregious as to warrant redaction, only one if I recall observed that it was sub-optimal. I don't take kindly to drive-by busybodies, and the fact that I then struck my own comment realy renders this moot. 2 meritless ANIs in several days is 2 more than I care to deal with. Tarc (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

First, why is Coretheapple not bringing this request? Second, where are the personal attacks and threats alleged here? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I already provided links that clearly identify edits that evidence the personal attack and threats in my OP. What evidence are you disputing? this, Ed? Coretheapple thanked me for warning Tarc regarding his personal attack. That should be more than enough. Ed, again I ask you: please admit or deny that I removed a personal attack by Tarc on User:Coretheapple, with diff 2 above. Or, Ed, are you saying it'd be completely civil if I were to say that you (or another user): can't "control your wiki-hardon"? It's tantamount to a wiki-rape accusation. FS.--Elvey^(t•c) 20:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello? Ed? --Elvey^(t•c) 20:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello? Ed? --Elvey^(t•c) 05:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@ User:Elvey, yes it makes it much worse that he contributes bugger all to content too. Unfortunately wikipedia is full of people like him. Perhaps then Tarc if you find two ANI posts on you in two days intolerable you should either change your attitude or kindly leave and do us all a favour.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep, this is the ANI I remember not-so-fondly; it's like that scene in Airplane! when everyone with a beef lines up to slap, stab, hang, shoot, etc...the hysterical passenger. Tarc (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you picked a bad day to stop sniffing glue. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Wait, there was an ANI you remembered fondly then? ;-) @Elvey, Still waiting for a reply to my question above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to know why Coretheapple isn't bringing this, and what on earth it's got to do with the OP. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Elvey: In my mind, re-factoring the talk page comment to begin with was fine, but edit-warring to keep your admonishment in after Tarc cleaned it up is insane. Just drop it. HiDrNick! 19:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Tarc's incivility has been a long-term issue. With the edit summary search tool you can see he frequently feels the need to use profanities even in edit summaries. But being rude and dropping some f-bombs every once in a while is not actionable because the behauvior is rarely looked as a whole (a bit like DangerousPanda until the ArbCom case). So nothing will be done unless you'd go on a full incivility rampage, at the current pace it will always be looked through one's fingers, but I think it's pretty clear it's too much to ask that Tarc would behave like a normal person. --Pudeo' 19:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting tool, but it keeps timing out, isn't there something up with the wmflabs and toolservers lately? Anyways, I have made a conscious though not always successful effort to lessen the naughty bits in edit summaries, so if one looks at my last 9,999 contribs (seemed like a fun number), there are 6 f-bombs and 4 s-bombs in nearly 2 years. Not terrible for a salty old man. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• This edit summary and the content of the edit is what people are talking about here, and yes Tarc should be sanctioned for it if anyone gives a damn about NPA. No one told me about this ANI thread, and it would have been nice if I'd have been pinged or something. Coretheapple (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone provide even a smidgen of a clue as to what any on this has to do with writing an online encyclopaedia? If not, I suggest this thread be summarily closed per WP:NOBODYGIVESA%@#&. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, because comity and mutual respect are the underpinnings of the collegial atmosphere that we cherish at Wikipedia. Sorry, just joking. Look, I didn't bring this ANI thread, even though I am the "victim" because I expected such a dismissive "how dare you waste our time" reaction. The fact is, we don't care about NPA. Coretheapple (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, why didn't you complain at the time? Or any of the other participants? I think you're way way too overzealous in regards to anything to do with the Wikipediocracy, but I should not have expressed that sentiment in such a crude manner. It's been struck, and I apologize. Tarc (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I was more overwhelmed by the nonsensical character of your argument, and as indicated by this thread NPA doesn't amount to a hill of beans on Wikipedia. As for Wikipediocracy, you're confusing two things: the problem is COI, and the COI surrounding both the Wikipediocracy article itself and articles that concern its regulars. In particular, I am concerned by administrators and even a checkuser disregarding COI when their Wikipediocracy buddies are involved. But your apology is accepted and good day to you. Coretheapple (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the issue of a templated message (re. NPA) which Tarc (proudly) removed unread, on top of the rest, ought to be given admin attention; there's a reason DTTR is just an essay, along with TTR. Addressing his attempt to give the false impression (and separately, explicitly make the false claim) that I did NOT remove it (Where, again, "it" is a personal attack by Tarc on Coretheapple) but he DID is not edit warring or 'insane' (and calling it insane is hardly civil, User:DrNick), but sure, I could have let it slide. But, to use his colorful language: His claim that I did NOT remove it but he DID is "100% horseshit" as the diffs clearly show. If this closes with no action I'll start an RFC to delete WP:NPA. I think User:Coretheapple pings you via notifications. No? Glad you made it anyway. --Elvey^(t•c) 20:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll start an RFC to delete WP:NPA.... What are you talking about? It is already gone, that's the whole point here. Tarc (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

1. You shouldn't have made the personal attack. But you did.
2. You should have removed it after I specifically warned you in a personalized message on your talk page by writing :This is a personal attack on User:Coretheapple: "You on the other hand can't control your wiki-hardon". But you didn't. Instead you removed it, unread. How 'bout an apology or agreement that one should not delete such talk page comments unread, but rather WP:AGF and so take them seriously?
3. You shouldn't have falsely claimed that I didn't remove the personal attack after I had exactly that. But you did. Several times. And you still haven't acknowledged doing so or apologized to me.
4. Please consider striking your implicit accusation on your talk page that I'm a troll. (the reference to WP:DNTTR). Since WP:NPA is policy and all.

It's taken ~35 further edits by a multitude of users before you even apologized for what's tantamount to a wiki-rape accusation against another user. I'm glad that you finally did so; a good start. Kudos. But something that addresses the bulk of the big issues is warranted as well. --Elvey^(t•c) 21:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Elvey, the "wiki-rape" shtick is so outrageously hyperbolic and offensive, you may want to be wary of a WP:BOOMERANG here. My comment used a crude metaphor for sex, it had nothing to do with sex itself. My primary objection to your meddling was that you reverted the entire post; the post was 2 sentences, 1 benign and 1 bad. You have no sense of proportion here or the ability to mediate or handle any sort of dispute whatsoever, and the only reason I offered an apology was that Apple indicated he found it offensive. You had no influence in that outcome. Now, let's move on. Tarc (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

How else should one understand "You on the other hand can't control your wiki-hardon"? What could one be doing with an uncontrolled "wiki-hardon" that harmed other editors but was NOT wiki-rape? --Elvey^(t•c) 05:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Again, you should have removed it after I specifically warned you in a personalized message on your talk page by writing :This is a personal attack on User:Coretheapple: "You on the other hand can't control your wiki-hardon". But you didn't. Instead you removed it, unread. I ask for apology or agreement that one should not delete such talk page comments unread, but rather WP:AGF and so take them seriously.
2. Again, you shouldn't have falsely claimed that I didn't remove the personal attack after I had exactly that. But you did. Several times. And you still haven't acknowledged doing so or apologized to me.
3. Again, please consider striking your implicit accusation on your talk page that I'm a troll. (the reference to WP:DNTTR). Since WP:NPA is policy and all. Do I have to suck up that personal attack? Why? I knew that Coretheapple found it offensive which is why I persisted after you minimized and got defensive instead of apologizing. Then he indicated here that he found it offensive, and you finally apologized to Coretheapple.

Admins: please consider how Tarc responds to these requests, as well as the sympathetic comments by Pudeo, and User:Dr. Blofeld. --Elvey^(t•c) 05:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I see Ed just closed the discussion. Shouldn't an involved editor not be closing a discussion? That's my recollection of policy. Yet, Ed commented earlier in this thread. --Elvey^(t•c) 05:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Some general thoughts: clearly, Tarc, you're verbose. Use that instead of cheap shots like "wiki-hardon." Elvey, I've closed this thread. I've only made administrative comments here, and I'm nowhere near being involved. No action is going to be taken, so drop the stick. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ed, Still waiting for a reply to my questions to you, far above. No objections if an uninvolved editor closes the thread, preferably after Ed actually replies to my questions, which I asked after Ed pestered me to reply to questions answered in th OP. --Elvey^(t•c) 06:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ed's closure

It's reasonable for me to expect Ed to answer the reasonable questions I posed to him above, e.g. "Ed, are you saying it'd be completely civil if I were to say that you (or another user): can't "control your wiki-hardon"?" rather than close the discussion without doing so. We in fact have policy that says it's reasonable to expect users to answer reasonable questions posed to them. With 3 or 4 users seeing a need for action, and the unanswered questions, and the involvement of the closer in the discussions, the close seems premature. --Elvey^(t•c) 02:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• You got an answer to your questions after you pestered Ed for them on his talk page, and it is obvious that no action is going to be taken against Tarc here. You seriously need to drop the stick and move on. Reyk _YO! 07:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Repeated addition of unsourced POV and unsourced/unexplained changes after prior block for same.

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.

---

79.106.15.112 – previously blocked for POV on films and other unsourced changes. More of the same. Editor's prior block on June 14 (via AIV) was for unsourced POV in various film articles[169][170][171][172] and a few unsourced numerical changes.[173] Since the block, it is more of the same.[174][175][176][177]

Request for new block at AIV rejected as "not vandalism". Are we no longer using AIV for instances of clear disruption that are not "vandalism"? - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging NeilN who placed the original block. You may find more success contacting the admin directly in cases of obvious repeat vandalism after a block. Ivanvector (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Blocked again. I warned the user during their last block that "adhering to Wikipedia's Verifiability policy is not optional." Not acknowledging the concerns of multiple other editors is also problematic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Date-changing IP is back

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.

---

75.115.201.17, an IP that has been known for making unsourced changes to the release dates of songs and albums, and previously been blocked for such edits, is back and making the exact same kinds of disruptive edits again. They have been warned about this many times in the past, and as I said, also been blocked for it, so this time, I feel that the best option is simply to block them again right away. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Augenblink and User:Augenblinkauch edit warring and block evasion

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:Augenblink was recently blocked for edit warring and block evasion at MigrationWatch UK, where they were inserting unsourced material against consensus and then reverting its removal with the edit summary "fixing vandalism". They have indicated on their talk page that "I can only continue to do the right thing myself by repairing vandalism whenever/however I am able to". User:Augenblinkauch has now appeared, and has resumed the same behaviour. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• There has been no "edit warring", merely acts of vandalism that I have repeatedly repaired. As long as User:Cordless Larry chooses to continue to vandalise that entry, I will continue to do anything I can to fix it. To allow his deliberate and repeated vandalism would be a serious breach of ethics. Augenblinkauch (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• They're at 3RR now, edit warring against consensus established on the talk page. Mr Potto (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, you seem confused. Please read WP:3RR. I am repairing obvious acts of vandalism, 3RR does not apply. Augenblinkauch (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Literally no one agrees with you on that, this has been discussed at length on your original talk page and the article's talk page, you're just blatantly ignoring what everyone else is saying and multiple people have reverted your edits. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I cannot control whether you agree or not. If you are comfortable abetting these acts of vandalism, that is your prerogative. I, however, will continue to do whatever I can to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia in this small measure. Augenblinkauch (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
        • It's not vandalism, get it through your thick skull already. You're wasting everyone's time. Your rhetoric about Wikipedia's integrity etc is just an excuse to push in your edit against overwhelming consensus. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Since this user clearly has no intention of heeding warnings or blocks, can we come up with a more sustainable solution to prevent them from editing adding unsourced material to the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Self-confessed sock used for WP:BLOCKEVASION. Revert, block, ignore. PC requested for page at WP:RPP. Keri (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• I have blocked Augenblinkauch as an obvious sock of Augenblink. -- GB fan 10:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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

threats by another editor

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

---

I am being threatened and libelled by Igetwet. So is Philip Cross. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alarics&diff=669318278&oldid=669317261 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philip_Cross&diff=669303627&oldid=669163723 -- Alarics (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say that Igetwet needs to be blocked for making legal threats, but I'm not an admin. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Igetwet has been blocked for making legal threats as they have said they reported two different editors to the police. I accidentally first blocked Alarics, but have rectified that and apologized. -- GB fan 12:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not an admin either. But those were particularly nasty legal threats. I'm also notifying WP:BLPN for more eyes on the article Leon Brittan. The blocked editor (who may not go quietly) was also faking references. The latest material he added to the article was partly redundant and what was "new information" was not remotely supported by the reference. Voceditenore (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Apologies for commenting after the close, but might I suggest a revocation of TP access for this? Blackmane (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Antifeminism

I've been trying to improve the Antifeminism article, because I think the current one is very bad for many reasons (it's very biased in tone, it doesn't accurately reflect its sources, and it's sloppy in general). There has been a huge resistance to this from a few editors though, who clearly want to leave the article in its current state, are unwilling to work cooperatively, and instead dismiss all criticism I have of it as original research, which lacks sources. Now I've tried to explain to them repeatedly that I disagree with this, because the criticism I had was criticism of the article, not of which information it should contain, or which sources it should use. They completely ignore this though, and instead keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

Now I've been trying to assume good faith, and kept assuming that they were misreading what I wrote, but it's getting so weird that it's becoming really difficult to maintain this. See this thread [[178]], and especially Fyddlestix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) second reply. The section was about something I removed, because it was unsourced, but which got reverted back. I tried to discuss this, and explain why it wasn't supported by the sources, but instead they went on pretending that I was trying to add information, which wasn't supported by sources. There's just no way that such a reply can be made in good faith to the what I wrote above it. It's becoming clear enough that they're just intentionally being impossible, probably either to frustrate me to a point where I would give up, or provoke me into questioning their intelligence, so that they can block me over personal attacks.Didaev (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be basically a content dispute, although it may be complicated by stubbornness and incivility. I suggest that you ask for formal mediation. A mediator may be able to get the parties to explain and work on their differences. If the other editors do not agree to formal mediation, then the next step for dealing with conduct issues would be Arbitration Enforcement under the gender-related sanctions under WP:ARBGG. But I suggest that mediation be tried. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I see this less as a content dispute and more as a problem of disruptive editing on Diadaev's part. This user has been lobbying for changes to the article on Antifeminism for a couple of weeks, but their talk page posts are based on their own subjective opinions & reasoning, rather than on RS (this is probably the worst example). They've been prodded for sources and asked to stop making subjective arguments several times, and they've been given a formal warning for failure to cite sources and disruptive editing.

In the comment Didaev refers to above, I was simply trying to impress upon them the importance of citing sources - I was hoping that engaging with some sources might refocus the conversation and make it less subjective. But Diadev has chosen to raise the matter here rather than do that. So I don't see how mediation is going to help unless Didaev is willing to make some sourced, non-subjective arguments. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

On the one hand, a mediator would insist on citing sources. On the other hand, if User:Didaev is ignoring advice to cite sources, then that may be good-faith editing that is nonetheless disruptive editing. If this is seen as a conduct dispute, it is my experience that Arbitration Enforcement works more efficiently than this noticeboard. Has Didaev been notified of gender-related discretionary sanctions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point, it looks like they hadn't been warned about the DS. I added the warning just now. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Surely Didaev is editing in good faith, but unfortunately is still not getting the point about how all of our work on the article must be based on the summarization of reliable sources. Didaev is offering criticisms of the article which are personal criticisms. This is not helping the situation at all. What is needed is for Didaev to refer to reliable published sources when making arguments about what to change in the antifeminism article. Until that happens there's not much influence that Didaev can have on the article. Lacking any leverage based on what is found in the literature, the talk page complaints by Didaev are ultimately disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the 'reliable source' doctrine is being abused here to skew the page towards a particular point of view. On the original discussion page, Binksternet et. al. have explicitly stated their belief that the only valid sources of information about "antifeminism" are feminist scholars. This must lead to a one-sided characterization. JudahH (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a fair characterization - as far as I've seen, no one has argued that feminist scholars are "the only valid sources of information" about anti-feminism. Rather, they've argued that there just isn't all that much (or any) academic literature about antifeminism itself that takes a "pro" antifeminist perspective. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• JudahH, that's a load of bollocks and you likely know it. You are misrepresenting the opinions of Binkster&co, and doing so badly, both here and elsewhere, to the point that my ability to AGF is rather stretched. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Try not to view everything through biased glasses, Kevin. If you're finding it hard to assume good faith, it's probably because you started out assuming bad faith instead. I've been polite and constructive in my (attempted) contributions to that article; just because I don't share your politics doesn't mean I'm trying to vandalize the page.

Here's a direct quotation if you need one: "Feminist scholars are a very highly respected source of information. Scholars in general are what we look for when a topic is difficult to define. There's no problem with referencing feminist scholars who are in fact the ones who study antifeminism the most. Basically, the only scholars of antifeminism are feminist scholars."

Premise 1: Scholars are what we look for as sources a topic such as this, in preference to other sources.

Premise 2: Only feminist scholars on this topic exist.

Conclusion: We look for feminist scholars as sources on this topic, in preference to other sources.

Whether the reasons for preferring "scholars" are sound or not, the outcome to relying primarily on them given these premises is an article written from a single point of view, rather than a balanced one.JudahH (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Your logic is faulty. The conclusion is not that feminist scholars are looked for in preference to other sources. We do look for scholars in preference to other sources generally speaking, and it is the case that a majority of scholars and other high quality sources writing about antifeminism do so from a pro-feminist standpoint. That is not at all necessarily a problem. Wikipedia doesn't shoot for some sort of vacuum point of view. If a majority of high quality sources about a subject reflect a certain perspective, than a properly written Wikipedia is likely to as well. That's a feature, not a bug. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The conclusion in this particular case is that feminist scholars are looked for in preference to non-feminist sources—perhaps not because they're feminist, but the outcome remains the same. Re this being a feature, I respectfully disagree with you. If all of the sources used on a topic reflect a particular perspective, even if they are high-quality sources, the article is skewed because there are high-quality sources on one perspective but no sources for the other perspective. Rather, we should represent both perspectives from the best sources available. I further disagree that academic sources are necessarily better than primary sources—i.e. people's direct characterizations of their ideologies in their own words, but that's the less important point, I think. JudahH (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You may disagree with it, but it is explicitly a feature of Wikipedia. Our articles are intended to "represent.. fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Further policies emphasize that in doing so, we should consider the quality of a source, and avoid giving equal validity to all apparent viewpoints. You might disagree with any of these things, but they are all long established features of Wikipedia. Wikipedia, as a project rejected the idea of sympathetic point of view long long ago. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This is what I mean by "abuse" of Wikipedia's policies—maybe I should look for a more neutral word than that, but the claim that the only sources of significance on a political topic are the ones from a particular side basically favors one viewpoint over the other. This is not a neutral point of view. You sound like you're comparing one whole side of a political debate to "flat earthers" or something. Again, there's a vast difference between the opinions of academic scientists on a topic of science and the opinions of academic feminists about the views held by their opponents. The whole point of NPOV, as I've understood it is that when it comes to divisive issues that editors can't come to consensus about, the fairest approach is to give and source the views of both sides, and let the reader draw his conclusions. Not to refuse to even offer the viewpoint of one side on the pretense that it has never been described by so-called "valid" sources. JudahH (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

There's the issue of whether academic sources exist on the other side, see WP:GEVAL. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see this comment when I added the two paragraphs below, but the first one was basically addressing your point, Ian. I see a fundamental difference between more or less objective questions of science or fact, where it's reasonable to give academics the authority, and questions of people's political views, where subjectivity reigns, and being an academic doesn't mean that one should be the only source used to characterize political views that he disagrees with. I would add, that this is a case where using primary sources would be entirely reasonable, I believe, as no inferences need to be drawn from them—simply the statement that "such and such political group describes its aims so and so". JudahH (talk) 05:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

edit: I should add that there's a difference, IMO, between an article about, say, some contested fact of science, where the academic perspective can be reasonably assumed to generally have more validity than the less academic ones, and an article about people's political views, where being an academic does not make one more of an authority on the opinions of some group of people than belonging to that group.

I should also add that I'm not editing in bad faith here, and I believe that as long as we clarify what we're talking about, we can come to a consensus that everyone is happy with. As I just commented on that article's talk page, I believe that the root reason this article has been provoking such strong opinions is that it currently covers entire ranges of ideologies (antifeminism, and, by implication, feminism) as if they were a single, even an organized ideology. This gives rise to misleading implications about both sides.

Respectfully yours, JudahH (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Didaev is a new user and an 100% single purpose account — they've edited only Antifeminism and its talkpage. It does look like they've come here to right great wrongs, and I will consider a topic ban if they should persist with their agenda to the point of disrupting the talkpage. However, there's no need for anything like that yet, as they haven't edited since receiving the discretionary sanctions alert. Perhaps they're thinking about it and will return more willing to listen to experienced editors. Well, see the optimist's guide to Wikipedia, I suppose, but it never hurts to assume the best, especially of new users. Bishonen | talk 12:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC).

Personal attack by User:Khaleejian against User:Elspamo4

User:Khaleejian called User:Elspamo4 "spammer" (in reference to his username) and "too butthurt" here in response to a completely legitimate action by User:Elspamo4. User:Khaleejian also previously renamed the same page to a more POV name[179] without even mentioning it on the talk page, let alone creating consensus for it.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• In the defense of the page move, it looks like Murbarak the Great is a nickname/title that's used (see this article at Britannica.com, although it's not the common name and as such the article should remain at Mubarak Al-Sabah. I've left him a warning on his userpage about responding with hostility. If he does anything else that's hostile then I'd recommend a cautionary block, depending on how he responds or acts. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• I've also asked that he not move any pages without trying to get a consensus, mostly because he's a new user and because sometimes pages are under specific names for specific reasons. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks. The page move I was referring to was of "Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen" to "Saudi Arabia-led war on Yemen", though it is correct he also moved Mubarak Al-Sabah.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Ahh... that would definitely explain the POV move. It looks like there's still a redirect so if nobody objects I'll delete this. I'll give it a few minutes to make sure that nobody minds before doing this, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've deleted it since it was a POV move and nobody has voiced any reason here for it to remain as a redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• It is definitely worth keeping an eye on Khaleejian's edits. He has made some very questionable edits, some of which could be seen as disruptive and some of which are POV-pushing. In my view, this instance of incivility is overshadowed by his inappropriate article contributions. Elspamo4 (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• FYI he's also began Project Pages on Wikipedia:WikiProject Islamic State (ISIS) and Wikipedia:WikiProject East Turkestan Islamic Movement. I can see the ISIL one being worthy considering the traffic, sensitive information and related pages, but ETIM? There isn't even a project page for East Turkestan or Xinjiang.... Of course, I only know he founded these because I looked at his user page, making me a "sad person with too much time on their hands." —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  I'd like to note that neither project was approved by the council. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't look like he's done much work on them but make userboxes to stick ok his userpage. He also wants to rename the ISIL article to Islamic State (despite recent failed rename proposal). —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Might this be outing [180]193.79.181.104 (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Which forum is this and where can I join? J/K —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Original research

Per this previous discussion, User:Medgirl131 has been notified that changing and creating new navboxes with the suffixes "oidics" or "ergics" is in many cases original research and confuses readers because these terms do not exist in the scientific literature. Despite these cautions communicated both through talk pages (diff) and private e-mail (withheld for obvious reasons), Medgirl131 continues to create new navboxes such as {{Prostanoidergics}} that until this navbox was created, the term Prostanoidergics was completely unknown. Compounding the problem is that Medgirl131 refuses to gain consensus on the appropriate talk pages such as Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology before these edits. It is Medgirl131 right not to communicate on talk pages. However if Medgirl131 wishes to add controversial navboxes to a large number of articles, IMHO Medgirl131 should be required to obtain consensus at the appropriate project talk page before making these edits. I am sympathetic to Medgirl131 privacy concerns and I am willing act as a mediator via private e-mail to to determine if there is community consensus for these proposed edits. Boghog (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I am sympathetic also. We have a lot of people making up new terms for Wikipedia and we try to curb this. This user contributes good content to Wikipedia. I expect that this person knows the rules, knows how to engage in discussion, knows why this notice is being posted here, and can anticipate the likely outcome of coining new terms without providing justification. I would comment on any proposal justifying these names. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour of User:Rolandi+

• User: Rolandi+ (talk · contribs)

Continously disruptive editing. The user refuses to discuss in a civil manner or contribute to the project.

• Without discussion, editing the infobox of Balšić noble family, changing the contemporary and historiographical view of the family (notability), that instead of Serbian, they were Albanian. There is a section regarding theories on their origin, and a discussion at the talk page.

• Without discussion, editing the introduction of Souliotes, changing the contemporary and historiographical view of the tribe (notability), that instead of Greek, they were Albanian. There is a section regarding theories on their origin, and a discussion at the talk page. Rolandi+ opened a dispute discussion about the article, which is very confusing.

• Without discussion, removing a reference of Kosovo Serbs, on the basis that "not reliable source, doesn't mention kosovo with its official name" and "Nacionalist media is not reliable source, doesn't mention kosovo with its official name .It has also comments ,so it is just a blog.There are some nacionalist comments that makes it clear that it isn't a serious Source." the reference uses Kosovo i Metohija.

The user has been warned countless times. He makes inappropriate comments such as I don't care about your stupid boycott ,I just see the sources, maybe you don't know how to use your eyes, so stop your foolish editings, where did your learn that ?or maybe you are the Master of Universe?, you are afraid of anti-serbians....I would like to be your friend as you make me laugh so much ... just for their fun?You are so ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!, MAYBE YOU NEED TO GO AND READ THE ARTICLE.IT SAYS: Also, I have reasons to believe that AlbertBikaj (talk · contribs) and Rolandi+ (talk · contribs) are the same person, based on scope, spellings and punctuation marks.--Zoupan 13:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I was new here (now I have 4 days here) so I didn't know that I had to use the talk pages.After I was warned , I have ALWAYS used the talk pages of the articles or user's talk pages.(you can see that).After I was informed,I haven't edit anything at "Balsic family" "Souliotes" (I have used only the talk page after that.Actually without consensus at the talk page,Zoupan deleted from the "Souliotes" some informations +references that were on the article since a long time---I have asked for independent help at the relevant notice board. ) Zoupan also claimed "8,000–12,000" here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Serbs .When I asked him to provide references ,he provided some references that didn't say the same thing he claimed (so he lied with his references). He says that I deleted a "referenced" source.I used the talk page to explain him that the used reference was not serious (so it is not reliable).The web page referred to kosovo as "Kosovo +Metohija" which is not its official name.The most important thing that makes it clear that it is not a serious media are the comments.There are many nacionalist comments (that a serious+reliable media doesn't allow ) such as "Ramush Haradinaj+Hashim Thaci are killers etc "/ "we will never return to Kosovo dialogue" etc. After we hadn't an agreement about "Balsic family " and "Kosovo serbs" ,he started claiming at the Souliotes' talk page that my references weren't correct.He wanted from me to answear his questions (he made these things only to "revenge" against me as I didn't have the same thoughts with him about some serbian related informations.).He also said that he had references where he based his claims.I asked him twice to provide his references at the talk page but he didn't (he lied again).Also he said to me that he would made edits at some albanian related pages (about the albanian nobility--He obviously wanted only to "revenge" ).---For all of these please see our talk pages and the mentioned articles' talk pages. As for my "inappropriate comments" I am ready to be more carefull in the future. He also said that he believes I am a sockpuppet.Actually ,he can investigate about that.Albert Bikaj is obviously "albanian" so it's normal for two albanians to edit albanian related pages.I am sure that Zoupan is the "same" person with other serb editors based on scope,spellings and punctuation marks.As I said :Zoupan thinks I am a sockpuppet and he can investigate about that. Rolandi+ (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm a liar and avenger? Okay. Please do take a look at the talk pages, because this is getting tiresome. Note that the user has made 8 edits to the above comment, with one timestamp.--Zoupan 20:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It is true that I did 8 edits to the above comment, with one timestamp.However ,this doesn't mean that my words aren't true about you.As I said the other editors can see our talk pages and the mentioned articles' talk pages.And don't continue adding "Ottoman greeks" at the souliotes' article without our consensus .Rolandi+ (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This disruptive pattern is still in full motion, while blind reverting appears a typical strategy for the promotion of a national pov. I've left a last warning in Rolandi's talkpage.Alexikoua (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he is still continuing his behaviour. He removed my referenced edits with the comments "no consensus-use the talk page", I then reverted his removal, with the comment "rev undiscussed removal, use talk page", upon which he reverted once again with the comment "Use the talk page as your references and edits aren't reliable.I don't have why to use the talk page as I am just deleteing your Unreliable edits."--Zoupan 18:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Zoupan continue deleting all my edits and references.(for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmed_Pasha_Bushati ).He deleted my references and said that I had to provide references.And this isn't the first time!Alexikoua also continue deleting my referenced edits by saying that they aren't decent .This here for example (Danişmend (1971), p. 41 ) is used hundreads of time at many articles (for example : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ottoman_Grand_Viziers ).If they delete my references because they are "decent and without consensus ",this means thatsome of their references also can be deleted. ( Zoupan uses mostly serb references that are actually unreliable.They consider all balkanik people as "serbs" .He also uses serb blogs as reliable references. )Also I want tou to prevent Zoupan and Alexikoua from leaving me warnings.If I do something bad ,I want warnings from other administrators. Rolandi+ (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yet disruption is spread to a variety of articles with the same national-pov advocacy pattern: for example Markos Botsaris [[181]], Kitsos Tzavellas [[182]]. In both cases being eager to change the nationality without even with intenionally wrong edit summaries (labelling as "minor change" a change in the nationality at 1st line of the lede).Alexikoua (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes Alexikoua ,the "souliotes" has been sent to the revelant dispute resolution noticeboard.See the talk page also.There is no consensus that souliotes were greeks .You continue reporting me only to ban me because we don't have the same thoughts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zoupan#Don.27t_delete_my_references .Maybe you think you are very intelligent or you are the Master of Universe,maybe you think you will ban me forever ,this is and will not be true.And if I will be banned ,don't worry ,you can't change the history,you can't change nothing as you are only ,but only a little ridiculous man.As Zoupan said ,Wikipedia isn't a reliable source , and this because there are people like you .Nobody takes your edits as serious ,there are books and other references where people read about nations and cultures ,nobody believes your lies.So go ahead and ban me , ban me if you can.And if you manage to ban me ,I will turn back (without sockpuppetery )here.And I will not comment at this talk page anymore ,because only people like you can be part of ridiculous things.Goodbye my little dear Alexikoua. As for Zoupan ,please Don't wake him up from his dreams. Rolandi+ (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolandi+ (talk • contribs)

Owning issue with another editor, Part 2

Moved from WP:AN ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

In followup to this report, Gabrielkat has continued their owning on The Bold and the Beautiful and continues to revert my edits, has made ZERO attempt to discuss this issue with me properly and per Adjwilley I am to notify of this issue happening once more. This user is clearly interested in being the only editor to update the episode count, and is unwilling to co-edit, which shows severe signs of owning the page. User returned to reverting my edit (see here) to only replace it seconds later with their own (see here). I am requesting that this editor be held responsible for their irresponsible editing patterns. User was issued a notice by Adjwilley about this issue, and they chose to neither respond nor attempt to resolve the matter; instead, they're choosing to continue their editing behaviors. In turn, user also uses the same exact edit summary as I use, therefore it's even more suspect that they are editing this way to bait a potential edit-war out of this situation. They are clearly not here to edit cohesively in a community forum. User previously also admitted that they want to update the episode count by stating "Let me update the weekly episode count" as I noted in my previous filing, which shows they are still exhibiting the same pattern of behavior. And upon adding the AN-notice on their page, it was immediately removed, which shows they are not interested in acting in a civil manner with other editors. User is now attempting to do all soaps (see here), which is fine, but their edit to General Hospital is in violation of the consensus at the soap project, which states that it must be done once an episode has completed airing. I see this as an attempt of the editor using this as an attack against myself as an editor, as they've also ignored this ANI-notice. It is alarming that this behavior is continued to be acceptable to Wikipedia and its administration. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 18:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm kind of on break at the moment and haven't had time to review all the edits, but I did notice that at The Bold and the Beautiful article, User:Gabrielkat seems to have stopped reverting and then re-instating others' edits until last week, and then when they did, they self-reverted to the old edit count. This to me suggests a one time slip-up, rather than bad faith continuation of the disruptive behavior, though it's hard to tell when the user refuses to communicate. However, I have not had time to review the other diffs brought by User:livelikemusic. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Based on Adjwilley's comments and my own observations, I've issued a final warning to him, making it perfectly clear that if he does this again, he will be blocked. This is the last bit of rope he will likely see with this. Reverting edits and then adding them back as your own, I find that particularly offensive and inconsistent with our goals at Wikipedia, and I think I made that clear on his talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Adjwilley and Dennis Brown: I appreciate the moving to ANI, I hadn't noticed it wasn't there in the first place. My apologies; should have paid a bit more attention to the exact noticeboard I was posting. I hope that their final warning, despite their inability to communicate between editors and their insistent reverting of anything I leave on their talk page. I only hope this is a one-time slipup on their behalf, and that the final warning issued by Dennis Brown works out in the end. And I only hope they do not add in the information prior to the episode's completed airing (such as they did at General Hospital). Should the behavior arise again, should I re-open on ANI or report to one of you? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• You can ping either or both of us, with diff linking back. One like this: [183] should be enough to job our memories. If we don't respond in 24 hours (we do have day jobs and such) then you can file again or ask another uninvolved admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Excellent. Again, thank you to both you and Adjwilley for your assistance on this issue, as we all strive to keep with the goals of Wikipedia. (: livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring Natg 19

Natg 19 has ignored wikipedias threevert rule and is edit warring among pages of players drafted in the 2015 NVA Draft. Among the pages are Larry Nance Jr. and Rondae Hollis-Jefferson. Although it has been pointed out these players are not signed he continues to add them to their current teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toeknee44 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to file a report on this at WP:ANEW then? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

IJBall, can you remember being a new user? I can. I actually still remember the time, ten years ago, that I first reported a problem to a noticeboard (there was a bewildering variety of them even then, though not so many as now), with much effort and doubt, and somebody spoke to me just the way you did there, and how disconcerted I was. The way to reply to good faith reports is to thank the user for their assistance. Then, if you must, you can point them to a different noticeboard for next time. Thank you for reporting the problem, User:Toeknee44, please consider using WP:ANEW next time you need to report edit warring. I was going to take a look at your complaint, but realized that my understanding of... what sport is it? Oh, basketball. OK, my understanding of professional basketball is unfortunately so tiny that I hesitate to review your complaint. I hope another, more clued-in, admin will do so soon. Bishonen | talk 17:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC).

FTR, that wasn't intended to be "snarky", and I apologize if it came off that way. It was more an attempt to point Toeknee44 to the correct noticeboard. I apologize Toeknee44 for being curt. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, I just checked and it doesn't look like Natg 19 has crossed 3RR – there was an addition, and 1 revert at Larry Nance Jr., and just the one addition at Rondae Hollis-Jefferson. (In fact, I see some later self-reverts from Natg 19 on this issue...) So it looks like Natg 19 got the "message" in time before crossing any "redlines". I suggest that this one can probably be closed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban user Huhshyeh from article Popular Front of India

User Huhshyeh has a single purpose account for Popular Front of India, since 2011 he is exclusively or mainly editing this page see his contribution. Given article is subject of discretionary sanctions by arbitration committee. The organization is alleged to be militant organization but claimed to be social organization. User Huhshyeh is exclusively editing this article since 4 years and he adds only "social work" of organization that too from unreliable sources like "Muslim mirror" "two cirles" etc. He is probably activist of that organization or paid editor for that organization. He has been involved in edit wars on the page. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 15:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Since the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard hasn't been shut down by the recent controversy about a particular block, this would be more efficiently dispositioned at Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon yes you said earlier about arbitration but I thought first I should take this matter to ANI, also i'm having some problem on arbitration as I'm relatively new and don't know how things work at arbitration yet. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 17:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I want to give one stat, till now this user has made 365 main space edits xtools, out of 365 there are 194 edits on Popular Front of India, 30 edits on Social Democratic Party of India which is political wing on Popular Front of India, 20 edits on Social Justice conference which is another wing of Popular Front of India. So out of 365 there are 244 edits he made only on pages related to one organization and that too "promotes" that organization using unreliable sources and pushing POV for alleged militant organization. Rest of his edits came on organizations which oppose "Popular Front of India" and obviously he defamed those organization. Hence this user is surely activist of that organization and this is his single purpose promotion only account since years. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 17:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Robert McClenon, I would ask you not to take User:Human3015 fully. I was expecting him to provide accurate info atleast for this audience. So please have his statements double-checked, the most obvious one being "Social Justice conference being a wing of the organiation" PFI-wonder how a conference can be a wing? Also my last 100 edits were quite diverse I'd say, inclusive of a alternate political party Aam Aadmi Party, edit following an Bollywood actress [[[Shenaz Treasury]] open letter in support to women's safety, on the Giant Panda new triplet births, on evolving of the Ebola virus and an edit on Germany at the FIFA World Cup.

The mention by User:Human3015 of edits protraying the right wing truths of the [[[Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh]] - an organisation banned thrice in India for it's murdering of the father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhi amongst other extremities, is what hurts our "human" friend the most? Ironic, I'd say, given the intro the user has given. As requested, before, please have the page semi-protected Huhshyeh (talk)

NPOV and repeated unwarranted reverts by User:Human3015 & User:Irrigator & media sources

Am reproducing the talk on the page Popular Front of India .ywoo Pls have a check on the history of reverts unsupported by full facts by both user Human3015 and his alias User:Irrigator. Wonder how the user discredits sources "Muslim mirror" "two cirles", and now added 2 more to the list "Mangalorean.com" and "daijiworld.com", while source like papers like the New Indian Express have been taken to task by the Press Council of India asking around 10 papers to "more careful" in publish such sensitive information. Oh yes, this information being from a minority newspapers should be wrongfully giving info on the PCI directives as well, I should suppose. Wonder where the space for alternate media went in WP? While the PCI directs 10 main streams newspaper to be careful of the content, and even asked them to publish reverts, small local newspaper - four of them atleast in User:Human3015 view-are discreditted without any incident?

User:Human3015, I don't believe it's your or User:Irrigator or editors group created to unwarrantly discredit sources and a well wisher of alternate politics, supporter of backward and minority sections in an already marginalised Indian society. So there is nothing wrong in giving the giving out the other side of the story that is usually unsaid and partially brought out. This is Wikipedia, and not a portal for main stream media. If that's not inline with the WP Ideology, let the WP Admins kindly communicate that. User:Human3015 can go ahead to discredit Huhshyeh like you try to discredit the 4 alternate smaller newspapers . I edit with the same user, while this pages as seen a lot of aliases trying to blanks out the positives; as I have maintained in my intro, I stand for alternatives and against bias. Huhshyeh (talk)

s "Human3015 should stop giving false information and justify reverts. Recent revert by the same user is false is 2 counts : "Reverting content from unreliable sources and restoring deletion of sourced content from reliable sources" @Human 3015, pls explain 1. Reverting content from unreliable sources : which the "reliable" sources? 2. restoring deletion of sourced content from reliable sources  : please read again - there is no deletion of any sourced content here.

Edit, but simply don't revert, and don't falsify info Huhshyeh (talk)

Human3015simply doesn't read, simply don't revert - there is no PFI mentioned in the news sources. Hence section "Murder of VishalKumar" removed Huhshyeh (talk)"

Alias Irrigator seems to have conveniently left out the media being discreditted by the very source in his revert "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Popular_Front_of_India&oldid=668701237". @WP Admin, please note alias User:Irrigator and User:Human3015 for NPOV, selective omissions and unsupported reverts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhshyeh (talk • contribs) 07:46, June 27, 2015‎ (UTC)

References

• Comment @Huhshyeh:, we are not talking about content dispute here. Here questions are, Is it your single purpose account? Are you activist of PFI? Are you on Wikipedia exclusively to promote PFI? --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 10:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment already answered in above section. please re-read as you always miss out the main points Huhshyeh (talk)
• To the Admins: I will quote two key sentenses of Huhshyeh which clearly suggests that he is hardcore activist of Popular Front of India and he is here on wikipedia just to promote the organization.
  • Quote 1: The mention by User:Human3015 of edits protraying the right wing truths of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh - an organisation banned thrice in India for it's murdering of the father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhi amongst other extremities, is what hurts our "human" friend the most? Ironic, I'd say, given the intro the user has given
  • Quote 2: editors group created to unwarrantly discredit sources and a well wisher of alternate politics, supporter of backward and minority sections in an already marginalised Indian society. So there is nothing wrong in giving the giving out the other side of the story that is usually unsaid and partially brought out. This is Wikipedia, and not a portal for main stream media. If that's not inline with the WP Ideology, let the WP Admins kindly communicate that.

Here his statements clearly suggests that he is activist of PFI. He himself admiting that his edits are not belongs to "mainstreame media" but from "alternative sources". From his attitude of talking we can feel how committed he is to particular philosophy. As I said earlier in my comments xtools Huhshyeh shows that his nearly 70% of main space edits came on Popular Front of India(PFI) and its related wings. Remaining most of 30% edits came on organizations who oppose PFI. He is mainly editing same page since 4 years from unreliable sources. I demand to topic ban this user from said page. Thank you. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 14:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Glad that Human3015 didn't omit the key part of the paragraph like he usually does in his numerous reverts (see above section for details) "So there is nothing wrong in giving the giving out the other side of the story that is usually unsaid and partially brought out. This is Wikipedia," WP isn't a the encyclopedia of the Mainstream media, it's the complete balanced factbook avaliable online. So all news -alternative and main stream- concerning any topic need to highlighted, not just the bias of a person part of a fascist right-wing thrice banned organisation ,the RSS . Am for alternatives, the complete truth - and you don't have to be a part of any organisation for that. Let the WP Admin decide accordingly. Huhshyeh (talk)

• Comment from the sidelines: This is part of an ongoing war between pro-Pakistani and pro-Indian editors here on en-WP, with tit-for-tat reports at SPI, admin/forum shopping and everything else you can imagine, a war that is the direct result of Darkness Shines getting banned, a ban that changed the balance between the warring parties. A balance that until that ban had made Indo-Pakistani articles relatively peaceful (compared to what they are now). Thomas.W ^talk 14:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• I'm going to second what Robert McClenon said above, this is better addressed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement as all involved parties seem to been notified of of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan and the subsequent motion. —SpacemanSpiff 15:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• @Huhshyeh:, as admin suggested, I will go for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, but lets resolve this issue here instead of wasting time in arbitration. You should not revert edits done by other users from reliable sources just because they project negative image of your organization Popular Front of India, also you should not include lay claims from un-reliable sources just to project positive image of your organization. In some extent positive claims are ok even if they are from un-reliable sources, but if you keep on adding those claims then its not fair. --Human3015 knock knock • 10:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Robert McClenon ask you to check the validity of the reverts done, and if they do not adhere to the WP norms. The changes and reverts from end have been to all sides of the same story. And I can see users like Human3015 and Irrigator focus on the allegation, allegation confirmed by the Press Council of India to be false, esp. the claim of "militant" organisation - something falsely highlighted by the obvious supporter of a banned fascist organisation. I don't want to join that bandwagon, allege something because the PFI is anti-fascist, and finally eat our own hand. I don't represent any organisation, but am for, as my intro clearly says, to bring out the completeness of facts, facts that are shown skewed for the vested interest of some. I also wonder how credible users like Human3015, who discredit 4 sources in a week viz. "Mangalorean.com", "daijiworld.com", Coastal digest and Muslim Mirror [see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Popular_Front_of_India] all because they are not mainstream or from a minority section or both. I suggest that Human3015 stick to the good ideal he has mentioned in his intro. As for edit and reverts, reason are clearly mentioned with clarifications in the talk page, and such justified transparent reverts shall be done for the PFI, AAP, RSS, Giant Panda Shenaz Treasury,Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar or any future contribution from Huhshyeh. Re-request that the PFI page in particular be semi-protected so that contributions for other pages can be concentrated as well, no just to keep the neutrality of a set of pages. Let's go the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, if needed, justice should be served. Thank you Robert, neutral editors, and admins 178.152.236.76 (talk)

Making allegations of sockpuppetry at editors without documentation isn't useful, and saying that User:Irrigator is an alias of User:Human3015 is either a sloppy use of language or a claim of sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Robert McClenon, allegation without proof isn't appropriate - shall refrain from doing so. Pls do excuse me for the same. Incidentally, it's about the unsupported allegations on the PFI page that started all this. In any case, there is a section "Reverts" started out in the talk page, I think all of editors can reach common ground, mostly making the need for any further escalation unnecessary. Request to have page semi-protected is once again put forward; history of the page shows many blanking out from various IPs. Thanks for your time. Happy editing Huhshyeh (talk)

Editor: "Helpsome"

I am new to Wikipedia and was treated very rudely by "Helpsome" last month. S/he called me a liar and was generally abusive.

I suggest the following: 1) S/he be reprimanded and given some general guidelines on civility. 2) S/he be given retraining on actually reading what s/he was deleting before s/he deletes it. (The entry on one of the articles I added material to is now messed up due to his/her editing without looking -- it has entries in the Reference section with nothing being referred to). 3) I request to be allowed to enter material as long as I do not "self-promote" without being abused.

Thank you.

W. Paul Marshall

("wpaul1972")

I've moved the required user notification to Helpsome's talk page from the title of this section. Sam Walton (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Here Wpaul1972 (talk · contribs) is the link to make it easier to read this editors relevant pages. It looks like the article in question is Nagarjuna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and the ensuing discussion at User talk:Helpsome/Archive 3#Nagarjuna MarnetteD|Talk 19:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like this may be helpful: Shankara1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as effectively Helpsome seems to be suggesting that Wpaul1972 is a sock of Shankara1000. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Helpsome did not edit since 19 June 2015, he may not be able to comment on this complaint. JimRenge (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

These are the edits that appear to be in question: [184][185](and by Shakira1000). However, I must note to Wpaul1972 that this revert did not remove the improvements you made here, merely, he removed the information for Jones Richard. That seems odd. I would like @Helpsome: to explain this focus, however noting the above. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, I am not Richard Jones or any of the other scholars I try to add. I do not know him. I did once speak to Lex Hixon after one of his talks, but he is dead. I don't understand the reference to Shankara 1000 -- if Helpsome is suggesting I also use that name I never have. Paul (wpaul 1972) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpaul1972 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Wpaul1972 (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)wpaul1972

@Wpaul1972: Please sign your comments using 4 tildes (i.e. ~~~~). The system with automatically sign and date your comment. Thanks. BMK (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC).

I am not sure what happens next. Wpaul1972 (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

User:JoesphBarbaro

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'd like to report JosephBarbero on the grounds of harassing me after I reverted his edits on The Tom and Jerry Show (2014). Visokor (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Diffs please. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 22:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Visokor: You must notify the user on their talk page (I already did). In regards to the user's conduct, he was blocked in January by Floquenbeam for disruptive editing, and by myself in May for a week for personal attacks and harassment. It seems he's now back to edit warring on The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series) (although he self-reverted before breaching 3RR) and then proceeded to attack Visokor here. I issued a final warning on their talk page, and recommend a longer block if he does it again. He otherwise seems like a productive editor. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The user has blanked my warning and the ANI notice, by which I assume he is aware of both. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you both finish ranting about me? My edits have already been reverted at that Tom and Jerry article. No need to beat the dead horse any further. Case closed. Move on. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Self-recall for The Rambling Man

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 Rambling Man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hello all. I'd like to request a self-recall, i.e. comments and opinions as to whether I should remain an admin just a touch more than eight years in the role. Recent events have demonstrated that there are serious question marks over my ability to conduct myself as an admin, and that I may be bringing the rest of the "admin corps" into disrespect; indeed I have often been cited as "one of the worst admins" and that I have "no credibility" on Wikipedia. While I fully accept my approach in many places and discussions has been abrasive and sometimes unnecessarily fighty, but I have never knowingly abused the tools afforded my by the admin bit. For openness, I have, in the past, been temporarily blocked for transgression of an IBAN and I was recently blocked by a fellow admin for a BLP violation (the outcome of which is discussed in some detail in sections above). The latter, and its subsequent fallout has determined this course of action.

The time has come that I do the right thing and submit myself to the community (well, this community) for scrutiny. For what it's worth, I'd prefer to keep the bit in order to continue to help out as and when necessary, and will endeavour to moderate my "snippiness" in either case. Naturally, I will stand by the result of the consensus as closed by an uninvolved admin. Thanks to all those who take the time to comment, pro or con or otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• This being ANI, I claim an exception to the IBAN, so that I can make this statement: I have had a number of disagreements with TRM over various issues, but I cannot think of any instances where he has abused his admin authority. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Isn't this usually done through a Wikipedia:Administrator review? I know that this method isn't used a lot but, in my experience, ANI can be a forum where there is often more heat than light. I think you would want a careful consideration of your tenure, not just editors' thumbs up or thumbs down reactions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  I don't know, I wasn't aware. I'll leave a note there after I've put my son to bed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Is there any advantage to taking it over there? That looks like a forgotten corner of the Wikipedia. (I can almost literally see the cobwebs...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I tend to agree, there's one review there which has had no comments for about seven weeks. I'm "happy" to use this place right now, after all it seems to be the place where my most vociferous critics spend a lot of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sounds like a waste of time to me, as if there isn't enough of that going on already. I don't think there are many concerns by significant amounts here over Rambling's Man's general conduct. I might be wrong, but I can't see what benefit giving you a grilling would achieve here. If you've ever been combative, it's perfectly understandable given the arrogance of some of the people on the site.♦Dr. Blofeld 16:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

One of your clique buddies continues to censor my pointing out of your own arrogance. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC) There is no one here any more arrogant than you are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC) You need to retract that comment. No one here is more arrogant than you are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Knock it off. You and your clique are the most arrogant users I've ever seen on Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Goodness, it took all of 12 minutes for you to go into pointless incivility and POINTy comments. Not your record perhaps, but well up there. – SchroCat (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Goodness, you showed up, right on schedule. Not your record perhaps, but well up there. And the others can't be far behind, unless they're asleep. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Mimicking - how very mature of you. Your obsession over this non-existent "clique" really is paranoid nonsense. - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Doc, can I be in your clique? Go on, go on; I'll make badges for everybody. Belle (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've had some issues with your style in the past, but not with your admin tools. Moderating your snippiness, as you put it, is all I'd ever ask for, and I'm glad to see that you're gonna try to do so. Your admin bit is fine by me. (and yeah, liz might be right about the whole bureaucracy thing, but whatevs.)Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• No issues, Rambling Man, will wait patiently for a GA review, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• The only thing you did wrong was edit warring, which a number of editors have gotten a bit heated and done over the years. That's an editorial / judgment error, not an admin abuse issue. The worst sanction I could possibly see happening (if Kww hadn't abused his sysop bit) would have been you and Kww getting blocked 24 hours for making a few too many reverts. ;) Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) My advice? – Take a one-year self-initiated sabbatical (after which point you can simply request your tools be returned, if you after a year you still desire to reclaim your tools). I haven't seen or heard of any evidence of abuse of your Admin tools. But your interactions with other editors leaves much to be desired. Further, you seem to enjoy "content creation" more than Admin'ing more anyway. So I can't help but think that a one-year sabbatical might be the best for all involved, perhaps most for yourself. Please know that this is nothing more than a good faith suggestion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  Interesting, although resigning the bit now would 100% be considered "under a cloud", so requesting it back would require an RFA. And it doesn't seem to be my admin'ing that's called into question that often anyway.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn't see it as "taking a leave under a cloud" – if it's voluntary, it's kosher. (I.E. No one would be "forcing" you to take a sabbatical.) I don't know the particulars of the process, but I don't think an RfA would be required here (would it?...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  Just a couple of days after being blocked for a perceived violation of the BLP policy? I think cloudy would be understating it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  A "block" that's been universally perceived as being improperly levied. (Look, I don't want to see Kww desysop'ed for that – but even I think that your block in that situation was completely inappropriate, and should never have been enacted...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  A "block" which has just been left forever in my block log without any kind of problem for the blocking admin. Anyway, thanks for your advice, I'll take it all onboard. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• You're fine, TRM (I don't mean that in an admiring your physique way; you may be fine in that way too, who knows?, not me). You have the tact of a sledgehammer and the finesse of a paving slab though. Belle (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• No issues. Best of luck, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Your admining is fine. The role of administrators as ambassadors or whatnot is overstated. Alakzi (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• There are two things about the way Adminships are currently viewed by many around here that really quite bother me: 1) that Adminships should be "lifetime appointments" (I couldn't disagree more with this), and 2) that the only consideration that should go into evaluating an Admin is their use (or abuse) of "the tools". The second one has become a real stumbling block around here to improving the Admin corps IMO. The fact is Admins basically serve a supervisory role on this project, and in real organizations appraising supervisors goes beyond just whether they "unjustly sacked someone" and looks at how they interact with underlings (and with each other). The truth of the matter is that a very important part of an Admin's job is in fact interaction with other editors (often esp. newbies). Take a look at two recent RfA's, Ritchie333's and NeilN's – in both cases, a recurring theme for their being promoted was their positive interactions with other editors, especially new editors. Even with Ser Amantio di Nicolao's current RfA, a recurring theme is the positive interactions other editors have had with him... So, really, I could not disagree more with the statement, "The role of administrators as ambassadors or whatnot is overstated." Interaction with other editors is of paramount importance in appraising how an Admin is doing their job. It's not just about "tools". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Administrators are not part of a rigid power structure; they are held directly accountable to the community. There are plenty "real" organisations which operate horizontally. A candidate's feistiness serves as an indicator of the possibility of their abusing the tools; it is not the expectation that admins have otherwise got to behave better than the herd. Trying to get along with each other is important for everyone. Alakzi (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Again, we're getting lost in the obsessive focus on the "tools". Appropriate interaction is especially important from Admins. Admins should and must be held to a higher standard. Saying there isn't a "rigid power structure" doesn't negate that there is one, in fact. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I do not agree that admins should be held to a higher behavioural standard than the rest of us and hence I do not consider his frequent abrasiveness to be a reason to resign. You're begging the question; yes, if you claim that admins must behave better, then there is a power structure. Do note, I do think that admins need to be on their best behaviour when doing admin work. Alakzi (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Since you're asking for feedback: Can you explain why you edited through full protection here? --Laser brain (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  Sure, my interpretation of that particular admin action was very similar to a recent one where an involved admin was overstepping the mark by shutting down ongoing discussion. It should have been down to someone else to do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  But the protection policy doesn't allow administrators to edit through full protection to express displeasure with the protection, or because they don't feel the protection is valid. --Laser brain (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  Well my bad. It was still the wrong thing for the admin to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Should you resign? Yes. Have you abused your tools? Yes. Why should you resign and how have you abused the tools? You've abused the tools often through your bad behavior, negative attitude, your bully type tactics, and your vulgar language...especially when interacting with editors you dislike. For these reasons you should step down. Caden ^cool 18:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for your comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Someone needs to learn what admin tools are then. If you think RM has abused them, please show diffs. If not, then you're just using this as an opportunity to make ad hominem comments. - SchroCat (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• You are are wonderful editor and a good admin. Sure, there was a bit of warring going on, but it was for the benefit of the project and there was no disruption in mind. I shan't comment specifically to Caden's remark, but I should treat it with the contempt it deserves if I were you. Cassianto^Talk|

"'ere, Sharon, where did I put that Mars bar?"

Self recall? Is that like total recall but with without the rose tinted spectacles? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Martin, helpful as ever. I really liked the original, ("you're in for a big surprise!" and Sharon Stone practising her serves) but the sequel sucked. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Two weeks. Pedro :  Chat  19:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It was a "reboot" rather than a straight sequel. (Sorry, can't resist...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose self recall Long term user, relinquished 'crat rights so clearly not holding on to bits for the sake of them. One of our most active WP:ITN editors, a place that needs more admins. Yep, you're abrasive at times and I think you could knock some of the immediate snark on the head. But then again so could I. No tool misuse has been demonstrated (Caden makes allegations but provides no diffs or other facts) and only a net positive to the project. Pedro :  Chat  19:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't seen any reason whatsoever for The Rambling Man to turn in his badge, with the possible exception of his own fatigue (as someone who had voted for his bureaucratship, I didn't see the need for him leaving that club either, personally, but he might have). Mostly per Pedro: The Rambling Man's experience and judgment at WP:ITN are valuable, also as an admin who is able to post hot items to the main page sooner rather than later. And I also agree with the other things Pedro said; more diplomacy and less condescension (and less sensitivity) while arguing wouldn't be undesirable, but that has nothing to do with whether The Rambling Man should remain an admin or not. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• The Oil drop experiment shows that even senior scientists will modify their own reported findings to fit them within the "orthodoxy" - even when scientists have put effort into attempting to be objective. Groupthink comes about in organizations that actively try to avoid it. Personally, I see this on ITN - three or four editors will remark adding support for a nomination, then an experienced editor will rubbish the proposal with brusque language - making others who support the idea more cautious and more likely to decide not to contribute. Bear in mind that for every senior admin that uses brusque, snide, sardonic, cynical, or dismissive comments, it's possible that more than one good faith editor decides not to engage in a topic area where they feel the quality of discourse is going downhill. I don't want TRM to cease adminship - but he should stop making facetious remarks in places that don't involve vandalism or edit wars (like ITN). -- Aronzak (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• If someone can show me specific diffs showing abuse of tools, I will try to evaluate them fairly despite my generally favorable opinion of TRM. Otherwise, I will assume that in this, as in most accusations of "administrator abuse", it is the admin who is being abused. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• I have a faint awareness of some history of snippiness, so I applaud TRM for the promise to work on that. I also applaud TRM for the self-awareness that some have expressed concern which led to this request for feedback. I do not support the suggestion (made above) of the relinquishment of tools at this time. I haven't thought through whether this would qualify as "under a cloud" or not and I don't care to investigate it but I understand the possibility so I would not think it wise to resign the tools at this point. I also have too much to do to undertake a review on my own. If there are editors who have concerns they have been invited to provide evidence. I will review the evidence is presented but I won't go looking for myself. So far no evidence has been presented, the unsupported post of Caden notwithstanding. Caden, provide diffs and I'll look at them. If you don't your allegation is likely to be ignored.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Clarification: What I suggested above was a "sabbatical" or "leave of absence" not a "relinquishment". Sabbaticals are part of the job in that other field that involves lots of writing and researching: academia. They should not be viewed as "abnormal" or "unusual" here. How many first-hand reports have we seen from editors who say taking a break from Wikipedia was the best thing they've done? And I can think of at least one Admin who said the same thing about taking a break from the tools... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Just resign the tools and get on with editing, which is what this project is supposed to be all about anyway. You don't need a title and a block button to be validated as a Wikipedian. Carrite (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, that had crossed my mind, problem is that on the odd occasion I do use the tools, it's normally to things like move ITN items to the main page, or fix errors there. I don't need it to be validated as a Wikipedian, I would prefer to keep it to assist the project. Perhaps someone could tell me how many times I've used admin tools outside the main page, DYK queue etc maintenance and how many times I've used it to block, protect or delete... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: "I don't need it to be validated as a Wikipedian" - no but others critically do see it that way - and it makes them less likely to want to vocally disagree in places like the ITN and DYK queue. This is an issue for editor retention, because novice editors feel uncomfortable disagreeing with a senior, longstanding admin. See Feynman's quote about how experienced scientists modify their findings to avoid disagreeing with a senior, published figure. Your admin powers may only be a small part of your time - but the fact that you're an admin makes non-admins cautious to come to the defence of non-admins you make abrasive comments towards, especially on DYK and ITN. Editor retention is one of the big issues with the project - and when junior editors are snapped at on ITN or DYK, they may be less likely to feel like contributing. I don't want you to lose your adminship, just appreciate that being an admin and making abrasive comments makes non-admins unwilling to challenge you, and that can drive down editor retention. I'd prefer TRM to commit to something like involving a wikiproject like editor retention in monthly reviews of conduct, and getting suggestions to improve ITN and DYK for new users. -- Aronzak (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• I dislike The Rambling Man as an editor and as a person (at least the part of his person one can know from interacting with him on wiki - possibly he is a swell guy in person but that seems beside the point). On wiki he is perpetually abrasive, condescending and arrogant, dismissive of others' arguments and unwilling to engage in serious discussion, and when one responds to him in kind he is petulant and easily offended. Pretty much classic baiting behavior. I have had quite a few disputes with him, principally at ITN where I consider him to display consistently poor judgment and worse behavior in relation to other editors with whom he disagrees. In that context, I have made many personal attacks against him, all of which I consider to have been well deserved. I have seen him interact in similar ways with others at DYK, though fortunately I have not had to interact with him there. I have however not seen him ever abusing his admin tools. I myself resigned my tools because I realized it was too hard for me to keep civil during heated engagements and when confronted with baiting behavior. TRM is able not to use swearwords and direct personal attacks. But almost all of his comments in conflicts are veiled personal attacks, or passive aggressive baiting. I don't think that is a good way for an admin to interact with others. I dont think he has violated any rule, but I also don't consider him to be a good administrator. I think a good admin is also ideally a nice person who treats others better than the mere rules require, but I realize that being a nice person is not something that many consider a central aspect of wikipedia, and I assume it is possible to be a reasonably good admin without being one. Whether to resign one's tools is everyone's own business. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  Cheers Maunus, overlooking your own contentious behaviour when interacting with me, your analysis of me is close to my own. Hence the pledge to do better in this regard. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You will note that in the above I am quite candid about my own short comings as an editor and as an admin.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said, this discussion should overlook your own behavioural issues. Thanks for the comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

As a piece of advice I would note that I have found resigning the tools to be a relief and while sometimes I wish I could make a deletion in preparation for a move I honestly don't really need them. I think you are probably, like me, a better content writer than administrator.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• My thoughts - If you feel you're not being a good admin, resign the tools without prejudice and take a break. Dennis Brown did this earlier in the year and it seemed to be a good deal. Your boat race articles are still at GA standard as far as I know, and they are a good bit of work. If you don't resign under a cloud, you can get the tools back easily enough. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, as mentioned above, there is a cloud here, that I was blocked by a fellow admin just a day or two ago for an alleged BLP violation. This is cloud territory. Moreover, it's not that I feel any of my "admin" tasks are beyond me or conducted poorly, just that I have been castigated far and wide for not being a "good" admin (seemingly for behaviour I exhibit outside the making of admin decisions). As for the Boat Race stuff, yes, as far as I know, I currently have 163 good articles (including two women's race articles) and 3 featured articles. More to come that way, but that's nothing really to do with this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, that dark cloud is still very firmly parked over Kww Valley. But great that we can all enjoy this cathartic group airing session. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Mixed blessing It might be seen as under a cloud if it he resigned the bit now, Ritchie333, since he started the recall process (I handed mine in because I just had filed for divorce, so was distracted). That said, I will opine, in a way TRM will understand: I think you are a flaming pain in the ass. You are often too gruff, you can be dismissive of others, and often can be compared to a bull in a china shop. I disagree with you regularly, and I'm sure I piss you off frequently as well. That said, I've never seen or would expect you to abuse the tools and your demeanor when acting as admin is well within expectations. I am comfortable with you keeping the tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding the Kww block: he got a lot of serious pushback for it, including multiple editors and admins calling for an arb case. I think the institutional memory of it will follow him around for a long time even if there's no formal reprisal for the specific incident. And the underlying issue on your side was basically lame edit warring, a venial sin in the scheme of things if it doesn't happen too often. If you really want to wear the hairshirt over it, report yourself for 3RR and ask for an uninvolved admin to block you for 24h, after which you're good to go.

  I've been more seriously annoyed by the friction you've gotten into at Refdesk/ITN/DYK and I urge you to tone it down if that's still going on (I don't keep tabs). At other times I've seen good analysis and judgment from you, enough that (maybe since I haven't looked at the problem areas too closely) I'd generally prefer that you stay on, maybe after taking a temporary break from adminning as others have said. I generally want to preserve what's possible of the remaining "Old Republic" DNA in the admin corps as a foil against the present-day bureaucracy even if it means occasional ludicrous incidents like the Antonio Martin thing. So I'd encourage you to self-reflect for a while on the areas where you've gotten in friction, and work out how to either avoid those areas or do better in them, while still maintaining reasonable standards in other areas. If you can do that, I'm satisfied. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think a turning in of the tools is warranted. Some grumpiness and exasperation is not a prerequisite for this.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I would urge you to continue to be an admin but to work harder to set a better example. Specifically be more civil, refrain from personal attacks, and try to communicate in a manner the de-escalates conflicts rather than drive off those seeking to communicate. Also, please don't edit war. We need admins and I would far rather you clean up your act than give up the bit. Chillum 22:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• I in contrast urge you to resign as an admin. I will repost from the closed section above regarding you: "Pretty comfortable throwing his weight around at WP:ITN, where I have been watching him for years, as he drifts into borderline abuse repeatedly. I banned him from my Talk page just yesterday for posting what is a fine example of WP:BAIT: here is an admin coming to my page looking for a fight. In my long term observation, TRM is a bully who should desysopped." I repeat: came to my page looking for a fight, because I had previously questioned your posting an ITN item you had !voted on per WP:INVOLVED. No admin should use the snarky, hostile and combative rhetoric your position as admin allows you to get away with, which is a deeply ingrained habit. You abuse your power, and should give up the extra buttons. Jusdafax 00:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• I concur. BMK (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment If you want to take a break from adminship but don't want to give up the bit under a potential cloud, just don't use any admin tools for awhile. Edit as if you don't have them. Once this incident blows over, you can decide to resign if you want and there won't be any question about whether you can re-admin just by asking a bureaucrat. 207.38.156.219 (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I personally think you should keep your Admin rights and spend more time editing and mopping WP:FOOTY related articled, especially Ipswich Town stuff. You are an asset to the project overall; yes you can loose your cool but I think 99% of the time it's justified. I have never seen you abuse your Admin tools, you just get very grumpy ;) JMHamo (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose recall. Lawd knows TRM and I do not often get along personally, and we often butt heads on many issues, but I have never once seen him misuse his admin tools. The measure of an admin should only be in how they use their tools. TRM has never misused them to my notion, and there's room in the big world of Wikipedia for a wide range of personalities and experiences on Wikipedia. We will never be friends, but I will defend his admin status to the ends of the earth. He's always been a model admin in terms of his measured, careful use of his tools. As a double endorsement of his worthiness, he recognizes his own shortcomings above, and a self-reflective, self-aware person who is willing to grow is exactly the kind of person we want as an admin. Again, I do not approve of much of his interpersonal approach in dealing with people he disagrees with. But he's never let that bleed into his admin work, and it would be a loss to the community for him to lose his tools. --Jayron32 02:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• also oppose recall Certainly I have been warned several times by TRM and also helped in situations by him. Over the course of many years feathers will get ruffled from time to time. But I can't think of any instances where he has abused his administrative authority. Maybe his fuse is a bit shorter from when he started but he acknowledged as much. It would be quite a shame not to have his experience in solving issues. If he really wants to step back, take a 30-60 day vacation from administrative chores. Stay an admin, don't resign the tools, but just do editing and nothing else. If you're feeling unappreciated, maybe that month would recharge the batteries. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Just a quick comment to follow up on what was said above — if you take a one-year sabbatical and request the tools back later, it won't be a problem. Your admin rights will have been removed for inactivity, which isn't considered under a cloud, and by definition it's several months separated from any conflicts you're in right now. Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  I could, but since my sysop tools include being able to edit the main page, I'd prefer that not to be the case. Right now I'm pretty much dedicated to putting quality items at ITN and fixing ERRORS. I do block the odd vandal and protect the odd page, but that's in the minority. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• A desysop would be a bad idea; you're not indispensable, but you're much less dispensable than others, particularly at ITN, but also elsewhere. The reserved approach with the admin tools is admirable, as is the ability to crank out an amazing number of solid, quality articles while being an admin. I have found your willingness to jump immediately into full snark mode depressing sometimes; God knows I don't expect perfection, but I wish it happened less often than it does. I'd grudgingly support a too-grumpy TRM as an admin; I'd wholeheartedly endorse a less-grumpy TRM as one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment There's now an arbitration request open so I'd say file a statement and answer the case if needed. If the case is declined or if it closes without desysopping, I think that means there is not a cloud and it is ok to resign temporarily if that's what you want to do. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  Please see my opening statement, I believe that I do not misuse the tools and would prefer to keep them. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm largely in agreement with most of the above. I don't think you should resign as an admin. You haven't misused the tools and we are short of admins in most areas, including the ones I generally see you in. That said, it definitely wouldn't hurt if you made a conscious effort to try and be less abrasive in your dealings with other editors. Jenks24 (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  I agree, I've noted that in my opening statement. The Rambling Man (talk)

• Abrasive and fighty to some and in certain areas, yes; trustworthy in terms of the tools, also yes. If you do genuinely make an effort to 'moderate [your] "snippiness"', then I don't believe you should be (self-)recalled. In the future, if an issue do raise your temperature, try walking away for a bit. Reduce your stress level, and also better for the pedia. On a side note regarding any passing cloud, I would say any resignation now would be under a cloud, but not because of the recent block, but because of the open ArbCom case request where you are named as a party. -- KTC (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man, I voted for you for adminship over eight years ago and for bureaucratship over seven years ago. Do I regret those votes? No. Do I want you desysopped? No. Do I think that you need to make a few changes? Yes - because I think you're a good person, good editor and good admin, and I think the project would be worse off without you. If you feel as though you're been dragged into disputes of which you want no part, there is no shame in backing away from them. Some people above have noted that you can sometimes be hostile (I prefer "grumpy" as it's a less hostile word than the word "hostile"!) when dealing with people, especially with those who are causing you trouble; my answer to that is if you feel other editors are stressing you out, honestly, there is no shame - no shame at all - in someone with as much experience as yourself asking someone else for assistance. If nothing else, I certainly do recommend taking a break: it's amazing how taking a week or two (or a month) off refreshes one's enthusiasm for editing. Again, I continue to hold my long-standing positive impression of you and it is my preference that you remain as an admin; just take on board the advice that people have given you here and I think you'll be fine. Best. Acalamari 22:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Resign From what I've seen, The Rambling Man routinely violates our behavioural guidelines such as WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:INVOLVED but he shows restraint in his use of tools like blocking and deletion and so his bark is worse than his bite. I can cope as I'm quite thick-skinned but it seems likely that other editors would be provoked or driven off by this nastiness. As admins are supposed to show exemplary behaviour, he should please give the role a rest and try to find some more congenial corner of the project to work in. If the break is somewhat voluntary, he might reasonably return to admin duties at some future time. Andrew D. (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Resign. The Rambling Man drove me from contributing from WP:ITN/C, and partly drove me into my semi-retirement (I lost confidence in the admin system, I'd name a few other high up people I've lost confidence in too, but it's not the time for that) There are so many sections on AN/I's archives that contain the word TRM, I can't believe he still has tools, and that scares me. One of those AN/I sections is this, where I disastrously tried to get action taken against him. I don't understand why people here are blind to what I see. TRM has given far enough trouble. I can't really say when he's misused his admin tools, but only numerous abuse cases of his editing tools, and surely someone who abuses editing tools shouldn't be trusted with sysop tools. The community's handling of TRM's behavior is a reason that I think that Wikipedia doesn't have a bright future (and therefore discouraging me from contributing). This wiki-depresses me (seriously). --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Full disclosure; TRM and I are parties to the IBAN which TRM mentions in his opening statement as having been temporarily blocked for violating. (Baseball Bugs and I sought that IBAN when a dispute between TRM and myself at ITN ended up with TRM following me to other pages, especially the Reference Desks, where somehow BBB and I became conflated in his aggressive behaviour.) I'll speak here, given he has brought up the issue and invited comment. My opinion largely parallels the comments of Baseball Bugs and Jayron above. TRM has had some serious issues dealing civilly with other users as an editor himself. But I have never seen him once abuse his admin privileges.

It is largely for this reason that I argued TRM should not remain blocked when he violated the terms of our IBAN last autumn. There has been a little bit of gamesmanship by him since (and there was a lot when the IBAN was first instituted the prior winter, diffs upon request), but I felt at the time that the permanent mark should be and was enough. Given I don't see diffs regarding this latest issue, I cannot comment on it. But the bottom line is that the "problem" with TRM is not as an admin but as a user.

Had anyone asked me a year ago, my opinion would have been adamant that TRM should be desysopped. His behaviour is hostile enough in general that it is unbecoming an admin, and I cannot see that he would ever become an admin at this point were he not already grandfathered in. But that's a problem with adminship in general, not something that TRM has caused. My belief is that the admin system needs fixing, with term limits and a lottery giving some privileges to experienced users in good standing. Anything to break up the permanent old-boy's-club we have now, which I think drives away a lot of older and professional contributors with no desire to become wikilawyering experts.

But frankly, the loss of TRM's admin work at ITN would be a huge blow. I would suggest that something like a plea-bargained deal be arranged. Perhaps TRM can voluntarily accept a limit of no personal comments and no more than two comments per thread at ITN (and on other talk pages, if warranted)? Something significant along those lines would allow TRM to continue his good work, but would put a damper on the impulse to argue every point until blood is drawn.

I see the point of those who call for TRM's resignation. I also see that while he's a frigging pain in the arse, he doesn't abuse his position other than by besmirching it with his unbecoming behaviour. I think something absolutely should be done, something or record here or at arbitration, and by decree if not voluntarily. But I think this thread is a good palm branch, TRM is a valuable contributor when he contributes, and we should keep the good of the project in mind above our own personal grievances.

μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you Medeis, this is one of the most useful and pragmatic contributions: "Perhaps TRM can voluntarily accept a limit of no personal comments and no more than two comments per thread at ITN (and on other talk pages, if warranted)? Something significant along those lines would allow TRM to continue his good work, but would put a damper on the impulse to argue every point until blood is drawn." That seems entirely reasonable, and if it's formally documented exactly what behaviour is disallowed then that would be easier to manage than endless ANI complaints.-- Aronzak (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Do not resign. I asked for anyone here showing me specific diffs showing abuse of tools. None were provided. Resignation or desysoping is the answer when you cannot be trusted with the tools. The answer when multiple editors tell you that you have been acting like a jerk is to stop acting like a jerk. It really is that simple. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Guy, it's not just about the tools – Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct (aside: this needs a shortcut – I'd suggest WP:ADMINCON or WP:ADMINCOND or something...) is an actual thing: "However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another." This, and a recent statement at ArbCom, confirm that Admins can lose the bit for other than just straight "abuse of tools". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• WP:ADMINCOND is now a shortcut. BMK (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• @BMK: Danke! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Bitte. BMK (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• @IJBall: Thank you! --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• My thanks to IJBall and to BMK for the pertinent shortcut. IJBall has said in different words, and citing the actual policy repeatedly violated by TRM, that I have tried to emphasize in my own statement here, and at the ArbCom case request. We also have a user stating they were driven away from ITN by the abusive comments TRM indulges in. Enough. TRM, you need to resign the tools at once. It's the decent thing to do. Jusdafax 05:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Seriously? "Sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia"? Evidence, please. Show me the diffs. All I have seen so far is some rudeness that, while undesirable, wouldn't get an ordinary editor blocked. Especially without being warned and given a chance to change his behavior. The words "triggerhappy" and "bloodthirsty" come to mind... --Guy Macon (talk) 05:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Well, the thing is, we aren't talking about "my" issues with TRM, so I can't provide much in the way of diffs (this is literally my only "semi-bad" interaction with TRM, and that didn't break my skin, though neither did I consider it "constructive"...). But neither am I going to ignore the comments of other editors here (especially in regards to the ITN section), nor can I ignore the numerous cases I've seen come through ANI about TRM. Again, it doesn't satisfy me that "an Admin hasn't abused the tools", as I expect more from an Admin than that. And creating enough of a "hostile environment" that it's a pervasive issue with a significant segment of the community is enough for me to see an Admin desysopped. I'm not saying that TRM is at the level – but if ArbCom is taking this case, I'd sure like them to look in to that, as well as Kww's block. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• I have no problem with either ANI or arbcom opening a case, examining the evidence, and desysoping TRM if that's where the evidence leads. In this thread I am basically asking for the same thing. My message to everyone here is this: either post diffs that you believe are evidence of either misuse of tools or sustained/serious disruption of Wikipedia, or don't ask TRM to resign as administrator. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose recall This got started because of Kww's misuse of the tools. The fact that TRM refused to do the same shows who can be trusted. MarnetteD|Talk 05:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose recall I've only skimmed the earlier ANI and comments here. It seems to me TRM didn't do anything particularly alarming or concerning besides argue with someone who appears to have been in the wrong. I also would like to see diffs - everyone (not that there are many) who has claimed TRM is disruptive, you should back up your claims with diffs! Show us what he's done! Otherwise I just have to assume it's something personal. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• There are numerous examples prior to this latest spat with Kww. For instance, see Inappropriate conduct by administrator User:The Rambling Man. Andrew D. (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose recall. I oppose recalling TRM because I have never seem him abuse his admin powers, nor do I see evidence of him doing so here. Like all of us, he is not a perfect human being or Wikipedian and he admits the things he needs to work on and from what I know I believe he is doing so. I don't expect any editor or admin to act perfectly all the time. In the past we have had strong disagreements (which I likely am part responsible for) but they had nothing to do with his admin powers. I don't think they need to be removed. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@331dot: you stated "Your sarcasm toward other, especially new users, hardly helps improve Wikipedia." (this was linked in a previous ANI issue raising conduct complaints) - given that this is what people have an issue with, can you comment on Medeis's suggestion "Perhaps TRM can voluntarily accept a limit of no personal comments and no more than two comments per thread at ITN (and on other talk pages, if warranted)? Something significant along those lines would allow TRM to continue his good work, but would put a damper on the impulse to argue every point until blood is drawn." -- Aronzak (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Aronzak: From what I have seen since I made that comment, I think he has been trying to get better. Maybe he hasn't always been successful but what matters is that he seems to recognize that he needs to continue to improve. If he thinks such a voluntary restriction would help him improve, he should do it, but that is up to him. If done, I think a time limit on it would be reasonable, such as six months or a year. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• All, how would this voluntary restriction work? I am being accused of being a piss-poor communicator and a grumpy old sod (which I've accepted in my opening statement), yet my admin actions are not being scrutinised in any way. I don't see how not fixing main page errors, not posting ready items to ITN, not tweaking TFA and TFL and TFP blurbs would help here? According to the "stats" I have made 60 admin actions over the past year which are logged as such, i.e. in deletes, protects and blocks. Not one of those has been brought into question. I could work sans bit for months, but it would just mean that ERRORS, TFL, ITN, DYK, TFA and TFP would have unaddressed issues for longer than necessary. Is that it? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you just fix stuff without being so sarky? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Martin, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, your subtle comments are way beyond most of the readers here. They confuse a lot of people around here. Please restrict them to my talk page or other, more appropriate venues. And in the meantime, no, I'm not being sar'carstic in any way. Although I did spend some time with Neil Wheedon Watkins Pye's dad, about twenty years ago... I will try to fix things. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, just readers round 'ere. That's a relief. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Who has a sideboard these days?! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't threaten me with Cribbins, mate! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man, one way is to limit where you participate, to limit the reasons to get grumpy. IE: Work at ITN but not at DYK. I quit doing any DYK work and removed all DYK pips from my user page, in part from your work there. My opinion is that you are overly rigid in your interpretation of the standards (as are a couple others), and it puts off off new editors. To me, that is an editor retention concern, and if given the chance, would vote to simply remove DYK as a liability. l quit and unwatched all pages because I have better things to fight over. I actively discourage new editors from participating at DYK. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Dennis Brown. I restrict my edits at DYK now to simply copyediting every item that gets thrust into the preps and queues. Incidentally, new editors are more likely to be dissuaded by the arcane use of templates, QPQ process, transcluding, vetting, prepping and queueing than a more stringent adherence to writing in grammatically correct and encyclopedically toned English. But that is just my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about which "voluntary restriction" you're talking about, but if you get your civility issues resolved, then this whole series of AN/I threads can have a good ending. I've said it before and I'll say it again, that would be a better ending than a desysoping. Regards, --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Well, a number of people commenting have suggested I temporarily resign or refrain from using my admin rights, as a voluntary restriction imposed upon myself. My point above was that I generally "use" my admin rights to update the main page, ITN, DYK, ERRORS, etc etc, and don't usually use them to do anything else. I don't believe anyone has suggested my updates to the main page, or fixes from ERRORS has been mishandled. And yes, I've already committed to making a concerted effort to improve the indicated communication issues, that formed part of my opening statement in this very thread. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• A number of people commenting have suggested that you temporarily resign or refrain from using your admin rights while refusing to provide a single diff that shows a good reason why you should do that. Yes, you have been uncivil. Not enough to support even a 1-day block, but it is there. The solution to that is to talk it over with your colleagues (which you have done) and try to tone it down (which you have said you will do). Nothing else is required. We need you and we need your tools. Nobody else would have tried to address the PC2 issue on the PCI page. There is a case where your having the tools was invaluable (all I could have done is complained and gotten stonewalled). The only thing I would have changed is having you discuss controversial actions like that before doing them, (even if they shouldn't be controversial) but as far as what you did you did the right thing. And have you noticed the current protection level on that particular page? You have not misused the tools you have not engaged in sustained/serious disruption of Wikipedia. You should not resign. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• I personally haven't seen anything worthy of resigning the toolset permanently. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose recall. You're a fantastic Wikipedian, who has contributed so much. Allow me to elaborate:

• I think you've been a bit worn down by things in the last while, particularly, if I may suggest, by a perception that some Wikipedians tolerate (maintain, even fight for) low standards in various nooks and crannies of the pedia. I don't know whether imposing some kind of artificial restraints on yourself will help, I suspect not, but I do know that throwing aside the tools will not help you or Wikipedia.

• Instead, I'll refer you back to User:Dweller/Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values, which you were the second person to sign up to. While any of us can fall short of the optimal standards of behaviour, we are after all, human, it's good to aspire to them.

• This has been a courageous (if bonkers) thing to do, but I commend you on your self-analysis and look forward to seeing the shiny old TRM re-emerging - to be honest, the c.2007 version of TRM was pretty much the model for the Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values. --Dweller (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• There probably has been grumpiness and there have certainly been some comments that have been perceived as incivil, yet no-one is seriously suggesting misuse of the tools. Taking a break from tool use isn't the answer here, but it might be an idea to refocus for while on an area where you are less likely to get into disagreements. If we can get someone to refresh the report, I would suggest you spend some time doing a trawl of Wikipedia:Database reports/Editors eligible for Autopatrol privilege. No need to say anything to the editors on that list who don't yet merit the Autopatrol flag, but there are lots of overlooked uncontentious editors out there and it is difficult to be grumpy when you find them, set them as Autopatroller and say hi on their talkpage. You might even find a few who would be interested in DYK etc if they but knew of them. ϢereSpielChequers 10:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose recall. While I haven't interacted with TRM much, it looks like he hasn't abused his admin tools at all, and that the only problems with him are as an editor. Also, TRM's work at WP:ITN is appreciated. Epic Genius (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• None of your actions would make me think you are a bad admin. Your willing to work with the community and the recent issues should no use of admin tools only editorial judgement.Blethering Scot 22:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: The Rambling Man has serious problems getting along with other editors, and ofttimes, the manner in which he reviews articles comes off as arrogant. These problems need to be addressed. But he resigning his tools ain't the way to do it. pbp 22:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Do not resign as you've definitely been an overall net positive and are well-intentioned, even if your actions aren't always ideal. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for close

I move that someone uninvolved close this with an appropriate summary. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

How can that be? In an admin recall discussion, unless there are predetermined recall criteria – in which case an uninvolved editor could potentially close the discussion as having met or not met the recall conditions – the discussion is over when the admin in question either does or does not decide to turn in the bit. The only difference here is that the recall discussion was started by The Rambling Man himself, which changes nothing. Since TRM did not have a previously announced set of recall criteria, he is the only one who can judge the result of this discussion, by deciding whether he will step down or continue to be an admin. For that reason, I oppose the closing of this thread by anyone except TRM himself. BMK (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with BMK. TRM is an admin and former bureaucrat. He should have (has, in my opinion) the ability to neutrally discern consensus even in a conversation about himself. TRM should close this, ideally with a short commentary and next steps (if any). Pedro :  Chat  07:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Certainly agree with the above - that it's down to TRM, but if TRM would like a neutral closer, I'm available. Worm^TT(talk) 13:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said in my opening statement: "Naturally, I will stand by the result of the consensus as closed by an uninvolved admin". I thought that was pretty clear, I didn't feel the need to develop a set of recall criteria, it was "should I or should I not retain the admin flag" and many people have commented for and against. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User requesting unblock

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.

---

• Captain JT Verity MBA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Race (human classification) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Race (biology) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive889#User:danielkueh playing games on Talk:Race (human classification)

I blocked User:Captain JT Verity MBA indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE on June 26, for being a new single-purpose account on the topic of race, whose main focus since June 16 has been revert-warring on article leads that concern race. For example Race (human classification) and Race (biology). He came to my attention by making five reverts in 24 hours on one of these articles, constantly changing the lead to insist that race is a biological reality. On 18 June, two days after beginning his race campaign, he opened an ANI thread which can be seen at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive889#User:danielkueh playing games on Talk:Race (human classification). Some participants in that thread warned him about WP:BOOMERANG. Accounts that are this aggressive and have catchy names are often socks, in my experience, so I opted not to work up through a graduated sequence of block lengths. As far as I know all his changes get reverted by others. He posted a request for unblock on June 27, stating

I hope my block is going to be reviewed. Clearly I have been dogpiled by a PC clique who refuse to address anything outside their fallacious echo chamber. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if another admin would review the unblock request and decide on it one way or the other. I haven't proposed any unblock conditions myself because I can't actually see any way they could make useful contributions here, but another admin might think differently. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Reviewed, he shows no sign of working collaboratively or to Wikipedia standards for evidence quality or neutrality. One trick pony. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Good block, the unblock rationale basically confirms the problem. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Spongebob1944

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:Spongebob1944 has repeatedly reverted to an out-dated portrait image at Richard Burr without explanation:

1

2

3

4

In addition, it appears that the editor has engaged in persistent disruptive editing despite multiple warnings at his/her Talk page.CFredkin (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Although this user isn't quite active all the time, comments like this and this after warnings kind of skirt the line of WP:NOTHERE. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• They're doing the same thing and inserting an older photos of living people across a variety of articles, for example here and here and here, without any explanation, and re-inserting them if removed. A look at the talk page shows that this is not a new issue and they've received multiple requests to stop this sort of behavior and they've also had instances with disruptive editing and other image policy issues. Through it all, and despite their high edit count they've made virtually no significant effort to communicate with other members of the community, save for their recent, blatantly uncivil remarks. They've gotten away with this sort of disruption for too long and have made no effort to improve their behavior so based on that I am blocking for a week. I agree that they're skirting NOTHERE as well. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• I agree that they seem to have a history of disruptive editing; such as on Indiana where they have repeatedly insisted that something be listed as the state's nickname which is not a nickname, and refused to provide sources while removing tags. See: [186], [187], [188], [189], [190]. The discussion on their usertalk page was unproductive User_talk:Spongebob1944#"Lincoln's Boyhood Home".~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Threats and calling me names on Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito#IPA

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 editor I'm talking with clearly fails to remain civil. He threatens to report me and calls me a fascist, and debating with him is a joke. He treats the Handbook of the IPA as an unreliable source without a word of explanation. Peter238 (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Peter238: This edit seems to be the one you are talking about by Tuvixer (talk - contribs) SPACKlick (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that's it. I forgot you need to provide the exact diff, thanks. Peter238 (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Now your behavior will be also in the spot. Please, can someone stop him on the article [Josip Broz Tito]. He has changed the article. I have said to him that his changes are false, but he ignored that, also he ignored the fact that he does not speak, nor Croatian, nor Bosnian, nor Serbian and still he thinks that he is a bigger authority then someone who speaks this languages. He has fabricated evidence and presented a book that does not support his argument, as if so that this book does support his argument. It is really frustrating to be forced to explain to a person, who does not speak BHS, who to speak BHS. If I have really made bad remarks I am really sorry for that. Also in a instance I was joking. I remember that I have asked him nicely to show some good faith and revert the edits he made until we resolve this. But he ignored that, he did not show any good faith. He introduced changes to the article. I have reverted the because they are false, and then he started a edit war. I really don't know how to deal with him, because he ignores everything I say. And I stand behind my words, if someone who does not speak my language tries to force me to pronounce a word incorrectly, is a form of fascism. I am not saying that he is a fascist and everybody can see that but maybe not on purpose he is doing exactly that. Also fabricating sources and ignoring the Wikipedia rules. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I am really sorry if I have offended someone, it was really not my intention at all. I maybe have a "professional dysfunction" because I was raised and live in a town where they teach us to be tolerant, but that we can't be tolerant to those who are intolerant. That is maybe why something I write sounds bad. He has accuses me that I threatened him. I never did that. I did not break the 3RR. Look what he is doing, he is introducing false information to the article. And I have repeatedly even begged him to show some good faith, and he did not. What should have I done. Report him immediately? --Tuvixer (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC):::I am really sorry if I have offended someone, it was really not my intention at all. I maybe have a "professional dysfunction" because I was raised and live in a town where they teach us to be tolerant, but that we can't be tolerant to those who are intolerant. That is maybe why something I write sounds bad. He has accuses me that I threatened him. I never did that. I did not break the 3RR. Look what he is doing, he is introducing false information to the article. And I have repeatedly even begged him to show some good faith, and he did not. What should have I done. Report him immediately? --Tuvixer (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have provided sources in which you can hear people pronouncing "Josip Broz Tito" not "Josip Bros Tito", I can also find videos on the Youtube, where people from ex-Yugoslavia say "Josip Broz Tito". This is really crazy. --Tuvixer (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Also look at thisEdit. Is this civil? --Tuvixer (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think any of that justifies calling someone a "fascist" (or the equivalent, thereof). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not call him a fascist. I said that what he is doing is a form of fascism. Everyone can see that. --Tuvixer (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

What's "pasaran" mean?... Anyway, it's worth nothing that Tuvixer has mentioned around ANI before (here and here), and seems to have been brought up at WP:ANEW on a number of occasions (leading to a couple of blocks for edit warring)... I dunno if the most recent WP:NPA is bad enough for a block, but editor Tuvixer seems to have established an unfortunate pattern on Wikipedia. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You are still under the illusion that being a native speaker means being an authority on the nuances of pronunciation. It does not. About fabricating the evidence (which I've never done!), I've already answered you here. Also, you've failed to say which Wikipedia rules I am breaking.

And I've already explained to you why Forvo is not a reliable source (and indeed, the Serbian (Lutalac's) pronunciation on Forvo partially supports my transcription, which I've already said as well.) Youtube is also not a reliable source. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources.

"Too bad, mate. I was faster." alludes to the fact that before my report, you threatened to report me two times. No idea how is that uncivil, maybe somewhat cheeky. Peter238 (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

"No pasarán" is Spanish for "they shall not pass". Peter238 (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I am really sorry if I have offended someone, it was really not my intention at all. I maybe have a "professional dysfunction" because I was raised and live in a town where they teach us to be tolerant, but that we can't be tolerant to those who are intolerant. That is maybe why something I write sounds bad. He has accuses me that I threatened him. I never did that. I did not break the 3RR. Look what he is doing, he is introducing false information to the article. And I have repeatedly even begged him to show some good faith, and he did not. What should have I done. Report him immediately? --Tuvixer (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

There's an article on the term: ¡No pasarán!. The Spanish version of it has been used by (anarcho-communist) antifascists. --Pudeo' 16:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting. I'd never heard of that before (and history is one of my interests!)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It was not a threat, I said that you will leave me no other option. How is that a treat? Did I report you? And I have repeatedly said that I will have to, but I did not. You are the whole time mean and you did, not even once, shown some good faith. --Tuvixer (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I also probably know why you have reported me. You are loosing the argument and now this is the only thing that you can do, block me so that you can put false information in the article. --Tuvixer (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who says that the Handbook of the IPA (International Phonetic Association) is not a reliable source. I wouldn't say that's "intolerant", but that it is ignorant to the extreme. Especially given the fact that you've never explained why it is unreliable. You told me you'll report me (twice), and I was faster. That's semantics, no big deal. Neither of us have broken the 3RR.

And here we go with the lies. It's convenient to ignore Landau et al., isn't it?

Yes, it's a conspiracy. I'm from the Illuminati, don't you know? We rule the world, man. Jesus Christ... Peter238 (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That book, or atl least that page does not prove that "J. Broz Tito" is pronounced "J. Bros Tito". That is a personal name, and it is no on me to prove something, it is on you to prove that what you are saying is correct. But I think it is over now. :) --Tuvixer (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Pleas read the talk page and then I hope we can end this. Tnx. :) --Tuvixer (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It does not have to say that specifically, it's not a pronunciation dictionary. Either way, it's over. Peter238 (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Both of you, please don't rehash the content dispute here. That is what the article talk page is for. This is to discuss conduct. Neither of you have behaved perfectly but from a non-admin POV, Peter provided a source, Tuvixer didn't like the source and so edit warred over it. Peter responded with an edit war. Tuvixer resorted to insults. As mentioned above Tuvixer seems to have some history of this sort of thing and so probably requires sanction. Peter probably only needs instruction on how to appropriately deal with edit wars. SPACKlick (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how I have started a edit war? :/ He has changed the article, I have reverted it because the edit was incorrect, and then he did not go to the talk page to discuss the matter but started to edit war. He has changed the article, I did not. Also I did not violate the 3RR, and if I have really insulted him, I am really really sorry. This matter is now resolved and there is no more conflict in the article. I was really thinking that he was trying to introduce the pronunciation "Bros" because it sounds funny like Warner Bros or Mario Bros. Look at the history of that article and you will find a lot of vandalism. Again I am really sorry. But I think you can understand, it was really frustrating to listen to someone, who does not speak my language, trying to explain to me (a native speaker) how my language is spoken. --Tuvixer (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Bros has final /z/ in English :P Anyway, sorry for the edit warring. I reverted my changes after finally hearing a convincing argument (see the talk page). I don't think he needs a block, the issue was not that serious. Peter238 (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate NAC

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.

---

Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs) has, in my opinion, inappropriately closed a CFD discussion that I had started. I re-opened (in the hope an admin would come by and make a decision) and left a note at PBP89's talk page confirming the same. Instead of leaving it, PBP89 has instead re-closed the same discussion. Please can an uninvolved admin review a) the CFD and b) PBP89's conduct? Their reason for closing as they have done, as well as the fact that they have removed deletion tags from affected categories even with the knowledge that their close was questioned, are both extremely concerning. GiantSnowman 18:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that you should read WP:CLOSECHALLENGE as you proceed GiantSnowman. IMO it is unlikely that an admin will respond to this until you have followed the procedures listed there. Of course, I could be wrong, so, as I said, this is just a suggestion. MarnetteD|Talk 18:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: - I don't think DRV is appropriate, hence why I raise it here. GiantSnowman 18:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also have a look at WP:NAC and especially at WP:NACD, specifically [p]articipants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures. If you disagree with the close then what you want is WP:DRV. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC) (Adding after edit conflict) You can't just reopen non-admin-closed discussions, per consensus at this RfC. Ivanvector (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Statement by closer: It's clear that there couldn't be any outcome other than keep. The votes fell 7-2 in favor of keeping the categories. It is unlikely that anybody, admin or not, would have closed the discussion as anything but keep. There was both a consensus that it was appropriate to categorize Italians by region, and concerns that the CfD may have been too broad in scope. It was also inappropriate for GiantSnowman, as nominator, to reopen the discussion in the manner that he did; particularly since the close doesn't satisfy any of the five rationales of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. And there's some leeway for GiantSnowman to renominate underpopulated categories in my revised closing rationale here, which I would note is different than the closing rationale I used last week when I originally closed. pbp 18:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the fact it was a 'keep' outcome; I'm challenging the fact that it was an inappropriate NAC (which, by the way, you didn't even note as such). Not quite as bad as non-admins closing TFDs as 'delete', but still not ideal. GiantSnowman 18:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

What part of WP:BADNAC do you think was violated? And if you're not disputing the result, then why are we here? Ivanvector (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

BTW, It's noted as an NAC in the current closing rationale (see here) pbp 19:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Unless I'm missing something, there's no special prohibitions on NAC closers who close as "keep". The only issue with NAC closers is in those cases where the consensus is "delete". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• NAC is for "Clear keep outcomes [...] absent any contentious debate among participants" - not the case here. GiantSnowman 19:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

So you think pbp shouldn't have closed, but you don't dispute the result, correct? Or to put it another way, if an admin had closed, we wouldn't be here? And if that's the case, can you let this go? Or are you here to insist that pbp be punished? If so, I will be happy to WP:TROUT them, with their consent, and then let's move on. Ivanvector (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: pretty much, yeah. GiantSnowman 11:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW if I were to re-close the discussion it would be the same outcome, there is a clear consensus to keep the categories. Sam Walton (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User restoring non-free content

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

---

Can someone nip this in the bud? User:TripWire insist on restoring Google Earth images to the article 2012 Siachen Glacier avalanche. It is my understanding, and I'm pretty sure I'm right, that Google Earth images are not free according to WP:IUP. For an image to be considered free it must be possible to remove the Google Earth logo, which GE policy specifically prohibits. If I'm wrong on this please correct me. If I'm right will someone lease tell User:TripWire that these images are not free since they're unlikely to listen to me (discussion is here); the user in general is argumentative, non-cooperative and not easy to discuss disagreements with.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have asked for clarifications at Media copyright questions here, if they are not permitted, I have no problem with it.—TripWire ^talk 20:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

THis is pretty much solved since the images have been deleted from Commons as a copyright violation. -- GB fan 20:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I was reported it to Commons, thanks for deleting. TripWire is also involved in misusing orange Rollback [here to restore copyright images, despite warning given him earlier here regarding misuse of rollback. Orange Rollback is used for removing copyright images but TrimWire is using that tool to restore copyright images. Apart from these examples, user is involved in misusing rollback on several other occassions [191], [192]. User TrimWire is known for his nationalist views, and calling every other editor as sock [193], [194]. --Human3015 knock knock • 20:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

First, this discussion was opened for the copyright images and not on my personality on how you perceive it. I have called a declared sock as sock as proved here. Whereas, Human3015 having reported me for being a sock and being unable to prove his allegation is now probably unable to bear the investigations by the admins and hence is resorting to WP:NPA. As for the use of rollback, I havent used it after it was clarified by the Media Copyrights Questions board here that I was wrong. This user is unnecessarily getting personal with me especially since his accusations of labeling me a sock did not work and were disapproved by the SPI admins.—TripWire ^talk 21:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Those do appear to be improper uses of rollback TripWire, is there a particular reason you thought those were vandalism, or did you not understand what Rollbacker status mean, or something else? And yes, if you call someone a sock without being willing to back it up with an SPI filing, that is considered unWP:CIVIL, and can draw a sanction. Can you explain? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Explanation As can be seen here the IP is indeed a sock. Also the SPI investigation has proved this here. I did not call ANYONE a sock EXCEPT the IP whose edits were being reverted AFTER he was proven a sock. Human3015 knows this very well but he is deliberately trying to twist the facts, primarily because his bad-faith effort, which he did at the behest of a declared sock diff to prove me as a sock back-fired and he is unable to face the truth. I will request the admins that this user is asking penalties for me just because i called a sock as a sock, but why didnt the admins not block or penalized Human3015 for actually putting me up for an SPI which did not prove anything? I am sure there are no double standards here at wikipedia, and hence I will request the admins to look into this matter, please.—TripWire ^talk 21:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

As for the misuse of rollback, first, the rollbacks referred to as 275 and 276 were done on edits by two blocked IPs as can bee seen here and here. This sock was using multiple IPs from multiple cafes as can be seen in the [SPI against him. So he had to stopped before the Admins actually blocked all the IPs he had been using. As the IPs are blocked now, so my edits were in good-faith and aimed at preventing disrupting editing by the sock using numerous IPs. As for the first revert of the images, I used it because at that time I was unclear that the images were copyrighted and as the images were properly attributed and Google Earth Image Policy was explained to the editor here I mistook the reverts as acts of vandalism. However, after having discussed about them at the talk page and even at the Media Copyright Question Board here, when I was educated that the images were incorrect, I did not revert them.—TripWire ^talk 21:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Even if the IP was a sock, the thing is that User:TripWire is using this as an excuse to make highly POV edits of their own to various pages related to India-Pakistan relations (which is all they edit, with a very blatant and skewed POV). As in "some sock made some edits to this page therefore I get to revert them and anyone else on this article and write it up to suit my POV". But yeah, that may be a topic of discussion for a different time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Sir, you began with copyrightvio, went to accusing me of things I did not do and ended up talking about socks edits which were otherwise required to be edited, what exactly do you want? What you have said about me can exactly be said about you as you were the one who have been reading the sock edits over and again despite the discussion at the talk page, thus pushing a skewed POV. You have been explained by other editors too that the edits y the sock were wrong and did not fit the scope of the page and were thus reverted. You were even offered to open up a RfC which you did not. The disucssion is still open at the talk page with no consensus at all, then how can you reinsert the same info over and again? It's a simple question, sir.—TripWire ^talk 22:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop it, everyone, this isn't a pissing match. I asked him to explain he did. Now I will say that you are responsible for knowing how to use a tool before you get it, not after, so using revert outside of it's intended purpose will result in the bit being removed. As to what should or shouldn't be removed, take it to the talk page of the article, admin don't deal with content. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty common to "not get" exactly where and when rollback should and shouldn't be used. I even had an arbitrator use it incorrectly a few months ago, who plead ignorance. I'm sure User:TripWire will look carefully at the guideline at WP:ROLLBACK and ensure he doesn't misuse the feature again. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC).

It's not difficult to "get". It just requires being conscious of the rules when thinking about doing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Well Rollback is problematic enough that I've never had any desire to ask for it. Heck, I recall there was an Admin that was asking how to disable Rollback on their end! (I think I'd be tempted to do the same thing!) Besides, it's not particularly difficult to "manually" rollback (and you're less likely to make mistakes that way too...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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

List of ice hockey nicknames vandal is back

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.

---

99.253.0.224, an IP whose only edits consist of adding the insulting nickname "Rags" to the page List of ice hockey nicknames, is back from two previous blocks for this disruptive editing and has made the exact same edit again. Whoever is behind this IP is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and while I know that IPs can't be blocked indefinitely, they should be blocked again for quite some time. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked for one month. Thanks for the report. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 02:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Editors engaging in tag team reverting

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

---

On the 11th June I added some questions to the User Talk page for Contribsx. On the 14th June this was removed. I then added it back in again, saying in the edit summary that it was a unique case.

This seemed fine for over two weeks, with no further edits to this page taking place, until the 29th June when Vordrak removed the post. He explained himself on my User Talk page. I gave a detailed response to this which originally I added to his Talk page. Rather than engaging in debate, he removed it within 4 minutes. (I then added it to my Talk page.)

I therefore felt I had no choice but to simply add the post back to the Talk page for Contribsx. This was reverted by William M. Connolley, who merely said in the edit summary "per others". This was a lie as there weren't "others" plural, there was only RegentsPark who had actually left an edit summary. Additionally, RegentsPark has at no point got in touch after I reverted their removal. So this was a wholly inadequate explanation by William M. Connolley. So I reverted the removal again.

Finally, Joel B. Lewis removed the post. He merely said in the edit summary that it was "obviously inappropriate". As I saw nothing inappropriate about it, I then reverted the removal once more. I wrote in the edit summary that if it was obviously inappropriate then why hadn't he reverted it at any point between the 14th and 29th June? And why not debate this? He has since reverted the addition again.

(Redacted)

To summarise, not one of the three editors who has removed my comment from the Talk page for Contribsx has been willing to discuss it. I wrote a lengthy reply for Vordrak who just ignored it. William M. Connolley has not so far been willing to discuss it. And JBL has not been willing to discuss it. Additionally, there is the issue of why William M. Connolley and JBL have only felt the need to do something about this after Vordrak - a Conservative blogger - got involved. Again, the page was left unedited between the 14th June and the 29th June.

We have a situation where it appears that three editors are engaging in tag team reverting, while not being willing to discuss the issue. I therefore have no choice but to ask an uninvolved administrator to become involved. Kookiethebird (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears that Kookiethebird believes the definition of "tag team" is "more than one editor who disagrees with me." An alternative view is that Kookiethebird is editing disruptively against consensus. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. As it says on WP:TAGTEAM:

"Signs that may point to tag-teaming include:

- Working together to circumvent the three revert rule

- WP:NINJA editing – terse comments, little talk page justification"

It appears that you are another editor who refuses to discuss the issue at hand, while at the same time trying to make out that other people are at fault. Kookiethebird (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, consensus can change - WP:CON. And:

"In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever."

As WP:UIAR says:

"If you find the rule sensible, you will understand why the other editor suggested it should be followed. If you do not see the sense in it, however, you should explain why you disagree with it."

Also, "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." WP:PG Kookiethebird (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You may find WP:1AM to be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk)

You are trying to ask a fellow editor to out their true identity. Not cool. It's no wonder you've been reverted by an Admin and several others. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Appears to violate our policy on outing, however there are similar entries on the same page that have not been reverted.Flat Out (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have RevDel'ed the edits as they are outing attempts. Kookiethebird, if you do that again, I will block you for an indef period of time, no talk page, and you can use WP:BASC for an appeal. If you post that same information elsewhere, the same result. As this information is subject to an Arbitration action, there is no debate to be had. You are free to appeal to them at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org if you disagree with my action here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • OS contacted as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Dennis Brown. For thoroughness could you please Del the edits made to my talk page by Kookiethebird on this topic and also RevDel the conversation on Kookiethebird's talk page due to obvious BLP breaches? Vordrak (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Your page is why I called in Oversight. I don't have those tools, and this is their specialty. They should respond shortly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Thanks. I removed all Kookiethebird's comments from my page, they just need oversighting. Can you delete them in the meantime? The whole conversation is still live on Kookiethebird's talk page, including his lengthy defence which violates the policies we previously discussed. Can you delete those? Vordrak (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

OS has responded and is taking the steps they feel are necessary. That is a decision for them to make, not me. Assuming he doesn't OUT anyone again, I think we are done. If he does, just ping my talk page and I will take care of it from there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Possible range block needed

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

---

Recently, a lot of similar vandalism on similar pages has occurred. All vandalism came from IP's that all start with the number 173.209.211, a full list of IP's involved:

• 173.209.211.132 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 173.209.211.143 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 173.209.211.146 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 173.209.211.148 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 173.209.211.157 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 173.209.211.192 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 173.209.211.197 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 173.209.211.198 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 173.209.211.211 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 173.209.211.217 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 173.209.211.221 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 173.209.211.225 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 173.209.211.233 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 173.209.211.240 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 173.209.211.244 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I initially started a sockpuppet investigation, although I now feel that may have not been the best route to take, as the issue seems too severe. All the IP's have vandalized at least one of the four following pages: Kreayshawn, Lil Debbie, V-Nasty, 21st Century Girl (Willow song). All of the vandalism is pretty concurrent in theme, usually changing the main image to something inappropriate (A fleshlight, an Ape (now deleted from public view at Whip My Hair), the confederate flag, the nazi flag, a rectum etc) One IP had not vandalized any of the aforementioned pages, but randomly vandalized two of my sandboxes (1,2) in the same way all previous IP's have to articles, and includes the similar IP to other reported IP's. I do believe all the IP's are the same person, basically confirmed by one IP's vandalism to 21st Century Girl (Willow song), who changed the picture to a fleshlight, the IP had never done it before, but the edit summary was "Im going to keep doing it" Not really sure how to handle the situation, so brought it here. Azealia911 _talk 14:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

173.209.211.128/27 would hit them all but with 113 other potential users blocked.

173.209.211.132 173.209.211.143 173.209.211.144/28 (13 potential others) 173.209.211.192/29 (5 others) 173.209.211.211 173.209.21.216/29 (6 others) 173.209.211.224/28 (14 others) and finally 173.209.211.240 would block these ones. WP:RFPP might be a better option though as that'll lock ths IP's out of the articles in question. Amortias (T)(C) 14:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked 173.209.211.128/25 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for one week. This range identifies as Hosted Solutions and I'm wondering if {{webhostblock}} might apply. Anyway, the one week block should hold it for now. EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Azealia911 _talk 15:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Oldstone James

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

---

Oldstone James (talk · contribs), after being disruptive at Jackson Martínez, wrote on my WP:AN3 report: "I don't mind being banned". This is unacceptable behaviour. SLBedit (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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

OttonielWhite/Elindiord

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.

---

OttonielWhite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has resumed making Twinkle reverts of valid edits without any edit summaries after the expiration of a one-month block for sockpuppetry. The sockpuppet, Elindiord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was twice blocked for the same behavior. This editor obviously does not understand what is wrong with their actions, has made no attempt to communicate, and should be blocked to prevent further disruption. Conifer (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Only one edit since this report was filed (which, it's worth noting, was reverted...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Lot more than one edit now, and it's really a pain having to go and undo all their reversions that don't have edit summaries. There is a serious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue going on. Conifer (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked three weeks. This unexplained revert was not reverting vandalism. In fact, the added content just repeats a sourced item in the filmography list. It's excusable to miss that, but continuing to treat good faith edits as vandalism is not on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP (cont)

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

---

This is the continuation of a previous, now archived thread. The IP in question, 108.65.249.149, refuses to discuss his or her edits and continues with threats in the edit summaries to track editors down and kill them. Can something be done apart from revdeling the edit summaries? --Epipelagic (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Made it two weeks, then saw the one summary, changed to indef, although I can only block the permanent IP for 6 months. RevDel'ed the two summaries, let me know if I missed something, via a ping. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• oh, Epipelagic. please note that I changed the title to something that wasn't a personal attack. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User:7tripple7

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 note this [195]. I really hate people not engaging in discussions and insulting others.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• I indef blocked as a vandalism only account, although technically, its more of a harassment only account. I get the feeling this is a sock of someone else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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

London bus routes

PowerofP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have just reverted a number of less than helpful edits to an article called The Den one of those changed the wording from London Buses route 21 to London Bus route 21. I checked the two links and they redirect to different articles London Bus route 21 redirects to London bus route 21 an article created on 12 May 2015, by user:PowerofP an account created on 30 March 2015 at 03:51

The article London Buses route 21 was made into a redirect by user:Alzarian16 at 15:35, 29 April 2011‎ to List of bus routes in London

There followed a slow redirect restore series of edit involving user:Tentinator, user:CourtneyBonnick, user:BlueMoonset, user:Asbeto4 until user:JamesBWatson indefinitely protected the page on 20 September 2014 at 11:05 with the comment "Protected London Buses route 21: Persistent sock puppetry on a large number of related articles". JBW is on a wikibreak at the moment otherwise user talk:JamesBWatson would have been my first port of call. As I am not fully versed in this particular set of edit, I will leave it to other to see if the article London bus route 21 is a case for wack a rat, or if London Buses route 21 should be redirect to it.

See also User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive_60#Blocked user Ibsiadkgneoeb back as SeatF22 and category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ibsiadkgneoeb

-- PBS (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

This would appear to also involve London bus route 295, created June 25, which appears to restore the pre-redirected London Buses route 295 article under the new, slightly different title, while retaining the bold "London Buses route 295" in the article's lead. Both articles, along with a great many others, were deemed non-notable and redirected to the List of bus routes in London article, yet the same eventually blocked user (Ibsiadkgneoeb, Asbeto4, SeatF22, Delboy18) kept bringing them back. I'm guessing that the slight variation in article names from the standard is designed to prevent the articles from showing up in Watchlists. I have redirected both to the List of bus routes in London article. I expect to submit a sockpuppet investigation shortly (WP:DUCK if nothing else). BlueMoonset (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Pudeo

User:Pudeo [196]

The user is currently engaged in repeated vandalism-Blanking(potentially) by inserting his potential biased opinion into his reason for doings so; I don't particularly blame him however. We are currently debating Wikipedia's rules/position regarding WP:BLP vs Verifiability of a source article establishing a living person's applicability to a wiki when a news source agrees with a label; we are both uncertain whom is correct on this discussion/situation. All concerned would appreciate an experienced editor or administrative perspective.

We are both adhering to WP:BRD in our perspectives in the [Talk Discussion; explaining our disagreements].

The wiki: Hair_fetishism

The offending DIFF: [197] NZ4Life (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

"Biased opinion", not "bias opinion". BMK (talk) 08:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well spotted sir. NZ4Life (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. In my opinion the right venue is Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, as we're labeling the incumbent Prime Minister of New Zealand John Key a hair fetishist. Based on the source, it says " has been labelled a hair fetishist", but not by whom. Was it a single Twitter user or so? The BLP implications on a vague source are more serious than what can be gained by listing a prime minister as a hair fetishist. --Pudeo' 03:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

While your opinion is nice and all, it is not fact or a source. "we're labeling the incumbent Prime Minister of New Zealand John Key a hair fetishist." This is an incorrect statement, 3_News is labeling John Key as such on behalf of their undisclosed sources in a published article and we are referencing their article. The user does not appear to distinguish the difference in his own opinion. As such, the "repeated" implications of his actions and argument would jeopardise the integrity of all credible news sources based on Verifiability on Wiki. "more serious than what can be gained by listing a prime minister as a hair fetishist" what is considered more/gained/serious, is not for you to be judge, jury and executioner of, it is what can be referenced correctly. Thus your action's appear to be a biased attempt at blanking and in need of administrative clarification. Or potentially my own, not my place to judge. NZ4Life (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Pudeo has done nothing wrong. The content is probably not appropriate content for that article - see WP:COATRACK. It is not vandalism to remove inappropriate content - see WP:NOT VANDALISM. The appropriate place (if any) for that content is John Key, where I see it already occupies about one and a half lines - about all it actually warrants. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Serious uncited accusations should be removed, also at pt WP (content still in last revision and on talk page, also here still in article. Private blog snapshot, which gives some clues on conflicts. However the content here is not referenced and per BLP. prokaryotes (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a BLP vio to quick review. An acusation of murder is indeed serious and a BLP violation if not cited; I am about to leave work and don't do complex edits while mobile. Another editor should review with an eye towards BLP deletion of the claim, but look at all the details. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with revision deletion and have sent an email requesting oversight. If anyone who speaks the other languages cares to notify the other wikis (es.wiki and pt.wiki) that would be helpful. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I will try to notify the Portuguese Wikipedia in the morning unless someone beats me to it. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 04:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have looked through the Portuguese version of the article and there are no mentions of murder accusations? Unless the comments are about something else? @Diannaa: Is it possible you tell me what was in the edits you deleted? Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 15:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the addition in the pt version, see edit history (revision history). prokaryotes (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. You could have told me you removed the content :P Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 16:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought i did when i mentioned the rev above, though wasn't very clear i agree. prokaryotes (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Dog meat

Please could an admin take a look at the Dog meat article - it seems to have attracted the attention of a disruptive editor. Thanks in advance.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Switzerland was originally included in wikipedia "dog meat" before Yulin festival was a hot topic on the news but someone removed it maybe because the western people were shame that the list had European country in dog eating list! Switzerland has 3% people who eat dogs and cats meat, don't believe me, google it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilin19892706 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I'm trying to help the user understand the reliable source issue with the Daily Mail here. I get where they're coming from, but I think it's a case of user not understanding our policies, rather than a deliberate bad faith attempt to disrupt. Valenciano (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You might be right - let's see if they respond to our messages on the Talk page.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I've advised them on their talk page of WP:BRD, WP:3RR and to stop edit warring and to use the talk page to discuss, if they ignore that, then a short block may be in order to stop further edit warring and disruption. Given what they've said on their own talk page, there may be linguistic competence issues there. Valenciano (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I've bolstered up the previous warnings with some links and the information that they will get blocked if they continue. It needs to be taken to the article talk page though, not his talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

battleground behavior and general uncivility by RGloucester

The latest from RGloucester (talk · contribs) is his refusal to accept the outcome of the Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton move discussion. This was a long drawn out discussion but consensus was quite clearly in favor of moving it. He has since been edit warring over the name in the infobox,[198], [199], [200], [201]. He has now announced his plans on the article talk page to do another move request to change it back. After a chorus of people opposing such an idea, he made this edit [202] indicating he believes that only his opinion is correct and that he WILL eventually get his way.

This is not the first time he has made such statements that things WILL go his way, which I feel is an intimidation tactic.[203] He frequently makes demands and refuses to accept when things do not go his way, such as this checkuser request.[204]

Additionally, he's being extremely uncivil at the Village Pump. He has violated WP:NPA by telling someone they are inferior and to accept their "station" in life [205]. What I find most bizarre is that he stated that "God has spoken to you and your cause through me, and I've said what he intended in a clear manner." [206] He also believes that nobody on Wikipedia has any rights to protest anything [207] (which I suppose he does not feel applies to him). He has been blocked four or five times this year already (despite his claims that "someone who is right can never be blocked.") [208]) and his antics frequently feature on Reddit. I feel something needs to be done about this user, unless he specifically states his willingness to work with other editors, that he will accept consensus when things don't go his way, and that he agrees he is not the messenger of God on Wikipedia. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• I believe that this can be folded/merged into the #Hillary Clinton discussion above. It relates to the same set of issues. bd2412 T 16:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@BD2412: it's actually a larger issue regarding one editor in particular and not specific to the Hillary Clinton article - there are other editors involved with the HC infobox argument. I think there is a larger and ongoing issue that needs to be addressed with RGloucester. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Concur with —Мандичка. It's related, but RGloucester's battleground behavior and attitude deserve special attention. I would hope a warning would suffice. --В²C ☎ 17:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: Well, there seems to be a cycle where a warning is given or a "break" is imposed every few months or so. Given that's how it seems to be "addressed" on each occasion, I'm not too sure if it will be any different if the thread is down here or merged as a sub-thread into the above discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - User:RGloucester is an editor who polarizes the community, who has supporters and opponents. "The community" at this noticeboard has never done a good job of dealing with divisive or polarizing editors. If anyone thinks that this editor really needs to be sanctioned, they can go to ArbCom. I concur with the criticism of his sometimes extreme self-righteousness, as in his statements that he may not be blocked because he is right; but the community at this noticeboard has never dealt effectively with polarizing editors. In the case of his comments at Village pump (miscellaneous), my interpretation is that he has forgotten that, on the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that being "polarizing" ought to be grounds for any action against an editor whatsoever. In this case, there are plenty of other specific grounds for action, without resorting to a vague charge of polarization, which could be used against any editor who has a mind of his own, and honestly says what he thinks. In this particular situation, RGloucester is simply being dishonest retaliatory. He is planning to move the article not simply because it should be moved, but explicitly in retaliation against "Certain editors [who] have taken to the war path, ignoring Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and common sense. They attempt to eradicate the word 'Rodham', as if said word were vulgar." There would be no suggestion to again do an article move but for continuing efforts to remove "Rodham" from locations other than the article title. There is no need to point here to "polarization" because we can point to more specific bad behavior. Retaliatory editing is always bad behavior.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - It should be noted that American political edits are under discretionary sanctions per the new ArbCom ruling. To quote, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. If RG has been made aware of these sanctions I just informed him of the discretionary sanctions ([209]), WP:AE would be the appropriate venue to air grievances and allegations of wrongdoing. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Can someone please explain exactly what this means to me? Does this mean that all post-1933 U.S. politics articles are under 1RR, or what?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@IJBall: Just standard discretionary sanctions. 1RR could be placed on a page by an admin if they felt it was necessary. But there's no blanket 1RR or anything. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Pssst...EvergreenFir, try using WP:GS to link to the above; it currently links to Deletion sorting.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Thanks! Fixed! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Can I point out that the list at WP:SANCTIONS isn't even in alphabetical order right now? Am I allowed to fix that? Please! Pretty please?!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• This thread is a nonsense. First of all, I have not "edit-warred" with anyone over anything. I've not edited the article in a week, and have no involvement with the development of its content (I have never edited an "American political article"). I opened a talk page thread ages ago, which was promptly ignored by the likes of Calidum, who continued edit-warring with other editors over the infobox header, leading to the article's protection. Second of all, I am preparing to open a new RM because no moratorium was enacted, and because I believe that the evidence shows that the other title should be the title of the Wikipedia article. This is what those who "moved" the article did (such as well-known title warrior Born2cycle), filing new RMs at every juncture for years, so I do not see why I should not be allowed it? What is the reason for this apparent double standard? Furthermore, I find it absurd that I'm being taken to task over people who dislike my character. I have committed no wrong-doing, other than that some people here seem to have a visceral hatred of my very being. There is no justification whatsoever for an AN/I thread, or anything else. Yes, I oppose liberal activism on an encylopaedia that is supposed to be a bastion of neutrality. It isn't supposed to be a soapbox, or so I thought. Was that not the foundation of the project? And yet, merely voicing an opinion on the matter of these banners has brought fellows out of the woodwork, trying to sink my every act. What is the meaning of this? Why has this come to pass? Why are these editors able to go about unabashedly attacking the likes of me, incessantly playing at political advocacy, and yet I'm the one that's being chastised with a paddle? Explain, dear AN/I. Explain. RGloucester — ☎ 17:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• (Uninvolved editor comment, aka. unsolicited advice) Bad idea, RGloucester. Even if you are "right" on the merits, back-to-back RM's never go down well, and yours will surely be voted down (not on the "merits") if you try this. You are best advised to wait about 6 months (or until Hillary!! gets elected – whichever comes first) and try again then. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Interesting. EvergreenFir notified RGloucester of discretionary sanctions, and RGloucester deleted the notification, saying that he has never edited an American politics article. Hilary Rodham Clinton is an American politician. To respond to Anythingyouwant, I agree that being polarizing or divisive should not be grounds for sanctions against an editor. Anythingyouwant stated that RGloucester has engaged in dishonesty and retaliatory editing, which are conduct issues. I meant that "the community" at this noticeboard has difficulty in dealing with identified conduct issues by polarizing editors, and that conduct issues by polarizing or divisive editors should be dealt with either by Arbitration Enforcement or by the ArbCom. RGloucester hasn't responded to my comment about dripping sarcasm on the Internet, which is a waste of pixels. I recommend that this thread be closed by an uninvolved administrator, and that any conduct issues be taken to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

AE does not apply, as I wasn't notified of the sanctions until mere minutes ago. As such, I wasn't made "aware" of the sanctions until after the supposed "violations" occurred. Not that there were any "violations". You'll note that the sum total of my involvement with the HRC article is with regard to the title, not with regard to anything political. I have no involvement in "American politics", and know nothing about them, praise God. I do not consider the few edits I made to restore the infobox header to the consensus version a week ago to be "editing an American politics article". Insofar as "sarcasm" is concerned, I do not understand as to what you are referring. Please be clearer, and perhaps I can furnish you with a reply. RGloucester — ☎ 18:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Perhaps my reference to sarcasm with respect to RGloucester's comments at Village pump (miscellaneous) telling other editors to stop challenging the will of the ruling classes and the will of God and to stop being so self-important was too kind, and perhaps either he was trolling or he actually believed what he said. It is true that those comments do not fall within the scope of Arbitration Enforcement because they have to do with European politics. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I never say anything other than what I believe. RGloucester — ☎ 19:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, I don't know exactly what "polarizing" refers to in this sense. I don't see anyone on the other side supporting RGloucester. The closest thing was the suggestion that he was being sarcastic when he proclaimed to speaks the word of God and insulted someone, which he has denied. He's also denied edit warring and apparently feels editing the politician's name in the infobox falls outside of ArbCom sanctions as it is not political content. Do you still suggest taking it to arbitration? You work in arbitration, correct? —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for Robert, but I read his suggestion to mean taking it to WP:Arbitration Enforcement, not to WP:Arbitration. AE is where admins evaluate possible violations of ArbCom decisions, includng those involving discretionary sanctions, while Arbitration is a much more involved and time-consuming process which is generally used for new cases. Take a look at the content at WP:AE and see if you think it's an appropriate place to deal with your concerns. BMK (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

My complaint about RGloucester is regarding their ongoing behavior, incivil approach and general diva behavior that is approaching infamy outside of WP (like this unwarranted absurd attack on Drmies) that was on reddit). AE is just about people violating arbitrary sanctions. I haven't studied everything RGloucester has ever written, but it appears they've never made any admission or indication of meeting people halfway, just a ragequit when they demanded to be blocked. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

My recommendation was in particular to take the issue of move-warring or title-warring about an American politician to arbitration enforcement. The name in the infobox is the name of a candidate for President of the United States, and that is certainly American politics. If RGloucester thinks that he can persuade the uninvolved admins at AE that that isn't political, he can try to persuade them of that. If someone wants to propose sanctions for incivility with regard to a European political issue, they can do that here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Firstly, there is nothing "uncivil" about stating that it isn't Wikipedia's business to be interfering in matters of law or government. Secondly, it seems that you, Mr McClenon, despite being being an Arbitration clerk, are not aware of WP:AC/DS procedures. I cannot be taken to AE in this supposed "American politics" topic area for anything that occurred prior to having been made aware of the sanctions. Given that I've not edited any American politics pages since that notice, mere hours ago, there are no grounds for an AE request in that topic area. Regardless, there would not be anything actionable even if AE was a possible route. I would remind Mr McClenon that Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for certain political views. I understand that he may endorse the liberal views expressed in the discussion on the matter of the banners, but that does not mean he is able to initiate a sanctioning of editors who have different views, or view the neutrality of the encylopaedia as sacrosanct. RGloucester — ☎ 00:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I think you may want to correct your second sentence, because perhaps quite fortunately, he is not an arbitration clerk anymore since he resigned last month. @Wikimandia: So to answer a question of yours which seems to have been unanswered - he does not work in arbitration. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Furthermore, I would like to note that Miss Wikimandia's mention of certain off-Wikipedia websites of ill-repute does not do her any service. It makes it clear that she is part of a long-running off-Wikipedia harassment campaign against me as an editor, started late last year during the Cultural Marxism deletion debate. Said campaign has been ongoing, and has made editing nigh impossible in some cases. If anything, I recommend that she be sanctioned for participating in this campaign of harassment, and for participating in what has essentially been stalking. RGloucester — ☎ 00:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not part of any campaign to harass or stalk you. If your behavior has gained the attention of the wider world, that has nothing to do with me. I don't care about the "Cultural Marxism" page and have never made any comment about it nor have I ever edited it. You're entitled to your opinion and there's nothing uncivil about saying you oppose the banner idea... notice the many other people who expressed that opinion who are not being discussed at ANI??? However, you're not entitled to be rude. What is uncivil is your insults and inability to work with other editors, which is part of an ongoing issue you have of seeing yourself as superior to everyone (except God, who speaks through you, of course). —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? What "insult"? I never "insulted" anymore. I merely said that one should know one's place, as one should do. Mind you, this was in response to an outpouring of passion on the part of one editor, whereby he was in anguish over the fact that many of the photographs he has taken will cease to be in his ownership if the mentioned law passes. I was simply making it clear that he has no right to decide whether the photographs are his own, and that Wikipedia is not a place for passionate advocacy. It isn't for us to decide. That's a matter for the ruling class, for our betters. If they decide that these photographs shan't be able to be used, then they shan't be able to be used. We have no right to challenge the law. The law is the law, and it must be respected. RGloucester — ☎ 03:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• The difficulty here is that there are two problems with RGloucester. (1) he's quite annoying - overblown pseudo-Jane Austen language, grandiloquent rhetoric, ironic references that only he finds entertaining, sometimes bizarre opinions etc and (2) there's certainly an element of WP:BATTLE in his approach. The first isn't sanctionable, although it would be better if he didn't do it. The problem with the second is that it gets so clouded with the first that it's actually a little difficult to assess whether it's bad enough that something need be done about it. I think there's a lack of diffs in this thread, outside of the HC latest, that clearly point to (2) - as opposed to (1) - being an issue. DeCausa (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• That is an excellent analysis. I would add, however, that RG's propensity for actively and noisily not accepting the results of controversial community-consensus discussions which were settled only with great effort on many people's part can be considered to be WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:DISRUPTIVE in and of themselves, since he tends to go on and on and on about it, and often takes steps which muck things up. BMK (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't consider RG being disruptive. I've no problem with RG's passion for the topic-in-question & recommend we take no action against RG. As long as RG doesn't try to put Rodham in the infobox heading (via edit warring) or attempt to move the article itself back to Hillary Rodham Clinton? then there's no probs. GoodDay (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Rgloucester is the author of one of the most hilarious unblock requests I have read on wiki: On 18:24, 17 April 2015 he wrote "I refuse to be blocked. I am not blocked. You can pretend that you blocked me all you like, but someone who is right can never be blocked. It is impossible." If we can get more of this I think that is enough reason to keep him around for the lulz.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This commentary is inappropriate. We should not have editors around to make fun of their behaviour. The above unblock request is suggestive of a mental breakdown to me. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree, it is an inappropriate comment.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User:DePiep

I undid an edit by User:DePiep and added the subject "This was not a minor edit - you are changing more than just infobox parameters" ([210]) beacuse he was changing text from other editors. He undid it with the subject "grow up and learn to read"[211] and I undid it again: "Stop it - you are changing the meaning of peoples text - look at the diff" and he undid it with "Get an editors life instead of tracking and bothering other editors. Create you own edits. And no, no contant changes because it's about par names". I confronted him on his talk page (see bottom - conversation before he archieved it), and asked for an apology, and he just said "And why should I not point to the "bothering" aspect?" Its not the first time, see e.g. Wikipedia_talk:Chemical_infobox#ATC_and_DrugBank_deprecations_reversion (and especially from "I did notice there were multiple editors in this discussion, and DePiep [...]", and its not so long ago he was here at WP:ANI last time Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive879#use_of_COI_as_a_weapon_in_content_dispute. Christian75 (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read this too. Christian75 (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion by socks User:Futurewiki, User:Dragonrap2 and User:Mega22

See User:Mega256. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Links: Mega256 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Dang. This guy won't quit! This keeps up, and we'll have to add Dragonrap2 to WP:LTA. P.S. Is there any "official" record of this over at WP:SPI? Should a casefile page about this over at SPI be created?... Nevermind: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dragonrap2 --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• More edits (more categories stuff) from Mega256 today. Anyone?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Could someone please block User:Mega256, as has been done immediately with all the previous socks? He continues to edit. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Indef blocked (for socking) now by Dennis Brown. Am still wondering whether this should also go to WP:LTA yet(?)... This can probably be closed in the meantime now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers

I have neither the head nor the heart to get into ARBPIA issues, but could someone please intervene at Talk:2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers because there's a stupid, slow-running revert war going on there. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• One block for IP hopper and semi-protected the talk page for a week, something I don't normally do but seemed the best solution here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

(EC) I presume you're referring to the talk page itself rather then the article? It looks to me like the IP's removal of the comments is plain wrong. The editor who left them isn't blocked. And both comments seem on topic and constructive. If the IP disagrees with any of the comments, they're welcome to leave a response. Since the IP is hopping and possibly with a wide range, blocking looks like it will be difficult (one IP was already blocked before they started hopping). So semiprotecting the talk page is the only remaining option (or I guess an edit filter, but I don't think those are used for things like this), or alternatively just hoping the IP gives up. And I just noticed it looks like the talk page has been semiprotected so I guess there's nothing more to do Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Outside persuasion and canvassing from /r/pcmasterrace

There appears to be a co-ordinated effort from the subreddit /r/pcmasterrace to add derogatory information to a variety of video game related articles, and erase historical context from one other. A search for "wikipedia" provides some idea of the problem [212] One prominent example:

• Spotlight 004: Our Wikipedia Warriors

In this thread [213] the creation of new console list articles is proposed, with the purpose of "showing the peasants how small their collections really are". These articles were subsequently created by User:Wikinium but later redirected by other users. [214] Paid exclusivity was also targeted by /r/pcmasterrace. [215] It was nominated for deletion in April. The result was redirect to console exclusivity. User Wikinium ignored the result and quietly restored the page after attention had been diverted. (diff) The recent addition of criticism to Xbox One by Wikinium (diff) also correlates to a boastful submission on /r/pcmasterrace the same day. [216]

And today, the same editor is behaving in a disruptive manner on PC Master Race. In order to describe the development of the term, and how it was coined, a fleeting reference to Nazi ideology is made. This linguistic context is supported by reliable sources, such as PC Gamer's executive editor Tyler Wilde, who observes:

"It began as a joke from Ben “Yahtzee” Croshaw, who was mocking our elitist attitude with the internet’s favorite analogy: the Nazi analogy. That was seven years ago, but the phrase is still everywhere, said without any consideration (or perhaps understanding) of the historical context, without any consideration of the original context, and without any of the original self-mockery. [...] I obviously realize that no one is actually saying that PC gamers are the preferred people of Hitler. That’s absurd, and it’s supposed to be absurd. It’s a joke. [...] I’d be mortified if my friends and family thought I were part of something called the “PC Master Race.” They don’t get the context, and even if I explained it to them, a half-forgotten seven-year-old internet joke doesn’t expunge the historical meaning from the phrase, which refers to the Aryan race, which is a term still used by people with swastika tattoos." [217]

I'm not sure which editor elaborated its etymology and popular usage, but our single sentence description appears reasonable. Wikinium nevertheless deleted the above citation, and others similar to it, without explanation (diff) It was restored by myself on the 26th (diff) but deleted by the same user, who described my restoration as "vandalism". (diff) It was reinserted again on the 27th, with a clear and helpful edit summary (diff) only to be deleted again by Wikinium without explanation. (diff) (diff) And once again today (diff) reverted as "troll edits" (diff).

A note on User:Wikinium's talk page has gone unanswered, and a clear warning ignored. Administrator guidance is welcome. — TPX 20:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I should include a reference to the talk page currently discussing this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PC_Master_Race#Naziism_.26_Holocaust_troll_edits

Ever since discovering links from /r/PCMasterRace to Wikipedia in recent weeks, TPX has had a vendetta against the page and users related to these pages, and is attempting to include what I believe to be (partially) irrelevant material (the claims about Naziism, Master Race, and Holocaust are not entirely sourced within the article written by Tyler Wilde - he only briefly mentions "Nazi pastiches"). I proposed putting the section he wrote about Naziism and the Holocaust in a "Misconceptions" section, but he has forcefully put it back in the same section every time I reverted the section back to its original state. The fact of the matter is, the term was not created for and has never been used in a racial context. I stand by my suggestion that most of this be placed in a Misconceptions section, because that's exactly what it is. Wikinium (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

When did you make your proposal? I agree that adding Fanboy in the 'See also' subsection was not suitable. However the inclusion of Fandom does seem appropriate to describe the intense level of enthusiasm among some PC gamers. Can you point to another example of my vendetta, Wikinium? — TPX 21:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I actually made it just earlier today. I think it's a good idea to make a Misconceptions section. The information you want to include can be included (I was never against that), but it can be placed in a more appropriate section, rather than at the very front of the section that's meant to document the usage of the term "PC Master Race". Placing it in the absolute front of the section meant for "PC Master Race" kind of makes it look like the term has a racial or ethnic context. I don't want to dig for more edits (I referenced them in the talk page). It was edits like that that made me think you were there to vandalize it rather than actually help improve the clarity of the article. Wikinium (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you are referring to the talk page proposal you submitted literally as I was filing my complaint? (diff) If the answer is Yes, it does not support your contention (above) that "I proposed putting the section he wrote about Naziism and the Holocaust in a "Misconceptions" section, but he has forcefully put it back in the same section every time", as the editing dispute occurred at a time earlier than your proposition. Please clarify this point. — TPX 21:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Those lists need pruning of the non-notable redlinks. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You're telling me... I think 90% of the red links added to these lists are people just trying to catalog their own game rather than contribute a good item to the list. Wikinium (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologize if my comments are not the proper manner for the notice board, but I wanted to 'bump' this section as it were, as the page in question has now been full protected as a result of the offsite canvasing and edit warring. @Ged UK:, not sure if you were aware of this section when protecting, just FYI. -- ferret (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• On a semi-related note, I do want Wikinium to stop making all these terrible list articles. Every single list shown at List of lists of console titles has been redirected, mostly because they still look like this a year after their creation. Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't created a list page in a very long time. I created those hoping that people capable of adding things to the list, but a lot of them ended up being redundant due to pages like List of video game exclusives (eighth generation). Some ended up not being duplicates, and others did. You won't have to worry about me creating any more of the sort. Now that I've seen them all and worked on the majority of them, I believe every platform-related game list now exists on Wikipedia in some form or another. Wikinium (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the PC Master Race article? Nothing. If this is an issue, it should be addressed in a seperate discussion. Omegastar (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Only a cautionary note, though I'm not aware of any specific organized attempt to affect this, but some of these edits like the PC Master Race article has also been discussed on Gamergate-related boards. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the troll harassment and canvasing board "GamerGhazi" picked it up recently, which means the kind of troll edits that got us the frankly embarrassingly biased GamerGate Controversy article will be spilling over to this one. KiTA (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You predicted correctly. A request for deletion was started around the same time that GamerGhazi picked it up. Wikinium (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to Topic-Ban User:Count Iblis from Reference Desk

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

---

This is a request to topic-ban User:Count Iblis from the Reference Desk for offering medical advice and arguing with editors who say not to offer medical advice.

The following question was posted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FScience&type=revision&diff=668838130&oldid=668837837

Count Iblis then replied:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FScience&type=revision&diff=668848835&oldid=668847816

There was a lengthy discussion at WT: Reference Desk, beginning with: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AReference_desk&type=revision&diff=668979964&oldid=668974347

The thread continues as Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Medical_advice.3F.

As can be seen, there is consensus that this post was medical advice, but Count Iblis maintains, in spite of that consensus, that he was justified in making that post. His continuing arguments in support of being able to answer medical questions are tendentious and include https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AReference_desk&type=revision&diff=669127190&oldid=669126680 which is an Argumentum ad Hitlerum. Since he opposes the proposal to close the thread with a warning, and insists on keeping the thread open to defend his conduct, a topic-ban is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - At first I thought this was a bit much, but after reading the thread and watching Count Iblis actually make a holocaust comparison (thus violating Godwin's Law) it seems we kind of have to do this to protect Wikipedia's interests. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - based on skimming the thread and in particular Count Iblis' responses, it's clear that there is no argument that the comment was medical advice, which would be kind of bad, but that Iblis insists they should be allowed to give medical advice notwithstanding the guideline, which is clearly wrong. They should therefore absolutely be topic-banned. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Count Iblis is bound by the same rules as the rest of us, whether he acknowledges it or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Count Iblis has caused enormous problems in the last few years on the Ref Desk. I have lost count how many times we have been here discussing his behavior. Despite all these discussions he still causes problems. We never ever had any other Ref Desk contributor causing any sort of problems during the entire existence of Wikipedia. If you search the archives of the Ref Desk talk page, you see virtually no discussions about editors' conduct exept when the topic is Count Iblis' disgraceful behavior. In fact, if you skim past all the threads there, you are left with just a few threads in total since the start of Wikipedia! Count Iblis has given medical advice to people a countless number of times, the WMF has been sued and found liable by a Court in Florida and ordered to pay hundreds of millions in damage. Jimbo Wales had to raise extra funds due to this. So, in short we're better of kicking Count Iblis out of here,. With him gone the Ref Desks can finally return to the good old peaceful times. Good bye Count Iblis, we hope to never see you again here! Count Iblis (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, live with it. BMK (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • See first law of holes. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Clarify, please, as to whether this means banning Iblis from the ref desks altogether, or merely banning him from anything that is in any way medically-related. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems to be the Ref Desk (as a whole) because of med advice, not just from med advice at the Ref Desk. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

    Yup: He either agrees to comply by the rules, or he doesn't post at all - I see no reason to provide an opening for yet more Wikilawyering over what exactly is or isn't 'medical'. There has been enough time wasted over this already. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• OK, then, Oppose blanket ref desk ban, Support ban from medical topics on ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - per Dennis and AndyTheGrump. BMK (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic-bannning Count Iblis from the Reference Desk for offering medical advice against consensus. I do not support any lesser restrictions that still allow Count Iblis to edit at the Reference Desk; that would simply simply allow him to explore new and innovative ways of being disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I intended my earlier comment as support for a complete topic-ban from the Reference Desk as well, and I'm now wondering if Iblis' trolling here points to a stronger sanction required. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Sure, ban him form Wikipedia indefinitely, remove all of his contributions because who knows what kind of dangerous medical advice is hidden in there. Count Iblis (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeed, because if it were just this incident (that he has agreed to stop engaging in), it would be a different mater. But we've been discussing him for many years now and this is the final straw. Medical issues arise regularly and Count Iblis is always the first to respond on those threads, edit waring to keep his content in, and that's just unacceptable. Count Iblis (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - (of course, given my role in the linked threads). Will add more when I get home later if the thread is still open Actually it doesn't seem like there's much more that needs to be said. Iblis kind of summarized the problem, irrespective of any of the particulars, with So, it should be clear that I will continue to answer any questions anywhere in the way I see fit, regardless of any restrictions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and expect a hefty block if this continues anywhere on Wikipedia. We are not doctors and cannot take that responsibility on. The advice was reckless. Chillum 01:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - My original proposal was for a complete topic-ban from the Reference Desk, to prevent his providing comments that he would wikilawyer as not medical advice, to prevent him from giving legal advice, etc. (I had requested at the Reference Desk talk page that the thread be closed with a warning, but when he persisted in arguing his own right, I didn't see compromise as possible.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Under no circumstances should anyone be giving medical advice on here, If CI can give reckless advice like that then christ knows what he'll say if god forbid someone perhaps asks about suicide (I never visit the Ref Desk so I have no idea what people ask!), It seems the best idea here is to ban him entirely from the Desk. –Davey2010^Talk 02:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Doesn't get it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom's evidence and CI's own deliberate disruption within this thread. Resolute 16:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support the mental gymnastics that have been performed in order to accomplish the level of ultimatiums and back and forth wikilawyering only indicates that CI needs to be restricted until such time that they can demonstrate (or the community decides to give him a opportunity) that they will not be disruptive on the Reference desks any further. Hasteur (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support, and given the continued lengthy disruption, misdirection, and game-playing on this interminable thread, support further, more stringent sanctions if the disruptive behavior merely moves to another venue. Softlavender (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support the topic ban from the Reference Desk. It took a long time to read and ponder this whole thread, but after doing so, I do not want to see any more medical advice, or bizarre self justifications, or rationalizations, or weird logical contortions from this editor. I consider the editor's assurances worthless, and expect formal sanctions to prevent the disruptive behavior documented here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support ban based on Robert McClenon's argument and the possibility of him evading scrutiny using an IP. —Soap— 11:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment I have already moved to another venue, much more prominent than the Ref Desk here. You all have been misled by Robert McClenon into thinking that this was some sort of a big disruption of the Ref Desk, when in fact it was just a minor incident compared to the almost weekly infighting there which unlike this case does involve hugely disruptive reverts on the main ref desk pages. I did not edit war, and while my comments on the talk page might have been polemic, that was in the context of the older dispute where many have taken the very unreasonable position that you can't even tell an OP to go to the doctor because the issue may be more serious they think it is. Robert McClenon painted a false picture of me wanting to push dangerous medical advice, what happened is that people there are engaging in a faux outrage to get me banned because they much more prefer fighting their own battles.

Much more prominent sites like StackExchange that unlike our Ref Desk don't have the almost daily infightings, the content of which does turn up on Google searches, also have a Medical Disclaimer except that they won't hyperventilate over irrelevant issue. If there were any truth about what Robert McClenon and others are saying about this being dangerous medical advice, then such far more prominent sites where people like Peter Shor, Terrence Tao contribute, would pretty much all have adopted the same rules. The reason the rules on the Ref Desk are what they are in this case has little to do with preventing dangerous medical advice, it is just that it keeps the peace there. So, by making a subject taboo you can get from a big fight every day to once every few days.

I have pointed out the problem of the lack of prominence of the Ref Desk during the last few years, made the link to the very frequent fights, pointed that StackExchange could serve as a better model to make the Ref Desk more prominent. My position made me very impopular among the regulars at the Ref Desk. That's why notorious edit warriors from there typically don't end up here for their huge disruptions, and when they do get here, they still get support against the proposed sanctions. For me, things are different, not because I have created much disruption there (any disruption from my part is infinitesimal by the usual Ref Desk standards), rather because I don't belong to any of the gangs there.

It is this behavior of the regulars at the Ref Desk that has caused it to go down the drain. That also motivated me to stand my ground a bit more on this particular issue as a last ditch attempt to get people finally thinking there. Unfortunately that did not happen, they decided to get me railroaded over a non-issue here (non issue because when my contribution was hatted and removed, I did not edit war about that and the comment wasn't a big deal in the first place).

Fine, I'm gone, but the Ref Desk is nothing more than a big stinking cesspool. Count Iblis (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

A lack of ethics on those other sites is not a compelling reason for Wikipedia to follow suit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

If that were indeed true, but is it? Is there scientific research that has considered the best way non professionals should interact with people on medical issues to prevent problems? Is the Ref Desk following guidelines based on such research that have strong scientific consensus these other sides are so unethical in rejecting? Count Iblis (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

If you are sincere about no longer working on medical topics on the ref desk, then why are you still arguing about it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Be patient. First, I stop posting there, but there are still ongoing discussions and there is now a proposal tabled for a complete ban from Wikipedia. So, I may still need to reply in some of these conversations on the talk pages. But I just posted my final comment on the Ref Desk talk page. I posted my formal resignation from the Ref Desk in the section below the poll below. So, it is all headed toward closure today as far as I'm concerned. Count Iblis (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Other discussion

It seems that Count Iblis is now posting as an IP and giving medical advice yet again, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Fate of coronary artery plaques after rupture. Count Iblis (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Why on earth would you report yourself for sock puppetry? —Darkwind (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have been asking myself the same questions. Count Iblis is reporting themselves for everything. They even supported the topic ban. Probably playing a game or I am to naive to know what's going on. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 22:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

He's being sarcastic. The IP, who posted hours ago, surely isn't him. Mr Potto (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If so, it's sarcasm on the edge of disrupting the project to make a point, and does not help his case in the slightest. —Darkwind (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Count Iblis, you are bordering on WP:DE, which you already know, and know the consequences of. If you have something constructive to say, or something to change someone's mind, by all means, say it. If you only want to disrupt, you will be blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  This is an editor who muses on their talk page about ignoring policies and ArbCom rulings, encouraging other users to do the same, and celebrating logged-out editing by blocked users. I suspect this is someone who has no intention to respect whatever sanction comes out of this discussion, and question whether this is someone interested in building an encyclopedia at all, or just having a laugh at our expense. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  I would agree with NOTHERE--the user in question has made only 300 edits to mainspace in the past five years. 5 edits a month is paltry given the disruption above and the questionable user page. --Izno (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  • (ec) Count Iblis is being sarcastic above, but he's actually hit the nail squarely on the head: we have been discussing him for many years now, and when a problem with him in one area is cleared up he simply moves to another. For his entire Wikipedia career his Mainspace (article+talk) edits are only 3852 (36.8%) while his Wikipedia space (Wikipedia+talk) edits are 5,225 (51.7%). For a non-admin, that's not indicative of someone here to improve the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  Not sure if you have counted Ref Desk contributions here, and also you can't just consider all mainpage contributions as equal. My contributions have been significant edits to math and science articles, most of which are still there. You just can't compare someone who edits sections like this once per year or so to someone who does very frequent copy editing work here. These are two totally different disciplines. Also, it's quite natural that the former type of editor would also be interested in hanging out at other math and science venues on the internet, or here at the Ref Desk. Oh, and all these discussions about me, what was that all about actually? Count Iblis (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  Please don't be disingenuous - you were there, you are aware of the sanctions you received, you know what they were about. Your playing coy and innocent isn't going to help you here. BMK (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  I never ever received a justified sanction here. My experience here is that we have a mob justice system here where people tend to gang up on each other. That's just a fact and I won't stay shy of saying that just because you issue threats against me. Count Iblis (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  Just to repeat, so it will not be missed, Count Iblis says that of the sanctions imposed on him by ArbCom, at AE, and elsewhere on Wikipedia: I never ever received a justified sanction here. Count Iblis never did anything wrong, ever, and did not deserve any of the 4 blocks imposed on him by four different admins. BMK (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  That's indeed my position, 3 of the 4 blocks were outright unjust. The first was imposed by an Admin who had the habit of frivolously blocking users, he was later sanctioned because of that and has long since left Wikipedia. The next incident was about Brews Ohare, who had problems editing some physics articles. It was blown out of proportions and the total physics ban led to more problems than it solved. When a few editors argued in favor of him, they were all restricted from doing so, despite the fact that only one or two of the four ever went over the top doing so. If you disagree with that assessment, go find some diffs that point to unacceptable postings by me at AE, suggesting alternative restrictions for Brews. Never ever did a clerk there refactor, or remove my comments, despite having zero tolerance for problematic comments there. Nevertheless, I stuck to the restriction of not being allowed to post at AE on behalf of Brews for a while. The next block was related to that, but reversed as the restriction had expired (see summary by blocking admin). The block after that was due to some comments on my userpage, that are still standing today. That block was reversed by Sandstein out of all Admins, so that tells you that I didn't do anything wrong. The latest block was about a misunderstanding about euthanasia, I mentioned that somewhere in the Ref Desk in the meaning it has in countries were it is legal, but some detractors misinterpreted by comments in the meaning of unlawful killing or murder. In that reading, I agree that my comments would be unacceptable. But they then hatted the comments with a reference suggesting that their interpretation was what I meant. Of course, making me say things I would never say, made me angry and I reverted a few times too much to my version. That led to the last block, and I don't think it was something worthy of a block if you just sit down and talk it over. Count Iblis (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• The vast number of Ref Desk contributions are missing from there, and these are exactly the point of contention. We do need to dig those up to see his allegedly disruptive actions. Count Iblis (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  Despite however much medical experience he/you may have, it would still be best for the ref desk inquirer to see a doctor or pharmacologist in the flesh. There might be things he/you is not aware of about the user in question that would cause him to not prescribe certain medications. How many of the users have informed him/you about their weight, which I've heard can affect some things? Unless he is willing to call up the respondent's doctor and ask about what medications the person is taking, family history of disease, as well as inform the physician about what he recommends, so they know if it can conflict with something else, I'm going to say I question his behaviour a little. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  Where did I say that the OP should not consult with his doctor? Anything I wrote on the Ref Desk is always in the context of the OP seeking medical attention in case of a medical problem. Usually questions where that would be an issue are removed or hatted. But sometimes you have borderline cases, if the question remains open then whatever we write is always in the context of any medical intervention being done by a health care professional. If there is any question about that, then someone will spell that out for the OP. Never ever have I disputed that in a Ref Desk posting. Count Iblis (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• While I like to see people working on the actual encyclopaedia, it is clear that the community as a whole, appreciates other tasks need to be done (as do I). Moreover the community supports Reference Desk, otherwise everyone would be MfD'ing that instead. Therefore we can't (much as we might like) make WP:NOTHERE arguments because users who spend most, or even all their time away from article-space.
• Given that he is now talking about himself in the third person, perhaps Count Iblis might like to give himself a large trout, and take a suitable wikibreak? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC).
  
• What's the appropriate sanction for violating WP:NSA? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  Being Likeboxed. Count Iblis (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Reply

The whole point here is not disruptive editing of the actual pages, it's just that in the talk page I re-opened the old debate on medical advice. This has been discussed previously, and you have people who claim consensus for some restrictive policy, but it's not clear that anything else than clear cut medical advice (saying e.g. to someone to take 50 mg of X twice daily is obviously clear cut medical advice) is actually medical advice. If you e.g. say that you can treat cancer using chemotherapy, then would that be medical advice? I think not, but suppose that I write that on the science ref desk and someone makes problem about that. They are then free to remove or hat the particular question and my answer, I won't revert that (unlike quite a few other Ref Desk posters, I don't have a history of edit warring there). The dispute seems to center around my refusal to bow to the people on the talk page who insist that I was wrong to have written that and that I dared to re-open the debate on medical advice based on the example.

As far as I can see there is nothing more to the dispute than a single, by Ref Desk standards normal, debate on the talk page where I refused to acknowledge that the opposing view is correct. That's just ridiculous, you may have a consensus where 95% agrees and 5% disagrees, so the edit will be removed, but the 5% are never forced to change their view, they are never forced to swear allegiance to the majority party. They must, however, accept that they can't have it their way when in an actual edit made, their edits won't stick. Now, I always stick to 1RR or even 0RR, so there isn't much of a problem in this respect.

Now, you could still say that I'm intent to give medical advice here, but that's flat out wrong. I will never do anything on the ref desk that amounts to encouraging someone to self-doctor, or do something else outside of the usual medical channels. It's simply about where exactly you draw the line between clear cut unacceptable medical advice and writing that e.g. chemotherapy is commonly used to treat cancer. The line must be drawn somewhere and the usual way that's done is by hatting or removing the question so you don't get answers or the answers already given are then also hatted or removed. I've no problems with that, even if in any such case I believe I was still correct to give an answer.

Now, my slightly more liberal than average POV about where to draw the line is consistent with the policy of many other prominent websites such as stackexchange, where I also contribute. While one can argue that what StackExchange does is of no concern to us, you have to consider here that StackExchange is a prominent site with many promiment professors as its contributors. They maintain proper standards that work in practice, they have good rules against medical advice that are pretty much similar to our rules when you read what it actually says. In contrast, our Ref Desk is not prominent at all, it is plagued with a lot of infighting and I got caught up in one such fight on the talk page. Our rules for medical advice,while similar are often used as sticks to fight (edit) wars with and usually I'm not involved in those disputes. These disputes don't typically come to AN/I because the other regulars are more involved there and they have some mutual understandings of each other red lines. Basically it's how in a Wolf Pack you have alpha males and females that will settle their disputes they tend to pick on other wolves with lesser prominent status in the group.

Now, I made the decision that I'm not going to bow to any irrational rule here on Wikipedia, where we have a rule that says that you don't have to do that. So, I will just continue to make edits to e.g. the Math Ref Desk because by any stretch of the imagination I can't see how making an edit like like this here could be a problem. I don't see it, but if I get banned for doing that, then so be it, because that then implies that this place isn't worth contributing to. Count Iblis (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't be surprised when it happens. Chillum 03:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

An example to make my general point in the general dispute about medical advice clear

Suppose someone asks on the Ref Desk that he is constantly feeling hungry and asks for advice on diets that contain more calories but are still healthy. If that were to happen then any responses aimed at attending the OP that there are actually potential medical dimension to this that he might not be aware of that may need to be checked out (e.g. diabetes or thyroid problems) is not allowed. So, those responses would be removed or the question would be hatted. Now, I never edit warred in such cases and I never will. My point is simply that the current rules are not perfect, that they can prevent a person from going to the doctor when they should (because if you are only feeling hungry, you may not be aware that this may actually be potentially more serious medically than it seems). So, the rules do merit discussion on the talk page. Now, apart from the last few days' I'm not someone who frequently starts discussions on the talk page there. It's not that I have been at this constantly over and over again in a disruptive way.

So, if I now get topic banned simply for having this position, not the position that the people who disagree with me ascribe to me (Count Iblis wants to play doctor at the Ref Desk) then that would be unjust. Even if what they say were true, wanting to play the doctor isn't the same as actually playing the doctor. Count Iblis (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is interested in arguing hypotheticals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue is your behavior -- the things you have done -- as opposed to what you might do in a certain situation. "See your doctor" is allowed. suggesting a specific drug is not. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I did not suggest a specific drug, merely pointing out that certain classes of drugs, that can only be prescribed by a doctor can work. Now if that's then still considered to be medical advice and the question hatted, then so be it. Did I revert that hatting to keep my comments in? No, that did not happen. What did happen were lengthy arguments (before the hatting) about why doctors should not prescribe the drug, which is also medical advice. Because if someone is prescribed that drug for this reason, then you are now giving the advice to stop taking them. It is simply incomprehensible how the same person who objects to my comments on the grounds of "medical advice" can write in the same thread why doctors should not prescribe that drug. It's this sort of inconsistent behavior that motivated me to discuss things on the talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Warning given

Based on our existing disruption guidelines, my discretion as an admin, and what I think is the clear intent of the community I have given Count Iblis an only warning about this behaviour: User_talk:Count_Iblis#Only_warning_regarding_medical_advice. This is not intended to effect the discussion of the topic ban from the ref desk but rather to make clear that even if there is a topic ban that this sort of thing is not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. This was prompted by Count Iblis' continued insistence that their comments were not medical advice. As always I welcome community review of my decision. Chillum 15:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like a perfectly valid and reasoned step to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Good call. Whenever possible, established users should be given a final warning and the chance to stop doing what they are doing I know I would not be happy if I was blocked with no warning. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• Good call as long as it doesn't suspend the discussion of a topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Count Iblis will stick to the Ref Desk consensus, so I have no problems with this. Count Iblis (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech

At the Reference Desk talk page, Count Iblis referred more than once to the Soviet Union and at least once to Nazi Germany. The point of those references was probably to say that the rule against medical comments was a violation of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States, and Wikipedia's servers are located in the United States, is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. That is true but irrelevant. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution doesn't give an editor the right to free speech on Wikipedia. It only gives the Wikimedia Foundation the right to free speech on Wikipedia. Various principles of US constitutional law including the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution define the right of property in the United States, and an editor doesn't own the servers. The WMF does, and the WMF has the right to make its own rules about its own servers. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You may not have a legal right to free speech on Wikipedia, but free speech is a really good idea for any society, real or virtual. I don't support free speech because of legal documents, but because I consider it an unalienable basic human right, and, despite occasional inconveniences cause, overall a large boon to us. A free knowledge project like Wikipedia should embrace it to the largest degree possible without disrupting its core purpose. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The community has already put its opinion about free speech into policy: WP:NOTFREESPEECH. The talk page of WP:NOT would be the place to challenge that consensus. There is also a nice essay here: Wikipedia:Free_speech. Basically free speech means you can say what you want on your own website, not somebody else's website. Chillum 16:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. He's free to give out medical advice, at his own peril, elsewhere. Not here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

When you are working in an "official capacity", at the reference desk, where a new user might think you are a person of authority, then there is a vested interest in Wikipedia insuring you don't say anything that could harm someone. Allowing medical advice at the reference desk is akin to yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. Both have the potential to injure or cause death, no matter how much you cry "free speech!". Even the seemingly innocent advice to "take an aspirin" can cause death for asthmatics or anyone allergic to NSAIDs. Plus, we are not doctors, so we shouldn't practice medicine without a license, which is what it resembles when done from a quasi-official station like the reference desk. Unquestionably, it is against policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

But that's the complete opposite of the problem. It's never ever been about self medication. It's always been about cases where the OP should or could go to the doctor, when giving some additional information why the OP should take that serious is branded as medical advice. Count Iblis (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Recommending drugs, as you did, is medical advice, and is forbidden. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand is that if we have to choose between 1. Providing too much info or 2. Providing too little info, we choose 2 when it comes to public safety and WMF liability. If you erred on the side of caution, or even acknowledged that we should err on the side of caution, this discussion would have had a very different tone. You screwed up, but that isn't the bad part. The bad part is that you can't acknowledge the mistake and pledge to be more careful. This is why I can't trust you in the future, and likely why others can't either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

But my comments were removed and I never contested that by reverting. I don't understand how disagreeing with a position but not acting on it (i.e. restoring the comments) can be a problem . As I explain below, I'm totally against suggesting the OP to self-medicate, totally. The brouhaha on the talk page about the mention of drugs by me (which never happened before) was in the context of the old discussions where you can't mention anything at all, so e.g. pain in your arm when exercising can be a reason to seek medical advice because that pain may be due to heart problems. You can't mention that (as a consequence the OP may not seek medical advice as "it's just arm pain"), that's what the current rules are (it is considered to be a diagnosis and we're not allowed to do that) and that's always has been my long term disagreement with the others on the ref desk. And almost never does this actually lead to an editing dispute involving me, and never ever a suggestion of self-medication a suggestion, or that the OP doesn't need to seek medical advice. Never ever has that happened. My dispute centers precisely around the problem that cases where the OP ends up not seeking medical advice is far more likely to happen under the present system. Count Iblis (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

No, the free speech issue, comparing things to the Soviet Union did not happen in that context. What I meant is that a discussion about the real issues is always derailed using the "rules = rules", "we say so therefore it is so" etc. arguments. This is similar to the Soviet Union where any argument in favor of capitalism would be shot down for all sorts of reasons, but it would never be evaluated on its merits. The same is true in this case.

Fundamentally, my core argument now and a few years back on the Ref Desk was always that in borderline cases the OP should always be pointed to the fact that we're not doctors, that only medical professionals can give medical advice. The way the rules are implemented are that we're not allowed to write anything about potential medical issues. But as I've pointed out in the infrequent discussions over the last few years, that can cause problems. E.g. if someone asks a question about pain in his arm when exercising, then we are not allowed to point to the fact that while this issue seems quite innocent, it may actually point top heart problems therefore the OP should reconsider his approach (not going to the doctor instead asking us for advice).

Then what also makes the argument about the Soviet Union apply here is that despite everyone on the Ref Desk knowing the details about my position, they come here and make propaganda about me wanting to give dangerous medical advice. They misrepresent my position, they pretend as if I'm in favor of telling people how to self medicate, when in fact I'm the one who is usually far more inclined to present arguments why it would be wise for the OP to go to the doctor. The problem is then that this does involve discussing some things with the OP, raising some options, but never ever in the context of self-medication. Count Iblis (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Telling a user, there could be deeper problems and he needs to see a doctor, is one thing. Recommending a particular drug is another. It's unethical and potentially dangerous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah this defence is bizzare. I'm actually fairly sympathetic to the view it may sometimes be helpful to suggest seeing a doctor as a matter of urgency when an OP thinks their problem is a minor thing that isn't urgent but there's reason to think it could be, without being too alarmist or attempting to diagnose the OPs problem. And I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one. But I have no idea how you go from that, to suddenly suggesting random treatments particularly treatments with serious possible side effects, even more so when such a treatment wasn't even what was being sought. As for the holocaust, Soviet Union and communist China, issue, well those were just stupid examples to bring up a guaranteed way to ensure people would think you had no good argument. Nil Einne (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

SSRIs are not OTC drugs, they can only be prescribed by medical professionals. In this case, the deeper problem could well be related to problems with the seratonin system which can cause all sorts of other symptoms for which doctors (so, not us, not Count Iblis, but only doctors) can prescribe such drugs. The only realistic effect of mentioning a serious drug like that which can only be prescribed by doctors, is not that somehow the OP would start to use those drugs without being prescribed such drugs. That defies logic, because how on earth could the OP self-medicate on drugs that are only available on prescription? The only realistic effect is that the OP would read a few of our wiki articles and perhaps go to a doctor if the OP thinks that's useful.

Given that the latter has been opposed tooth and nail in general (not in the context of mentioning any drug), for me this was simply a re-opening the old discussion on the talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

"Not OTC drugs, they can only be prescribed by medical professionals" is not an exception to our policy. First, many people have access to prescription drugs. They can buy them on the Internet, get them from a family member who has a prescription, etc. Second, absolute claims like "they can only be prescribed by medical professionals" don't hold water on Wikipedia. We have readers who live in places like Somalia where there are essentially no authorities willing to enforce drug laws. As Baseball Bugs correctly pointed out above, recommending a particular drug is unethical and potentially dangerous.

Your continued refusal to accept the decision of the community on this means that you need to be topic-banned from the help desks, with the standard offer of being allowed back when you convince an administrator that you understand what you did wrong and are unlikely to do it again. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Since it is a community ban, no admin may override it. He will need to go to WP:AN to get it removed, at the appropriate time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

First, I already explained that it is extremely unlikely to happen every again, I'm not sure why you make the assumption that it is likely to happen. Me disagreeing with a policy doesn't mean that I edit against consensus. Your argument about the OP using someone else's prescription drugs is where the comparison to the CCCP came from. There you could not discuss capitalism because of "See all those poor homeless people freezing to death in Chicago" sort of arguments. Count Iblis (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Me disagreeing with a policy doesn't mean that I edit against consensus. -- directly contradicts your stated perspectives/attitudes/plans. e.g. saying you'll say whatever you want regardless of restrictions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The way I edit an article or the Ref Desk has almost always been consistent with the consensus view of the other editors, or else I would have been kicked out of Wikipedia a long time ago. But that doesn't mean that I have to agree with the consensus view. What I've now promised to do is to take the views of others on the medical advice issue into account a priori. It's exactly similar to how you could have disagreed with the ban on gay marriage but still stay within the law and not proceed with unlawful ceremonies for gay weddings. Count Iblis (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Again one doesn't automatically follow the other. All that can be said if someone hasn't been community banned, is that no one has made a succesful proposal for such a ban. This could be because the community won't agree to such a ban because their behaviour is according consensus. It could be because there is insufficient consensus about their behaviour. It could also be because the editor has snuck under the radar. It could also be because people have noticed, but no one has cared enough to start a successful thread (which requires diffs, explainations etc). It could be because their behaviour is borderline against consensus but they've gotten lucky and/or have enough supporters. In fact, many of these are related. And often, but not always, people are less likely to bother if there has already been one or more unsuccessful attempts, even if those attempts likely failed due to the person starting them not spending enough time finding the evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The CCCP thing doesn't follow your argument. Saying people shouldn't offer random treatment advice, because their defence against the advice is that that the OP will have to see a doctor to follow that advice, when in reality it's quite common people will not see a doctor; is quite different from the CCCP refusing to discuss the benefits of capitalism because of people freezing to death in Chicago. For starters, that's not even closely the reason they don't discuss capitalism. Secondly, people die in China for many reasons too, and you can't discuss the relative merits of the different systems (and modern day China is actually quite capitalist anyway) without discussing the merits of the different systems. You can offer help to the OP, without giving completely random treatment advice based on extremely scant evidence. As I said below, even saying the OP has a seretonin imbalance and needs to see a doctor is frankly far better even if not acceptable than offering random treatment advice. And discussing the merits of the different systems isn't going to suddenly mean China changes overnight to the wrong system. In fact, if the discussion is held properly, it would ideally lead to a good decision being made which is mostly under the control of the people holding the discussion (who we presume are the ones who will make the decision). Meanwhile, there is a resonable risk that random treatment advice could easily lead to the OP going on medicine which could do them harm, and Count Iblis has absolutely no control over that, particularly given that they gave almost no explaination for their suggestion (and the only initial explainaion was in fact a simplistic suggestion that they would work well, despite there being so little evidence that even any doctor who said the same thing is the sort of doctor who shouldn't be working without supervision, if working at all). Nil Einne (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the fact that prescription drugs can and are obtained without a prescription has been mentioned before. It also seems blindingly obvious. And giving random drug treatment advice like that, without any explaination is exceptionally stupid. If the OP had genuine problems, there are far better ways to approach it then offering random advice to take SSRIs. Frankly even the OP diagnosed the OP as having a possible serotonin imbalance and suggested they see a doctor, that would be far, far better (even if still not acceptabled) than offering such random treatment advice. Frankly, if Count Iblis still doesn't understand any of this, it's even more reason they shouldn't touch anything remotely related to prescriptions with a 10 foot barge pole. Nil Einne (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

If the consensus is that it should not be done, then fine, I won't do it. But arguments assuming an irresponsible OP doing dangerous things and then arguing how that can have a bad outcome are problematic arguments as I explain in detail in the section below. So, while I do understand your argument, all I'm saying is that it belongs to the same class as e.g. the "let's do the abstinence only sex education program because you don't want teenagers to know too much" arguments. The only valid arguments are arguments that are backed up by the results of rigorous scientific studies. If you can find studies were people were exposed to various forms of medical advice and they support the conclusion that mentioning efficacy of drugs leads to inappropriate self medication in some significant fraction of the cases, then that would be a valid argument. Better still would be review articles that go into details of how best to deal with this problem based on such research results. Count Iblis (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

But it's not the same. No one is saying the OP shouldn't learn about SSRIs. (It's true if someone comes to the RD and says they want to know whether they should take SSRIs/Cialis/whatever, many people would oppose even a link to the SSRI/Cialis/whatever article and MEDRS about these drugs. But that's a more subtle argument which isn't under discussion here. And also, even in those case, no one is saying they shouldn't learn about SSRIs/Cialis/whatever, but rather given their question, they should learn about it from a competent medical professional.) However they didn't ask about SSRIs, and there's no real reason to think SSRIs are at significantly relevant to their question. Further you didn't actually offer any info about SSRIs just said they would work well with no explaination. Sex education is often intended to be as complete as possible. While it's desirable if people would talk to someone about questions, it's recognised that many will not. For some things, such as birth control pills, they will hopeful receive medical advice before using these, although given the various risks involved, many discussions will give some medical information. For others th8ings, like condoms they may receive no further advice. And even with fairly liberal systems, it's unlikely if a girl says "a boy is cute" anyone is going to say, birth control pills will work well. Depending on the age and other factors, it's possible there will be a discussion about contraception and other things, but not such a simple suggestion with zero explaination as you offered. In fact, your evidence was really less than a girl saying a boy is cute. Nil Einne (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I did give the wikilink, the OP could and did seem to have read the article based on his later comments. I agree that there would have been better ways to proceed, but then the more you talk about medical issues the more you stray away from the borderline to forbidden territory. As I explained here earlier, there is a good case to be made for giving more details in certain cases, but that then does fall foul of the policy in a rather unambiguous way (Kainaw's rule etc.). But if you keep things vague then that has traditionally always been acceptable. So, by just saying X could work for Y as a general statement, instead of divulging into why and how in the OP's case, I thought that the OP would both be helped to some degree without that falling foul of the policy. Count Iblis (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Count Iblis will stick to the Ref Desk consensus

Now that two regulars have changed their position on the main issue that was discussed years earlier (for me the particular issue discussed here is just the prolongation of the old argument), I'm ready to write down here that I will stick to the views of the other regulars regarding medical advice, specifically not mentioning medicines in replies to questions on the Ref Desk. Count Iblis (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand how this follows from any of the above. It contradicts everything you've said over the past few days -- and said with great conviction. Which issue are you talking about and why would it have the effect of completely changing your mind about many of the above statements? Are you saying you were being disruptive to make a point about some past disagreement about some aspect of the "no medical advice" rule? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't changed my mind on anything except one one thing, i.e. that I'm not going to edit the Ref Desk in any way that amounts to stepping on the toes of the other regulars there. I don't accept the argument that mentioning a class of drugs is a problem. However, I'm going to edit the Ref Desk according to how the others feel about that (and other) issues.

Having read the arguments presented here and elsewhere, I still don't agree with the argument against mentioning treatments in general. One obvious weakness here is the assumption of the irresponsible OP. So, to argue why the OP could end up in a bad situation (e.g. using someone else's medicines instead of going to the doctor who may or may not give him prescription), you need to assume that the OP is someone who is inclined to do bad things right from the start. Now, we've all heard those arguments before. E.g. conservatives have argued for a long time that sexual education for teenagers can only discuss abstinence. Telling them how to have safe sex is taboo, because that may lead to bad outcomes. In their argument it is crucial to consider the irresponsible teenagers and then frame the entire policy based on that. But, of course, what is missing is a rigorous scientific evaluation of the pros and cons of such an approach. The same is true for people who argue against the legalization of pot. They present some evidence that it may be bad for teenagers if they smoke pot very frequently. But that doesn't address the question if it is better to legalize it or to keep it illegal. Good arguments should be based on peer reviewed scientific results, it's no good to come up with scary arguments that make all sorts of hidden assumptions that play well for the public. Count Iblis (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

People often look elsewhere besides a doctor, for fear of what they might find out. OP's who ask for medical advice are trying to get around going. It is not our place to encourage that mindset. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

But why are you assuming it has to be a "bad thing"? If someone is in a country with a poorly regulated medical system and where a competent doctor in the matter of SSRIs is likely to be expensive and difficult for them to afford, it's quite rude to say it's a "bad thing" for them to take SSRIs without seeking competent medical advice if they're sure they will be of benefit. It may be a dumb thing, if the only evidence they have is someone randomly saying they would work well with no explaination but people have different levels of competence and trust. Nil Einne (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

These people tend to be far more susceptible to local opinion. That's why it is so hard to stamp out the trade in rhino horns. Local alternative medicine practitioners in China keep on telling lies about the powders made from rhino horns, and the locals just keep on buying it. Count Iblis (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Given the behavior we have seen here and the following comments supporting a topic ban...

• "After reading the thread ... it seems we kind of have to do this to protect Wikipedia's interests."
• "Iblis insists they should be allowed to give medical advice notwithstanding the guideline, which is clearly wrong. They should therefore absolutely be topic-banned."
• "Count Iblis is bound by the same rules as the rest of us, whether he acknowledges it or not"
• "Iblis kind of summarized the problem, irrespective of any of the particulars, with "So, it should be clear that I will continue to answer any questions anywhere in the way I see fit, regardless of any restrictions."
• "Doesn't get it."
• "Support per nom's evidence and CI's own deliberate disruption within this thread."
• "The mental gymnastics that have been performed in order to accomplish the level of ultimatiums and back and forth wikilawyering only indicates that CI needs to be restricted until such time that they can demonstrate (or the community decides to give him a opportunity) that they will not be disruptive on the Reference desks any further."
• "Given the continued lengthy disruption, misdirection, and game-playing on this interminable thread, support further, more stringent sanctions if the disruptive behavior merely moves to another venue."
• "It took a long time to read and ponder this whole thread, but after doing so, I do not want to see any more medical advice, or bizarre self justifications, or rationalizations, or weird logical contortions from this editor. I consider the editor's assurances worthless, and expect formal sanctions to prevent the disruptive behavior documented here."

I am going to take a poll to gauge community support for the following propositions: --Guy Macon (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Poll

Accept Count Iblis's assurance ("I'm going to edit the Ref Desk according to how the others feel about that (and other) issues.") and take no action other than issuing a warning.

• Support - I've seen him make many good contributions to the Ref desk, and this is the first time in ~5 years I've seen him clearly step over a line. Give him a chance to make good on his word. (Also to any who don't regularly read the ref desks or our talk page, the issue is a giant mess, and Iblis is in no way responsible for that state of affairs.)SemanticMantis (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support - An editor needn't agree with policy (or the consensus interpretation of a policy, where it exists), but need only abide by policy. An only warning is in place. That is sufficient. Regarding this editor's dramatic exit, it is not this board's job to enforce a self-imposed Wikibreak. -- ToE 22:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Community imposed topic-ban of Count Iblis from the Reference Desks, warning to not repeat behavior elsewhere. Wikipedia:Standard offer applies.

• Support - After several days of insisting on his own rightness, his change of mind in stating that he will follow community consensus is not persuasive. Assume good faith is not a suicide pact. If he had been willing to follow the Ref Desk consensus, he could have done so at the Ref Desk talk page instead of filibustering and forcing the issue to come here. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I was on the fence between this and the above option, but the offer below ("Count Iblis hereby announces that he will stay away from the Ref Desks permanently.") convinced me. If the offer is sincere, the topic ban changes nothing. If the offer is not sincere, a community-imposed topic ban makes it easier to impose future block-evasion sanctions. Plus, I completely reject the "permanently" part. Everyone should have the option of showing that they can edit productively in other areas for six months and then asking that a topic ban be lifted. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Having read through the thread, my view is the same as Guy's and Robert's above. Blackmane (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Community imposed block of Count Iblis from Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Standard offer applies, with the understanding that an unblock may be a full unblock or a conversion to the topic ban above.

• Support. Example support !vote

Count Iblis is never going to post at the Ref Desk anymore

To cut all of this short, Count Iblis hereby announces that he will stay away from the Ref Desks permanently. If Count Iblis violates his voluntary restriction, an Admin should block his account. If in the future Count Iblis wants to return (unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future, but who knows what may happen in a decade from now), Count Iblis will first apply for his voluntary restriction to be lifted at WP:AN. Count Iblis (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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