Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive854

DangerousPanda's latest block of Barney the barney barney

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

---

DangerousPanda has blocked Barney the barney barney repeatedly for personal attacks on Bearcat. Today, DangerousPanda ratched the sanctions up again by blocking Barney even from editing his own talk page. Realistically, Barney has not been behaving himself. But it's becoming obvious this did not happen in a vacuum. Bearcat has continued to pick at the scab, obviously gloating over Barney's predicament and doing everything possible to annoy Barney. He should simply walk away. But also, I'm concerned with the growing appearance that DangerousPanda may be too WP:INVOLVED, that it's starting to become personal, a test of wills. When I pointed out my concerns (respectfully, I thought), DangerousPanda's response was as insulting and in the same way as what got Barney blocked from his own home page, questioning whether my brain was working. I don't think I deserved that but I do think it's evidence that DangerousPanda's handling of the situation is no longer helpful. Discussion may be found at User talk:Barney the barney barney#August 2014. Msnicki (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Just so others reading this thread don't have to search for them this post full of personal attacks and this post with its threatening wording are being equated to this. IMO there is absolutely no comparison. Again IMO, the two posts by Btbb deserve the removal of talk page privileges. B always has the WP:STANDARDOFFER should they ever want to return to productive editing. MarnetteD|Talk 00:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that DangerousPanda's insulting remarks toward me were worse than Barney's, I am saying DangerousPanda's insults were similarly childish playground material and, more important, completely unprovoked. When you start comparing provoked versus unprovoked insults as if the same standards should apply, aren't you out on rather thin ice? Msnicki (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

False, at no time did I insult you. This has been discussed, and clarified with you directly, and subjected to consensus - please stop using your erroneous reading as a need to provide some form of action against me. the panda ₯’ 20:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspect this is the "consensus" outcome DangerousPanda is referring to. You'll pardon my uncertainty. It happened so fast. Msnicki (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

DP's remarks were in no way, shape, manner or form like B's. You claimed that DP was somehow "involved" without offering any evidence. That can be seen as childish playground material as well. What is it that you want from admins here? I doubt that they are going to tell DP to stop reasonably explaining any actions taken. MarnetteD|Talk 01:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Not true. I did not claim DangerousPanda was involved. I said there was an appearance developing and that when DP's response to my raising the concern respectfully was to insult me, that that was evidence it might be more than appearance. What I recommend is that another admin step in and that Bearcat be asked to stop stirring the pot. (He's the only admin who's never read WP:STICK and doesn't know to back away when he's already won?) The objective, realistically, the only legitimate objective, is good behavior all around. The continued escalation of sanctions and the continued remarks on Barney's talk page by editors with history of conflict with Barney is not getting us there. Get these other folks with their own axes to grind out of there, back off the talk page ban, tell everyone to get a little thicker skin and I think the situation could be resolved. That's what I want. Msnicki (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

DP blocked a user who called another editor, repeatedly and at length, names like idiot, liar, and troll, and all over the stunningly insignificant matter of the proposed deletion of an article about an obscure city official. The block was entirely appropriate regardless of how allegedly WP:INVOLVED DP was or was not. I would hope any admin would have done the same. Gamaliel (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

And so why is Bearcat (an admin, for pete's sake!) still stirring the pot on Barney's talk page over this insignificant matter even after Barney was indef'ed? Msnicki (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what that has to do with DP or the appropriateness of the block, but perhaps it would be appropriate to issue a warning to Bearcat. Gamaliel (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Just looked at BBB's talk page again and I don't see any new messages past the 1st from Bearcat., so it looks like any alleged potstirring has passed. Even so, I think it is appropriate to ask Bearcat to drop the matter and stay away from now on, without passing judgement on the appropriateness of previous comments. Gamaliel (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This was Bearcat's last pot-stirring. Barney had already been indef'ed so what exactly was the point of all this except to poke Barney in the eye when he was already down? That's what prompted Barney's response, the one got him blocked even from his own talk page. Frankly, while I don't condone Barney's response, if I'd been Barney, I definitely wouldn't have appreciated Bearcat's boorish behavior. I might have had some choice words as well. I'll say again, the objective here should be good behavior all around. It would be helpful if we can make that outcome the easy one for Barney to accept. Allowing Bearcat to continue stirring the pot is not helping that. Msnicki (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

BBB had already called Bearcat a liar, a troll, and an idiot many days before this alleged potstirring, so this appears to me that you are blaming the victim for provoking the attacker. Even if we were to accept your reading of the situation, what is your preferred outcome or recommended course of action? The alleged potstirring is days in the past. It's over. No one is continuing to stir the pot except those of us participating in this ANI thread. Gamaliel (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You care a lot more about who started it than I do. I care more about outcomes. My experience of Barney is that he's been a steady and constructive contributor. The outcome I'd like is one where that can continue. Msnicki (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you please try to be specific in your responses and make them actual responses to the points being discussed? First, you complained about Dangerous Panda, then when I responded about his actions, your response to me was about Bearcat, and when I responded to your point about Bearcat, now you are talking about Barney. We're not going to make any progress to any outcome if you are veering all over the map. I still have no idea about what specific outcome you expect to come from this discussion and what steps you think we should take to get there. Gamaliel (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing "boorish" about responding, politely, to continued namecalling and continued mischaracterization of one's behaviour — especially when the editor in question was actively @pinging me, even when he was responding to somebody else, to make sure I knew that the personal attacks were continuing. I was not purposely watching his talk page to see what was happening; I was getting active announcements in my notification queue that I was being discussed, and responded to those notifications in exactly the same way that I'd be perfectly entitled to respond to similar discussion of me, and/or similar active @pinging of my attention, in any other space on Wikipedia. I will step away as you wish, but there is no basis for claiming that I've acted inappropriately at any point in this matter. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any proof of anyone being involved and you did state that DP was involved..."then yes, I do think you're no longer uninvolved and that you should step back." Please explain this. The only thing that I see Bearcat is guilty of is not archiving his talk page. Are you asking for a proxy block review because DP revoked talk page access or asking for review of admin behavior? Please clarify.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Let's not split hairs. I said I thought there was an appearance developing. Every sanction had been applied only by DangerousPanda and it was beginning to look to me like a possible test of wills. When an experienced editor is facing an indef, I expect to see a history of problems where several admins have had to step in and there was none of that. Whether DangerousPanda is or is not really involved may not even be knowable unless someone here is an undisclosed mind-reader able to tell us what motivated his behavior. But when DangerousPanda's response was to insult me, I thought that was actual evidence (not proof) of involvement. My personal opinion is that he is. But either way, I don't think this is a constructive situation conducive to de-escalation. I think it would be useful for another admin to step in to avoid even the appearance of involvement. Does that clarify my position for you? Msnicki (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Partially. What would you like admins reading this to do? What action(s) are you looking for?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

{ec}Restore talk page access. 02:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I recommend backing off this latest indef ban even from his own talk page. This serves no purpose except to pour salt in the wound, making the one desirable outcome less likely. Bearcat should be asked to drop the WP:STICK and avoid interaction with Barney, especially on Barney's talk page. The condition of lifting Barney's indef should be that he can state how he violated our policy prohibiting personal attacks, that he agree to avoid any further violations and that he also agree to drop the WP:STICK and avoid interaction with Bearcat. He shouldn't have to say he's sorry or that he didn't mean it. He does need to say he won't do it again. It would be helpful if another uninvolved admin could volunteer to monitor the discussion on Barney's talk page and review any unblock request Barney may make. Msnicki (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Msnicki, it's common for an administrator who blocked a user to keep monitoring the situation. The fact that Btbb - in the unblock request - basically turned around and lashed out at DP made it so that most admins would have declined and re-sanctioned Btbb. WP is not a bureaucracy*. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC) Exceptions apply in certain places, but that's besides the point.

• What unblock request?? NE Ent 02:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request but then he changed it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• The purpose of dispute resolution volunteers -- including admins -- is (or should be) to resolve conflicts, not administer "justice." Although it's not written down -- because we are not (supposed to be) a bureaucracy -- it's generally understood editors involved in a conflict -- regardless of whether they are "right" or "wrong" -- should not be posting on the talk page of a blocked editor. Had DP addressed that issue first, the situation was much more likely to be resolved. NE Ent 03:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Even if "acceptable", are the actions "helpful"? At this point it seems that the actions on all sides are merely winding the spring tighter and unlikely to help achieve any beneficial outcomes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a growing and disturbing trend for admins to indefinitely block content builders, demand that they grovel as a condition for their return, and then gag them by blocking access to their own talk page when they get upset. Another point of view is that this is a destructive strategy that unnecessarily alienates content builders from Wikipedia. That included content builders who just see this nastiness going on from the sidelines. Presumably admins who employ these methods feel that the mission of admins is to severely administer discipline to the rabble of content builders and show them who is boss. After all, there is no mission statement for admins. No one knows what they are here for, and individual admins are free to make up and follow their own ideas. There are many other ways of resolving behaviour issues, but admins are not taught about them, and generally seem to lack skilful means for resolving them. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, here is my take on the situation. This has nothing to do with blocking "content builders". DPs response was to a situation involving disruption of an AfD and personal attacks for which, not unreasonably, a 96 hour block was imposed. That should have been the end of it but BtBB chose to engage in further personal attacks on Bearcat, resulting in an indef block. BtBB's subsequent unblock request claimed "I haven't done anythign (sic) wrong" when in the preceding Talk page section he had once more attacked Bearcat. That led to the withdrawal of Talk page access, again, not unreasonable given the circumstances. Disruption and personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia and in my view DP has acted correctly and in no way become "involved". The standard OFFER will apply if and when Btbb choses to return. Meanwhile, the mission of admins (yes, there is one) is to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, prevent disruption and ensure that editors do not engage in behavoir that is considered unacceptable by the community per AGF and CIVIL.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

That's unclear on just about every point, Phil. To mention a couple, where is this mission statement you refer to and what is this "integrity" admins are supposed to be protecting? Who ensures the integrity of the admins themselves? I'm not sure why you think BtBB doesn't qualify as a content builder. You say that the "standard OFFER" applies to BtBB. According to that offer BtBB is in effect now banned for six months, after which he may shop around and see if he can find an admin to grovel in front of, a grovel which "usually takes a few days". In the meantime if BtBB want to return, he would be "well-advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects". That's sickening. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if you find my thoughts unclear–let me clarify. I didn't use the word "statement"—I said "mission" while the "integrity" I refer to is ensuring compliance with the corpus of guidelines and policies that shape Wikipedia according to consensus. Admin's are !voted in as trusted members of the community and you are free to question their interpretation of community consensus through discussion. I also didn't say BtBB did not "qualify as a content builder", I said that the matter under consideration had nothing to do with content building, which it doesn't. The standard Wikipedia procedure in the case of an indef block is covered in WP:OFFER. If a review is considered appropriate before the expiration of six months, then everyone will have the opportunity to comment at the subsequent discussion.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of a mission statement, the "mission" you refer to is just one you decided upon yourself. Which is the point I was making, that admins just make up their own mission. Likewise, the guidelines and policies are controlled by and largely written by admins, not the community. There may be a degree of community consensus at the point where an admin undertakes an RfA. But admins have appointed themselves for life. In long past halcyon days, would-be admins including school children needed do little more than ask to be an admin. Many of these legacy admins would not get community approval if they ran again. Nor would many of the more recent entrants to the admin corps. So it is not correct to say that admins as a body have the trust of the community. The admin corp might gain trust and respect from the community if enough admins found the courage to address the absurdities of their own system. Rational change can come now only from within the body of admins. Content builders are powerless, and recent events have clearly shown that Jimbo and the Foundation lack the insight needed for helpful intervention. Wikipedia has been hijacked by an admin system which controls its own terms and refuses to look squarely at what it is doing. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The admin in question was in fact rejected once by the community at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DangerousPanda (redirects to /Bwilkins) in April 2009. Later, they were accepted by the community at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bwilkins 2 in January 2010. This was four and a half years ago, and the last discussion had 116 participants, the overwhelming majority of whom were in favor of adminship for this editor. Your generalizations are moot at best. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Your strange "rebuttal" has nothing to do with anything I said. In fact I said the diametric opposite to what you apparently understood: There may be a degree of community consensus at the point where an admin undertakes an RfA. Bwilkins was not remotely in my mind when I wrote that. My generalizations are in fact accurate and easy to authenticate. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If the apparent topic of this discussion was not remotely in your mind when writing here, then why are you writing here and not in a separate section? Do you not see the potential for this kind of a tangential rant to be offending to that person? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I was talking about the principle of indefinitely blocking content builders, which is most certainly central to this thread, and replying specifically to Philg88. Do you not see the potential for this kind of failure to read what was said to be offending? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Bit hard for barney to respond to the all encompasing witch-hunt now that he's had all editing powers removed. Maybe unrevoke his talkpage first to see if he's able to discuss this now he's had a chance to sleep on it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I second this. But I suggest a 48 hour cooling off period.Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't do anything that EVER resembles "cooling off blocks" - that's a dangerous suggestion. This is the second time I've removed talkpage access - it was returned, and they continued their attacks. They've had a couple of weeks to "cool off" if that was indeed possible. Barney still has many avenues of appeal open to them; let them use those wisely once they have formulated their appeal offline the panda ₯’ 09:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Well as long as you look like a reasonable human being and not some crackpot on a powertrip. Good work! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If letting him edit his own talk page hasn't worked in the past, how about if we make a couple changes that might give us a better chance it will work this time? First, ask Bearcat to stay away. His stirring the pot isn't helping and the fact you defended Bearcat's boorish behavior rather than stopping it isn't helping either. Second, let's ask you to stay away, too. I don't think Barney is ever going to "knuckle under" for you but I also don't think that should be the condition for being able to edit here. The condition should be that he behaves himself. Let another admin decide whether Barney can behave himself at least on his own talk page if there are no new provocations. If we can make these changes, I think it can work. Msnicki (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You know what? You need to screw off with the suggestion that I'm trying to make him "knuckle under" and the "gosh darn it, you are going to make Barney behave" bullshit. I don't play power games, and such suggestion are inflammatory rhetoric in and of themselves. Those are serious accusations that you neither provide proof of, or withdraw. the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment Having had implications made about my competence and knowledge by BtBB at discussions surrounding Talk:Jacob Barnett, to the point where he/she tried to get me topic banned, I have been following the above discussion. The problem is that when you are subjected to personal attacks, it becomes very difficult to maintain the standards of neutrality that Wikipedia rightly demands. The signs of emotion are usually there, I see them in the above contribution. Therefore I would tend to support the view that DP should withdraw from this case, and should probably have left it to another, previously uninvolved admin to extend the block to the talk page. Viewfinder (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No comment on the propriety of the block but this is another case where watching a blocked editors talk page allowed us to get exercised about inflammatory comments which would otherwise have been read by nobody. We should have some sense of proportionality in these situations. Protonk (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I need to bring up a new development in this matter — namely, about three hours ago Barney sent me a pvt e-mail consisting of one line: "It is not too late for you to apologise for your actions." Apart from the fact that I still haven't at any point taken any actions that need to be "apologized" for, there's obviously a veiled threat here of what might happen if and when he decides that it is "too late" anymore. I'm certainly not going to engage the matter by actually responding to his e-mail at all, but the fact that it was sent at all needed to be raised. Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please follow the protocol at WP:EMAILABUSE; note that emails should not be posted online. (This is not an endorsement of Bearcat's interpretation of the email, just a note that conduct in emails are out of scope of ANI due to copyright / privacy concerns). NE Ent 01:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should apologize, Bearcat. Per WP:IUC, "Other uncivil behaviors [include] taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves." Msnicki (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If he read my advice to him earlier in the day, he knows that apologies are always voluntary, else they'd be worthless anyway. If he can't be required to apologize, he knows you can't be, either. So I'd be inclined to take his remark at face value, that he's open to negotiating a way to bury the hatchet. Of the three possible choices I outlined for him, avoid, get along or fight, but only within the guidelines, maybe he'd like to get along. Perhaps he'd be willing to exchange apologies. There's nothing wrong with asking him, well, if I apologized, could I expect one from you? WP:AGF Msnicki (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Should Indefinite Block Be Limited?

There are at least two questions here. The first is whether User:DangerousPanda became involved in the block of User:Barney the barney barney and should have let another administrator handle it. The second is the length of the block for User:Barney the barney barney, who is currently under an indefinite block with talk page access revoked. The first question is about the past. The second question is about the future. I propose that we discuss the second question. In my judgment, Barney is a contentious editor who is a net plus to Wikipedia. I haven't located the AFD that was the original locus of the dispute, but I infer that it has been closed. Disruption of an AFD and personal attacks are inappropriate, and are appropriately dealt with by blocks. However, indefinite blocks should be reserved for editors who are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, such as vandals, flamers, trolls, or incompetent editors. Barney isn't one of those. Barney isn't the sort of editor to whom the standard offer applies, to see whether the editor has learned and can become a net plus, but a contentious editor who is already a net plus. I propose that the community change Barney's indefinite block to time served, slightly less than two weeks. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support as described above. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Yes. It's time to move on. But to avoid new problems, I would also ask that Bearcat avoid interaction with Barney, especially on his talk page, for a period of 3 months to let this heal. His behavior, continuing to stir the pot, even after Barney had already been banned, is a big reason we're here and coming from an admin, I find this inexcusably boorish. Additionally, I would ask that DangerousPanda avoid interaction with Barney in his capacity as an admin for a similar period, again, simply to let this heal. There are lots of admins; if Barney has done something new and even more egregrious, surely another admin can be found to deal with it. And I would ask Barney, try to move on, behave yourself, learn from this experience, don't blow it. Msnicki (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd advise you to read my response above to the first time you characterized my actions as "boorish" — users and administrators are allowed to respond to namecalling attacks and mischaracterizations of their actions, especially when their attention to the discussion is being actively @pinged. Perhaps I misread what the result was going to be, but my intention was a good faith attempt to clarify the matter rather than to "poke" it or "pick at a scab" — and there's nothing "boorish" about politely responding to a personal attack. I gave my promise above to step back as you requested, but I'm not going to accept being described as "boorish" in this discussion for simply responding to personal attacks in a polite and civil manner. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I read your earlier comments about being pinged whenever he had something nasty to say about you. Like Robert, I haven't even been able to find that AfD that apparently started it all and frankly, I don't really care that much how it got started. I do care about fixing this and getting good behavior all around. I don't think this is about the AfD anyway. I think it's just about people who don't like each other.

I am not calling you to task over any response you might have made before he was blocked. I am calling you to task for this specific post to Barney's talk page after he'd already been indefinitely blocked. This was over the line. You had to know this couldn't possibly improve the odds the situation could be defused. I think the whole point was to give Barney another poke and see if he'd make another mistake. You should have simply walked away. That post was where I became sympathetic to Barney's position. If you were that boorish (and, sorry, that is the word), that determined to keep beating the dead horse even after you'd won and gotten Barney blocked, I thought it seemed a lot more possible you could have been truly annoying in a heated debate and not nearly so innocent. Msnicki (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I have the right as a Wikipedian to directly respond to any and all attacks on my intelligence, integrity and capability, regardless of the venue in which they're occurring — it's not my responsibility to have predicted that he would respond by ramping the attacks up even further, nor is it my responsibility to ever leave a personal attack on me sitting on the table as the "last word" in any discussion. My responses were always polite and WP:CIVIL — I've been accused in the past of being a bit too blunt, and sometimes coming off more aggressively than I intended to, in my writing style, so I (a) make every effort to be careful about how I phrase myself in a conflict situation, and (b) only ever respond to the substance of what the person is saying, and never attack or insult the individual who's saying them. I'd certainly be willing to accept "boorish" if I had lapsed into responding with similar insults, but I refuse to own that adjective for responding civilly to personal insults that I had no responsibility to not respond to. I'll certainly own up to misreading how productive the attempt was actually going to be, but there's still a massive gap between "misread the situation" and "acted boorishly". Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

For those who care, this is the AFD that some people are pretending doesn't exist. Look at the edits. Look at the hatted comments. Look at the edit-summaries. Every editor has a right to nominate an article for AFD if they truly believe it's not meeting the standards of Wikipedia. They do not deserve to be called a "liar", a "troll" and/or an "idiot" simply because they nominated an article for deletion and defended their nomination. It is the behavior on this specific AFD that led to the original ANI report, the original block, and BtBB's behavior has led to all escalations since. This block is NOT about "boors" or "people who don't like each other", it's about one person's behaviour; period. Indeed, I have neither likes nor dislikes for any of the editors on this site - you're simply someone on the other end of a computer. I may dislike behaviours, but that's not the same as disliking a person. Sticking one's head in the sand and pretending this AFD is not the reason for the block is short-sighted, and fails to get to the true root of the overall issue. If you want to have someone unblocked, the root behavior needs to be addressed the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose There's a real misunderstanding of the purpose of an indefinite block above. "Indef" means "until the community is convinced that the behavior will not recur". I blocked BtBB originally from an ANI report about disruption and personal attacks, primarily in an AFD. When he continued his personal attacks, I removed talkpage access. Following a brief discussion at ANI, I returned their talkpage access. They then used this newfound freedom to not only continue their personal attacks, but to increase their ferocity. This led to me increasing the block to "indef", using the definition above, and when they continued further, re-removal of talkpage access - no member of this community should be forced to live with continual personal attacks. I have admitted more than once that BtBB can be a beneficial content creator, but that the personal attacks MUST be curtailed before the block can be lifted. The process for unblock is clear in WP:GAB: they need to recognize their behavior was contrary to community norms, and give the community (or at least the reviewing admin) that there will not be a recurrence. In the times that BtBB has had access to their talkpage, they've done nothing but attack another editor. As such, there cannot be an unblock at this time, based simply on the process for unblock. When they're able to make a WP:GAB-compliant request, they're welcome to use UTRS for that purpose. There's also ZERO question about me being "involved", as there's simply no proof put forward that such a relationship existed: calling me involved does not make me involved the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose barring some sort of recognition on his part that those personal attacks are inappropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This is reasonable. I supported Robert's proprosal but per my comments above in the main section at 03:03, I would also support proceeding in steps, first lifting the talk page block and setting as a condition of lifting Barney's indef that he state how he violated our policy prohibiting personal attacks, that he agree to avoid any further violations and that he also agree to drop the WP:STICK and avoid interaction with Bearcat. But to make any of this happen and make it stick, I think we need to ask that both Bearcat and DP step back. Their continued involvement is no longer helpful in achieving the desired outcome, the one in which Barney is able to contribute and there are no behavior problems. Msnicki (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - The block was justified and necessary to prevent further disruption. All Barney the barney barney has to do is convince the community that the behavior will stop. The amount of time served has no bearing on whether he understands why he was blocked and what he needs to do differently to have his edit privileges restored. I disagree with Robert McClenon's premise that indefinite blocks should be reserved for editors who are NOTHERE. - MrX 16:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per my comments above.  Philg88 ^♦talk 17:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

But, as shown above, your comments are not correct. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Per EatsShootsAndLeaves; behavior needs to be addressed first. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral. It's not like he's banned. He doesn't even need to grovel or apologize. All he has to do is convince the community that his disruptive activity will end; that could easily take the form of a classic non-apology like, "Mistakes were made, and I regret my involvement. I am ready to drop the stick and move on." Alternatively, he could be given a chance to hang himself, which I am sure he will do rather quickly given his prior behavior. He's really not doing himself any favors by aggressively dismissing the possibility of collaboration with others. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This matches the advice I gave Barney on his talk page when all I knew was that he'd gotten himself blocked and probably deserved every bit of it. It's still my advice. But I think the real problem is 3 people who don't like each other and have become locked in a pattern. Expecting Barney to offer up even a non-apology to an angry Panda who also happens to be defending Bearcat's continuing stirring of the pot is just silly. The simple answer is to separate these 3, at least temporarily, and see how much of the problem that fixes. If you think of this as a problem in negotiation, of negotiating good behavior from Barney, I'm proposing what's known as changing the negotiator. Msnicki (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There you go, suggesting I'm "angry" or dislike BtBB. False on both counts. I have no emotional involvement when it comes to BtBB at all ... you and your false and unfounded statements on the other hand ... so seriously, screw off with that bullshit. the panda ₯’ 20:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, right. "I'm not angry, not a bit!" For more on just how not angry you are, please see here. Msnicki (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

As noted already multiple times, that is nothing to do with BtBB: that's being "angry" at you and your unfounded accusations and lies, plus your inability to address this with me directly rather than embarrass yourself with such false statements due to horrible assumptions. Yeah, I'm "angry" that I've lost all respect for someone who I once considered a respectable person the panda ₯’ 21:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my. Now I'm a liar? Isn't that one of the characterizations that got Barney blocked? But how much sweeter when you say it, I guess.

If indeed you aren't invested in this, not emotionally involved, why is it so hard to walk away? Why is it important that you have to be admin who reviews Barney's next unblock request? At minimum, you know he doesn't like you. So why can't that be handed off to someone else? What is the benefit of your continued involvement? Is it more likely or less likely the problem can be resolved if you handle it? Msnicki (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Who says I'm going to handle anything? Jumping off into bizarre conclusions, aren't you? You would have been better off discussing this like an adult with me before coming here, rather than attacking and making random, unfounded accusations. All the best to you - I have little time for people who choose this bizarre stance the panda ₯’ 22:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean you're willing to walk away? If so, I think this can be solved. Msnicki (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Although I said I would refuse to respond to your insults, false claims, and baiting, here is my response: I will continue to use appropriate restraint in all situations with all editors, and act what I believe to be appropriately when a) needed, b) not involved (except in emergency situations). If there's ever CONSENSUS (not unfounded accusations) that I have erred, I will deal with that accordingly as I always have in the past the panda ₯’ 20:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: This proposal is not aimed at enhancing admin privileges and power. The usual voting pattern with such proposals is opposition from admins and would-be admins and support from content builders who are not admins. That is the voting pattern above, with just one possible exception. Admins and would-be admins have a conflict of interest here. A parallel would be allowing the military in a country with a military dictatorship to decide what powers and privileges they should have. There is a lot of appeal to the "community" above, when what is meant in practice is merely the views of a blocking admin. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose A misunderstanding is that indef means forever, it doesn't it means when an uninvolved admin sees fit the block is lifted. Indef blocks are also not to be confused with bans. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Indef is not infinite. Also the WP:STANDARDOFFER is there for any and all blocked editors to return to the editing community. Epipelagic if there is empirical evidence to support your blanket statement please present it. Otherwise please mark your comment as opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarnetteD (talk • contribs) 18:45, 4 September 2014
• Oppose Indef doesn't mean forever, and considering the circumstances, I think the appropriate block is in place. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 20:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Indef is often used to quickly get rid of an issue, but i think indef should be only used in very rare cases, for users who have been blocked repeatedly, without any signs of positive contributions. My suggestions if for indef in general and i do not want to judge the particular incident discussed here. --prokaryotes (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I hope Barney will eventually satisfy the Wikipedia community that he/she will refrain from referring to other contributors as liars and idiots but from his/her most recent posts I see little evidence that that is about to happen. Viewfinder (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support (reading section titles is hard) Wikipedia is certainly strong enough to persevere in even these strenuous times when a blocked editor calls another editor a liar, idiot or troll on their talk page. Protonk (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting of block without concerns leading to the being addressed. Having said that, no objections to restoring talk page priveleges to allow for normal block appeals. It is of course understood that misuse of the user talk page again will lead to revocation of talk page again and likely be seen negatively in later requests as well. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose reducing block length until BtBB makes some sort of commitment to tone down the attacks. This is troubling; even a token gesture of a non-apology apology is needed here. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Barney has made a habit of being hostile and uncivil for quite some time; this isn't a bolt from the blue but the result of a consistent pattern of behavior. When he's willing to put forth a good-faith effort to follow policy, including the Five Pillars, then the block can be lifted immediately - but until then we need not to let the usual chorus of admin abuse (i.e. abuse aimed at admins) cause, once again, somebody who refuses to follow policy be given a pass because 'they create content'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The only person who has mentioned "abuse" in this thread has been you, Bushranger. So what is this "usual chorus of admin abuse" you refer to? If you just made that up and it's not true, then you have just provided an example of an admin gratuitously abusing content builders. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - long-term nuisance editor. GiantSnowman 10:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I stand with those saying enough is enough. Jusdafax 11:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I believe Dangerous Panda revoking the Talk Page editing from BtBB was justified, but I do believe that BtBB deserves a shortening of the block. On second hand an indef block doesnt always stay Indef, as I have seen many cases where that "Indef" lasts less than a month. As long as BtBB is willing to be civil in the future, I support. --Acetotyce (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Let it go and move on. Everyking (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

A different proposal

There's clearly some but not a lot of support for Robert's proposal that we simply lift the indefinite block on Barney, turning it into time served. Many editors cite (correctly) that all Barney has to do is promise to stop making personal attacks. And while I supported Robert's suggestion, it was more generous toward Barney than I came seeking and, if none of the rest of the people dynamics were changed, I questioned if it would actually work. Here is my proposal, which I think will work.

1. The indefinite block on Barney's talk page should be lifted, i.e., Barney's access should be restored to his own user talk page only. I contend that the talk page block serves no purpose except to pour more salt in the wound and make it less likely a positive outcome can be achieved, especially under the circumstances at the time, with Bearcat stirring the pot and DP supporting that boorish behavior.
2. Standard conditions should apply to lifting the indefinite block on Barney's privileges outside his talk page. As NinjaRobotPirate points out, this could take the form of the usual non-apology, though personally what I would like to see from Barney is that he can state how he violated our policy prohibiting personal attacks, that he agree to avoid any further violations and that he also agree to drop the WP:STICK and avoid interaction with Bearcat.
3. Another uninvolved admin should monitor Barney's talk page and review any new unblock requests Barney may make.
4. Bearcat should be asked to avoid interaction with Barney, especially on his talk page, for 3 months, simply to let the situation heal. I agree he had the right to post to Barney's talk page even after Barney was blocked, but that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Bearcat's actions clearly made it more difficult to resolve the situation and as admin, he should have known better. I called his actions boorish because they were; the word simply means "ill-mannered". It's not a crime but it's not helpful. There was already an admin on the job ready to take immediate action if Barney didn't behave himself and the idea that Bearcat needed to defend himself is just silly.
5. DangerousPanda should be asked to avoid interaction with Barney in his capacity as an admin, also for 3 months, also simply to let the situation heal. DP claims he's not at all emotionally involved, not a bit angry, but his acting out and disrespectful behavior toward me (calling me a liar, telling me to screw off or that I should "act like an adult" and that he no longer considers me a "respectable person") simply for having raised the question all completely belie that. Of course he's angry. The thing is, all of us are human and we all experience human emotions. There's simply nothing wrong or surprising about that. And as Viewfinder points out, when you're being attacked personally, as DP was by Barney, "it's very difficult to maintain the standards of neutrality that Wikipedia rightly demands." So DP's behavior is completely understandable. But an admin who's beginning to experience emotional involvement is compromised. He's no longer able to manage the situation dispassionately. An admin should be able to recognize the signs of his own rising emotions and voluntarily step back to let another admin take over. That didn't happen and it should have. Further, even if DangerousPanda doesn't dislike Barney, it's obvious Barney dislikes DP and that requiring Barney to submit unblock requests to DP is not helpful. Even if DP doesn't think that amounts to "knuckling under", it's pretty obvious Barney does. And it's just not needed. Barney needs to behave but he should be able to demonstrate that to any uninvolved admin. There's no reason it has to be DP.
6. As nom, I also would voluntarily agree to avoid interaction with the parties, namely, Bearcat, DangerousPanda and Barney, for the same 3 month period and for same reason, to allow healing. As Gamaliel correctly points out below, my bringing this to ANI has also stirred some emotions.

If we can agree to this, I think we can de-escalate and resolve the situation. Msnicki (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• This seems like a solution in search of a problem. This is all standard stuff that should happen or is happening anyway. Regardless of whatever potstirring may or may not have occurred, I see no evidence of continuing disruption on the part of DP or Bearcat which requires intervention or all this talk on this page. But I will support this proposal in order to bring this matter to a close, on the condition that the nominator also avoids any interaction with the parties or this matter for three months as well, as I feel that the vigorous pursuit of this matter has exacerbated a situation which would have come to a natural resolution on its own. Gamaliel (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, NP. You make a good point. I've revised my proposal accordingly to incorporate your suggestion. Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: any "evidence of continuing disruption", what evidence would you expect? Barney is now completely blocked, even from his own talk page. Bearcat might have enjoyed potstirring when Barney could be provoked into another poorly-chosen response, but what would be the point now? And I wouldn't expect DP to be reviewing new unblock requests if Barney's not able to post them. The question is what happens if all we do is unblock Barney from his talk page. If we don't ask Bearcat and DP to avoid him, I think we're doing what didn't work last time and expecting a different result. Bearcat volunteered above that he would avoid Barney. I asked DP directly but he hasn't answered. I think it would be helpful to put this into an actual agreement, one that was Barney also could rely on in choosing his response. Msnicki (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Just as I think there's no reason to needlessly hammer on an editor for attacks made while they're blocked there is also little reason to enact some sort of ad hoc framework to solve a problem that doesn't really exist. If we can ask bearcat to ignore the personal attacks made we can surely ask barney to ignore the comments made on their page and get on with editing. I suspect DP will exercise their judgment in interaction w/ Barney--that's not a euphemism for "won't interact" but a statement that we should trust them enough to interact in a reasonable manner as judged by them, not a random AN/I discussion. Protonk (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose No problem exists here. The suggestion above is that I've somehow done something wrong, which consensus says otherwise. The sole person launching shyte all over the place is MsNicki who continues to make false claims, attribute false intentions, not just about me, but about other editors. IMHO Msnicki should be blocked for these continued unfounded, unproven personal attacks which she makes simply because she (as she already admits) refuses to actually read the entire situation. Neither Bearcat nor I have acted in any way uncivil, boorish, or inappropriately, as per continued consensus. If a block is going to get Msnicki to drop the WP:STICK and go back to what they do best, then great. BtBB's way forward has already been set in stone. Close this farce and move on people the panda ₯’ 19:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying you've done anything wrong, I'm saying your choices weren't very good and that I thought they were adversely affected by your emotions. I don't blame, dislike or disrespect you for any of that. I get mad, too, like everyone else, so I know how my decisions become compromised when my emotions are running high. This is what it means to be human. But I thought your escalation to blocking Barney even from his own user page was too fast and that your defense of Bearcat's posts was unhelpful and I suspect your emotions were an unhelpful factor in how it played out.

Fundamentally, my complaint isn't that you did anything wrong, it's that you didn't perform very well. You started with a routine situation involving two otherwise productive people who'd been fighting over something apparently quite unimportant, one of whom had now crossed the line into silly playground personal attacks. Eleven days later, you'd escalated it into a situation where one of those editors will likely never be back. The successful outcome should have been, the behavior problems have ended and both those editors are now productive again. Sure, you could argue, that's all on Barney. But it's not. As the admin, you were the manager of this people problem and it's reasonable to ask, can you solve a people problem like this or not. Here's one that only got worse, the longer you worked on it. Frankly, as soon as you knew Barney disliked you so intensely, that alone should have been a reason to hand him off to someone else, even if only so that Barney could know for sure that what was happening to him wasn't personal and he really did need to shape up. But I think Barney probably got to you with his insults and that's why you couldn't give it up and why you were so inclined to support Bearcat's actions even though obviously they were torpedoing any chance you had of a successful outcome. When I asked you to reconsider the talk page block, you blew me off. That's why we're here. When I asked (above) if you'd now be willing to walk away, you didn't answer. That's why we're still here. Msnicki (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't answer above because I told you in advance that I wouldn't due to your continued false statements, personal attacks, and bullshit which you've merely rephrased and repeated above. I have more than once disproven your "emotion"; you call Bearcat's post "unhelpful" when it's been shown by both a good reading AND by consensus to be otherwise; I have no knowledge nor understanding that BtBB "dislikes me intently", nor do you have such confirmation - it's not inherent in any of the written words so far, so we cannot assign background "hatred" to anything; what you NEGLECT is that I once already returned his talkpage access, and returning access led to BtBB escalating his attacks - even you have admitted that you have refused to read the actual DISCUSSION that led to his block. You jumped in mid-situation, read the entire situation wrong. CONSENSUS through multiple discussions has said otherwise, yet you continue to refuse to drop the stick and and gigantic chip on your shoulder. BtBB's block AND removal of talkpage access has been determined by the community to be valid; Bearcats comments and ability to comment have been confirmed by the community - now you're simply attacking Bearcat and I, hoping that some shit will stick - modifying your words, and modifying the locus of blame to where it doesn't exist does not make for some special kind of velcro. Cut it out, becausr this bullshit harassment has got to stop the panda ₯’ 21:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Really? You're not sure how Barney feels about you? Wasn't this a clue? Msnicki (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Never saw that before. Entertaining, but it appears that he removed it before anyone could see it. I don't get rattled, nor put stock in what someone says in the heat of the moment and then remove after rethinking; it's continual insults like yours that rattle me :-) the panda ₯’ 21:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The proposal I've put on the table is that we all just walk away. If we have an agreement, I am done. There won't be anything continuing from me. Barney becomes someone else's problem but he does get another try on his talk page with a different admin and less provocative conditions to do the right thing.

(Barney, if you're reading this, you need to know that I'll be really disappointed if I discover I've gone to this much effort, basically for a stranger I felt sorry for, and you blow it. If you get a second chance, you do need to do the right thing and move on. I won't feel sorry for you a second time.) Msnicki (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Your "proposal" is based on a bunch of lies, a bunch of incorrect readings, and a bunch of things that have been rejected again and again. Again, your harassment and personal attacks are unwelcome. Stop, and drop the stick. If anyone has damaged BtBB's case, it's you by screwing this up so royally. I have advise BtBB that I fully support them making their appeal to BASC or OTRS. Drop the stick. This is a massive blemish on what has been until this date a pretty stellar wikicareer for you...but this one has been a doozy that you could have avoided by a) reading, b) following process, c) re-reading the panda ₯’ 23:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You've persisted in this and I've tried to ignore it. But I think it's time to remind you, as KonveyorBelt already tried, that per WP:NPA, "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack." An admin who can't resist making personal attacks of his own doesn't seem to me like the best choice to manage people problems involving personal attacks by others. 00:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure who this random person is, but you've solidified my point: MsNicki has cast aspersions again and again, has assigned emotions and motive where none existed, called people boors, and yet has never been able to link to a single place that proves her point - THOSE are clear violations of wP:NPA as you note above. All I've ever done is remind her every time she does it that it's a PA. As such, I have never levelled a single PA here. Thanks for clarifying it for everyone the panda ₯’ 09:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to jump in on either side, but personal attacks don't further your cause. KonveyorBelt 21:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose MsNicki keeps making blanket statements about how things "are" yet provides no evidence to back up these assertions. De-escalation has already occurred and, as stated more than once, BtBB has a way back to editing - it is called the WP:STANDARDOFFER. MarnetteD|Talk 19:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but that standard offer starts with demanding that Barney wait six months. I don't think that's justified. I'm asking that we dial back and let Barney try again under less provocative conditions to post a suitable unblock request on his own talk page now. He could turn around and blow this, in which case, you can bet I certainly won't be rushing back to his defense. But I think this is worth a try for an editor with a history of otherwise generally helpful contributions. Msnicki (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• I personally don't think that the standard offer is required. As I've said before, he can formulate his unblock request offline, submit it through WP:OTRS or even the Arbs unblock process (wasn't WP:BASC a way of doing this, or did they stop). Last time he was granted access to his talkpage, it didn't go well - we have no proof that's going to change. Using OTRS or BASC will allow him to create a WP:GAB-compliant request, realizing that he's going to have to abide by his promises - this cannot be empty words. Indeed, OTRS or BASC might add additional limitations/restrictions on unblock, but that's not my purview. Nobody has provoked BtBB for the last 2 weeks, so people need to actually read the entire set of exchanges, and STOP suggesting that there's anyone's actions "at fault" but their own. the panda ₯’ 20:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think at this point, we're better off letting BtBB form the unblock request offline, as this is out of the line, and when taken the rest of the matter into consideration, I can't help but to think that there's not enough assurance that similar attacks on editors won't repeat if we return the talk page access to BtBB. So unfortunately, I must vote no on point 1. The rest I'm neutral on. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If Barney is unblocked from his own talk page and decides to use it for more bad behavior instead of doing the right thing, believe me, I'll be the first to ask that the block be reinstated. I'll be genuinely annoyed that I'll have wasted my time on someone so undeserving. But if the rest of this agreement is place, I think he'll do the right thing and I'd like to see him have the chance to show us. Msnicki (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Msnicki: - at least 1 person (i.e. Knowledgekid87) thinks that your first point meant an unblock when what you mean to say is restoring the talk page access. I think fixing that would definitely help. (To Knowledgekid87: If I make the assumption erroneously, you have the permission to WP:TROUT me. Or even {{whale}}.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that suggestion. That's very helpful. I've added some additional clarification that I hope will help. Let me know what you think. Msnicki (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Why should Barney be given another chance here? I mean what is the difference between him and all of the other editors? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that this situation was managed far more poorly than usual. Where else have you seen someone who's just been blocked suffering long argumentative missives like this one on his own talk page, stirring the pot just 40 minutes after the second block? Bearcat should have known better and when apparently he didn't, DangerousPanda should have stepped up to manage the situation and discourage this behavior. Instead, DP endorsed that boorish behavior, yet still expected Barney to cool down enough to prepare a suitable unblock request for an admin he likely began to perceive as one of his main tormentors. This was never going to work and that wasn't Barney's fault alone. DP mismanaged what started out as a routine problem that should have been easy to solve and that part's not on Barney. That's what's different. Msnicki (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

More personal attacks - this situation was NOT managed poorly, in fact, as per consensus above, it was managed quite sanely. Repeating that I shouldn't have done something when the community says otherwise is improper. Just because you fucked this up and refuse to back down and eat crow does not mean I managed anything poorly - I gave BtBB a hell of a lot of rope, and he used it as I hoped he wouldn't. Stop questioning my competence (because that's a personal attack) when the community has determined otherwise. Again, this is harassment, so cut it out the panda ₯’ 09:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - Based on the latest The unblock request, it is again attacking users and using the everybody but me wording. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - For the same reasons as given in the section above, in addition to this being another case where WP:INVOLVED is misunderstood. 'Involved' explicitly exempts administrative actions - including (but not limited to) blocks, warnings, and policy advice. If it's felt that an admin shouldn't be further handling a case where they have blocked someone, then those cases may or may not have merit, but waving the flag of WP:INVOLVED on them makes them invalid from the start. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• The policy says Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'.. What Msnicki got was That's the most ridiculous paragraph ever written in the English language. ... Give your head a shake if that's what you're really saying. I do not consider such discourse "calm and rational," and, as an editor in good standing, Msnicki deserves better. Administrator conduct states Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.... Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another. ...Administrators should bear in mind that they have hundreds of colleagues. Therefore, if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct. NE Ent 19:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There was quite obviously nothing wrong with that statement - Msnicki even dropped by my talkpage to discuss it because she too read something into it that was obviously not there. It was by no means uncivil, contained no personal attacks (indeed, it commented on CONTENT, and not the CONTRIBUTOR), but wholly questioned the LOGIC of her paragraph and personal attacks against me that by her own admission, was based on not-reading the entire situation that led to BtBB's sanctions. Thanks for playing though Ent ... usually you're better at doing your research, which is why I respect you the panda ₯’ 18:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Another model display of deftness deafness in dispute resolution. I know I was satisfied, about the way NE Ent must also feel about now. It wasn't like you'd said something clearly rude, like "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen". It wasn't at all like that. Msnicki (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

More insults or just sarcasm (or both)? English is not my first language, after all...sometimes I miss some of the nuances the panda ₯’ 08:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Here is some advice I just posted to Barney's talk page. I realized that if my proposal was accepted, I would no longer be able to give him this advice. I should do it now. Msnicki (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

What started it all

I finally found time to read the original AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Mutton, the article itself, John Mutton (as it appears now) and as it appeared when Bearcat nominated it to AfD, and the original ANI complaint Bearcat lodged against Barney at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive851#John Mutton AFD. (How do you admins ever find time to do this except rarely??)

In its present state, I stopped checking the sources (via Higheam, many thanks to WP as it's really helpful for AfDs!) after the first 3 of many news stories on this subject, all helpfully contributed by I am One of Many, who got my thanks and deserves many more. There's no question the subject easily satisfies WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent secondary sources.

When I am One of Many reports at 01:34 24 Aug having found and added 10 sources on Highbeam, Bearcat responds at 01:54 24 Aug, "Now we're getting somewhere! I'd be more than happy to withdraw this if the actual substance of the article were expanded to go along with the sourcing". This is not actually the test at AfD. We do not decide notability based on whether sources have been properly cited in an article; that is a content question to be discussed on the article talk page. The question at AfD is not whether sources have been cited, but whether they exist.

But in the case at hand, it's clear that I am One of Many not only demonstrated the existence of these sources, this editor took the time and effort to incorporate them into the article. Presented with this clear evidence I am One of Many had found, 180.172.239.231 struck his delete !vote and went to keep. Though Bearcat had told I am One of Many that he'd withdraw his nomination if proper sources and content were provided, he never did.

Curiously, the case is closed by SpinningSpark as no consensus, despite the sourcing. (AfDs are not a vote, Spark.)

Turning to the specifics of the fight between Bearcat and Barney, Bearcat nominated the article to AfD arguing that there was only a single trivial source at the time (true) and that that the subject was merely a city councillor and that city councillors are not entitled to presumed notability in lieu of sources. He argued that if there was a distinction, it was "purely ceremonial".

Barney responded that this was not true, pointing out that the subject was not just any councillor, "he was "Leader of the Majority Party", and therefore the most important councillor politically, for a significant period", which seemed like a pretty good point to me. As an American, I don't think, e.g., that even the minority leader in our House is just like any other congressman. Bearcat is unwilling to concede and switches to arguing that it's about sources and at 10:31 21 Aug, Barney asks him, "Well please try to make your mind up". It goes downhill from there.

By 07:14 23 Aug, Bearcat is accusing Barney, "Your accusations of bad faith are inappropriate and I'm taking you to WP:RFC if they don't stop immediately."

At 10:53 23 Aug, Barney tells Bearcat, " I think you'll find that I have spent a lot of good faithing on you. ... This has led me to the conclusion that you deliberately and purposefully misrepresented the original case, above. I stand by everything I say, always and without exception. An RFC on Bearcat (talk · contribs)'s behaviour might be appropriate as I'd like to see what other articles he's lynched with lies."

At 20:54 23 Aug, Bearcat files his complaint at ANI, alleging "persistent allegations that my nomination was a bad faith attempt to misrepresent the subject's notability". Up to this point, Barney had not received any warnings about this alleged misbehavior on his talk page. He had not, e.g., been templated with a warning to stop any misbehavior or face a block.

At 20:56 23 Aug (two minutes later!), Bearcat tells Barney back at the AfD, "I have not made a "mistake", I have not "lied" or "misrepresented" anything, and I do not have a pattern of "lynching" articles with "lies" ... I'm not engaging this discussion any further in this venue; take it to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#John_Mutton_AFD."

At 21:25 23 Aug (29 minutes after Bearcat's complaint and without other discussion), DangerousPanda reports at ANI, "I've blocked him for the duration of the AFD (96 hours) for disruption and personal attacks".

The following exchange then takes between DangerousPanda and Roxy the dog at ANI:

This block needs reviewing by an uninvolved admin, quickly. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Is that because I've now extended it and locked his talkpage for further violations of NPA while blocked? the panda ₯’ 00:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it is because I believe your blocking of BBB is excessive, punitive and unwarranted. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I've never issued a punitive block in my life. But hey, if you think personal attacks and disruption are ok, then go ahead the panda ₯’ 00:38, 24 August

Wow. This is a new way to try to win an AfD. I don't get to come in here and have someone blocked in 29 minutes flat based only my own self-serving description of events and without any discussion just because I think they said something I didn't like. I get treated far more disrespectfully all the time, but I don't find it easy to get them blocked, much less driven completely off the project, even when I report it here at ANI. I think Bearcat (however unintentionally) abused his status as admin to get a favor here, a presumption of innocence he wasn't entitled to, to get a strong opponent eliminated from a discussion in way that isn't open to the rest of us ordinary mortals. As NE Ent pointed out earlier, the standards for admins should be higher. They should model behavior for the rest of us and we should be able to expect them to demonstrate better than average ability to resolve disputes rather than escalate them. I don't think Bearcat demonstrated that.

After Barney was blocked, he responded at 23:44, 23 Aug that Bearcat "wrote an AFD nomination that misrepresented the subject as only being a minor , and specifically mentioned the role of mayor. He made innuendo that the role of mayor was unimportant (which is technically true), but failed to mention that the gentleman was a long-time leader of the majority party on the council, and used inneundo to conflate the two unrelated. He also apparently omitted to conduct a WP:BEFORE search for sources because when such a search is performed a plethora of sources are to be found. When I politely pointed out this to him and gave him the opportunity to correct himself, he refused to do this". So far so good, and I agree with this as an absolutely fair summary, now that I've read the whole thing.

What got him blocked from his talk page 20 minutes later was this unhelpful addition: "asserting things that are clearly not true to anyone with at least half a brain (that a leader of a party group is equally as important as a non-leader) and started to make personal allegations against me. He has now compounded his lies by writing further lies at WP:AN/I which have led a productive and editor of good character being blocked. WP:BOOMERANG should have applied to the petty vindictive request of a liar and a troll." Again, now that I've read the whole thing, I can be more sympathetic to Barney's opinion, but it's just not an opinion he or anyone else is allowed to voice in that way under our guidelines.

Forty minutes after Barney has been blocked, even from his own talk page for saying this, Bearcat lands on him on right there on that same talk page where Barney can no longer respond with a long complaint that Barney has it all wrong. When Barney gains access again and responds that Bearcat is "piling new lies on top of old lies ... and getting your pet admin to do the job for you", DangerousPanda blocks Barney indefinitely. I goes on from there and continues to escalate, despite remarks by Roxy the dog at 11:23 28 Aug, in defense of Barney. Bearcat continues to make long argumentative posts to Barney's page in clear violation of WP:IUC, that ""Other uncivil behaviors [include] taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves." Eventually we are here.

About the best that can be said for Bearcat is that he was never warned, e.g., with a template at the time about his uncivil behavior on Barney's talk page after Barney was blocked. (Otoh, Barney wasn't templated either before he was blocked.) This was obviously a heated discussion and of course anyone can understand what that does for anyone's judgment. But that's why have what are supposed to be uninvolved detached administrators with better than average people skills and better than average ability to resolve disputes. Never mind that DP should never have blocked Barney for 4 days on such flimsy evidence and zero discussion. He definitely should have warned Bearcat to cease this uncivil behavior. If Bearcat wasn't willing to do that, Bearcat should have faced a block.

Whenever bad behavior is reported, we always ask, were they told at the time? You can't expect people to be mind-readers. Bearcat should have been warned and he wasn't. We can all concede that. But Bearcat isn't just any ordinary editor. He's an admin. Being an admin isn't a right, this a privilege, to be enjoyed only to the extent that the individual can contribute to a sense of legitimate authority behind our guidelines, our basic social compact to be enjoyed by all. An admin is expected to have more than just ordinary ability to deal with disputes. As NE Ent points out, an admin should display model behavior. An admin should know the rules and display exemplary adherence to them. That just didn't happen.

Instead, what happened is that Bearcat took advantage of his superior status to knock out his strongest opponent. He then continue baiting Barney until Barney had been completely driven off the project. This was an incredible failure. I knew that Barney was being treated unfairly but until now, I didn't realize how unfairly. Msnicki (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't let opinion get in the way of facts. I request immediate action to be taken against Msnicki for continued harassment, false claims, trying to find "evidence" that doesn't exist. I've had enough of this bullshit, and I have asked MULTIPLE times that this be stopped. the panda ₯’ 20:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

And now canvassing under the guise of "hey, I said nice things about you, now do me a favour and come to ANI and comment" when she knows full well that simply mentioning someone on ANI does not require notification, it's only filing a report on them that requires such notification. This flogging and disgusting behaviour has to stop now the panda ₯’ 22:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: Panda I understand why you are upset right now, my advice would be to step back for a few and let other editors comment. I agree that what she is doing is WP:CANVASSING but also agree that this discussion should be closed now and a new one focused on the behavior be opened up if desired. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

[Post-closure, Msnicki disagreed with the charge of canvassing. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)]

I agree with Barney's block. He has made it clear that he has no intention of making repairs to this situation, as indicated by these comments (bold markings added by me):

At 23:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC) - I stated it was my policy to apologise for things that I have done wrong. However, as I have done nothing wrong in this case, no apology will be forthcoming.

At 10:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC) - Thanks Bearcat (talk · contribs) - thanks to your efforst I've been lbocked from editnig for the past 4 days. Bet you feel proud of yourself. However, no, piling lies on top of further lies won't help your cause. You are clearly quite delusional, a calculating liar and should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. A leader of a council is more important than a non-leader. This is an indisuptable fact that you choose to ignore mostly because you're a complete idiot.

At 16:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC) - I seem to recall Bearcat (talk · contribs) that *YOUR* refusal to acknowledge indisputable basic facts was teh root cause of teh disruption YOU initiated at the original AFD. Although I do enjoy watching your squirm in your little hole trying to justify unjustifiable actions, it is gettting slightly tiring now. You are clearly incapable of understanding and my guess is 50% of both of your braincells are malfunctioning. You lied. Then you snuck to the teacher. Admit these facts now and we can deal with this sordid little affair appropriately.

Sure, maybe all involved here got overheated (admins are human too, you know), but I think Barney's comments are the most obvious and insulting than all the rest. Thus, I feel the block was rightly deserved.

My recommendation is that this discussion be closed, everyone walk away, and that no major actions be taken. Intense discussions rarely get anywhere. Hopefully, Barney will think about his actions and appeal the block in the appropriate way.

Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 22:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Close this, enough beating the WP:DEADHORSE already... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 22:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Evlekis quacking again

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

---

And a swift block would be appreciated for Educated Guesses. Amortias (T)(C) 19:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Devi ever : fx

The following discussion is closed. 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 having a bit of an issue with a slew of SPA IPs and accounts inserting what I consider to be incorrect and unacceptable material in this little article about a minor company. Further details are on Talk:Devi_ever_:_fx#.22Controversy.22, and I don't wish to repeat myself, but in brief, primary references represented keep getting reinserted into the article, and a manufactured "controversy" keeps getting put in our article, along with information about the former owner--information that, if not an outright BLP violation, is at least deeply problematic. I'd like for an admin or two to assess a. whether these are indeed BLP violations, b. whether the editor (who I believe to be the same as two IPs in the history, and see talk page) needs a warning or stern talking to, and c. whether perhaps the article needs some protection.

As a side note, perhaps editors can see if this shouldn't be nominated for deletion. I'm all for supporting small manufacturers of boutique stuff, but this one is really quite minor and the sourcing is, well, meager. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Let me add, real brief, that I think there's a COI here as well--related to the company ownership, or perhaps to the botched Kickstarter campaign. Why else these comments on the former owner? Drmies (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• In the meantime the new account has found the talk page, so the pressure is off a little bit. I'm still interested in opinions, of course. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The company comfortably fails WP:CORP, and a run-of-the-mill kickstarter controversy doesn't make it otherwise. It's neither our job to support small companies nor give a platform for unhappy kickstarter donors. We don't need to dissect which parts of this stuff belong in Wikipedia - none of it does. Off to AfD with it. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 20:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nominated it for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devi ever : fx. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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

1RR breach by SeattliteTungsten

SeattliteTungsten cautioned; no further action necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
About Israeli West Bank barrier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Editor SeattliteTungsten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted twice within half an hour: [1] and [2]. I pointed this out to them, mentioning the WP:1RR rule (by WP:ARBPIA) [3]. I also did so on the article talkpage [4] (a thread started post-incident). The user rejected my request, a bit sneaky IMO [5]. I request/suggest that an uninvolved admin/editor undoes the trespassing (2nd) revert, and maybe write a clarifying note to the editor. Then, the user added this to my talkpage, which I can take as a personal attack. This also could use a clarifying note to the editor. -DePiep (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC) (notified user [6]) And this arrived on my talkpage after I posted this here. -DePiep (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Sequence on my talkpage: 1. the link mentioned, 2. I reverted (=deleted), 3. I notified [7] to not write on my talkpage any more, 4. ST undid the deletion, and added comment [8]. Time for a stronger approach? -DePiep (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC) I've spent 20 minutes looking at this and I agree ST's conduct is sub-par, but I'm not seeing a clear 1RR violation. The two diffs you cite might just about be a violation, but they're two days old. They've edited the article twice today, but neither is an obvious revert. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Two reverts within 25 minutes there is a 1RR. That shouldn't need 20 min. (I could revert myself by now, but I thought I'd take the royal route: ANI). Then, a user calling me a 'terrorist' (twice) should not not take 20 mins looking. Please act. -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC) HJ Mitchell Despite panda's distractions below, I'd like to read your response. -DePiep (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC) There's at least 4 possible interpretations of that phrasing in their use of the word "terrorist" on your talkpage. Only 1 of them parses remotely into it looking like they called you one, as per WP:NPA. Barring other NPA violations, we'd have to AGF that it's one of the other possible ones, especially since we typically warn on a first one the panda ₯’ 23:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC) That's only the second part. What about reverting the 1RR breach? -DePiep (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC) SeattliteTungsten repeated the PA, as I diff'ed. -DePiep (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC) You were already advised - and already knew - that we will not block for 1RR violations that took place 2 days ago as that would be punitive, not preventative. And no; nowhere in the later diff's did they flat out call you a terrorist, so the PA was not repeated...you interpreted it as related to the first, but again can easily be interpreted differently. So, warn them for NPA, and let us know if it actually happens again, which is the normal procedure as you already know the panda ₯’ 23:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC) I agree that a block for a 1RR violation would be completely inappropriate at this point. We permit blocks for edit-warring only to stop an edit-war that can't be stopped any other way; when two days have passed, the edit-war has stopped. SeattliteTungsten's introduction of scare quotes around Israeli in his most recent edit is clearly not appropriate from a WP:NPOV perspective, but unless you can show us that it's part of a longstanding pattern, I don't see a need for sanctions just for that one bit. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC) I did explicitly not ask for a block. Is this your pavlov dog? (although, their afterward calling me a 'terrorist' twice might trigger that from any admin awake). I-did-not-ask-for-a-block. I asked ANI to revert the second revert or the two reverts, I diff'ed. Why does not @HJ Mitchell: or @Nyttend: simply revert the 1RR breach? -DePiep (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC) --sp, and add pings. -DePiep (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC) You might want to add a ping for HJ Mitchell — I only came here because I felt like it, since I didn't get a ping. Meanwhile...aside from a block, we have no type of sanction or action that would be appropriate in this case. I can't imagine a situation in which it would be good to revert a 1RR violation just because it's a 1RR violation: it only restarts the edit-war. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC) I don't understand your ping remark. Anyway: let me explain to you. After a 1RR trespassing, I can not revert myself, however right I might be. So I ask the trespasser to correct - to no effect, in this case. Also, your fellow-admins here can advise me to 'take a distance' (all this is in the diffs. Ditd you take note?). Now conflict resolution says: then ask outside. So I did. And again (why do admins here alway drews to block by pavlov?), I asked to revert an edit. I did not ask for a block, that is your mental issue. Asking ANI is a WP:DISPUTE basic route. If you think that I did wrong going here, click that and win it there. Now if you don't simply revert as I simply asked in my OP, what do you say I should have done, theoretically? -DePiep (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC) DePiep, please please please read WP:THEWRONGVERSION, and understand the basic principle of that bit of satire: admins do not involve themselves in content disputes to favor one side or the other. If the user in question is not actively edit warring, and no one else is, the solution to your problem is to take up a discussion on the article talk page, establish consensus, then put in the version that has consensus. Literally no one here would find it appropriate to, acting in an administrator capacity, revert merely on your say so. Nor are we to, as admins, act to favor one side of a dispute or another. Instead, what you do is establish consensus via a discussion, then make the change after the discussion has had adequate time to establish consensus. The existence of a 2-day old borderline 1RR violation is not reason to short circuit normal processes at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 01:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Well thanks, this reads like a sensible response. But I don't get the fun intended. 1RR is not about talkpage or content at all. It is, well, 1RR. And didn't I describe: 1RR - I took a break (not reload) -- then I got insults? (Had I waited just 25 hrs to revert myself, you and all here could & would have accused me of gaming the system &tc.). Now could you please3 read WP:CONFLICT, especially wrt xRR: it says don't keep fighting, take a break and ask help elsewhere. So here I came. Reverting a 1RR break is not taking position, it is solving an edit war. I can also note that I took a look & question at talkpages (what was not picked up here at all, after all the diffs I added). I find it weird that that is not rewarded or even seen as part of my editwar solution. Instead, all I get here is that - otherwise serious - admins give a "we don't block" non-response. Of course I get by now I won't get an admin action from here. The disappointment is that the pavlov reaction at ANI is: "who can I block?". And it shows that serious admins did not even read my OP. -DePiep (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC) And I repeat for clarity: SeattliteTungsten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) called me a 'terrorist' twice on my talkpage (diffs already provided above). Please act. -DePiep (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC) So, as you were already advised, warn them for WP:NPA and move on - let us know if personal attacks happen after the warning the panda ₯’ 08:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Okay: You can ping me to your heart's content in the middle of the night and I'm still no going to respond, because I do have to sleep at some point. I'm not going to revert the edit because that would make me a party to the dispute and I don't won't to get involved (not in the plain English sense, nor in the Wikipedia jargon sense). The only clear 1RR violation is now getting on for three days old; no admin action is going to be taken in respect of that. There is nothing preventing any other party from reverting the edit, provided they adhere to the 1RR (note that 1RR is one revert per 24 hours) themselves, though note that violating the 1RR is not in itself an adequate reason o revert an edit. As DP says, there a multiple interpretations of the message ST left, and it's a stretch to consider it to be a personal attack. It is, though, unnecessary and deliberately provocative, so I will caution him against that sort of thing. If any editor wanted to make a case that another editor's behaviour constituted a battleground mentality, or in future wanted to allege a violation of the 1RR, they should take the matter to WP:AE, with diffs and a clear (and concise) explanation. Can we close this thread now? —HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC) re 1.: You mean a ping wakes you up? Am I supposed to check that before, somehow? re 2.: Not a dispute. Just an edit counting thing. xRR is edit warring, and I did respond along this. I am still surprised that I my de-escalating approach is used against me here. re 3.: violating the 1RR is not in itself an adequate reason o revert an edit. -- It is a solution to edit warring. Note that I asked for a revert, not a block. As you say, 'nothing preventing any other party from reverting the edit'. re 4.: Calling someone a 'terrorist' is a PA, and more so when repeated. It also illustrates the editor's attitude in this. Thanks for the action though. re 5.: see re2. AE is for blocks only. -DePiep (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC) No, it doesn't wake me up, but if I'm pinged while I'm asleep, I'm not going to see it until I wake up, so it doesn't accomplish much. And AE is not just for blocks, though it is mainly about requesting sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC) On pinging you HJ Mitchell, I didn't mean that you were ignoring things. DePiep's edit of 00:55, 11 September 2014 included the code to ping you and to ping me in the same edit, but I never got a notification, so I thought maybe you never got one either. Nyttend (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Sigh. OK then, WP:AE is for sanctions, not just blocks. But I did not ask for sanctions. I asked for a revert. I de-escalated an editwar. Why do the responses here keep and keep diverting? One could a. provide a to the point answer or b. ask for a clarification. Nowhere is written that ANI is a hammering-only page. -DePiep (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Now that I have read HJ Mitchell's carefully written caution (I compliment), and understanding that this thread won't produce much more, I OP agree to close it. -DePiep (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrator abuse

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

---

It is my personal conviction that User:Mr. Stradivarius was contacted by email and offered financial incentives in order to settle a dispute on Nabih Berri. The page was previously targeted by Beirut-based PR agency AddBloom and I am personally aware of the fact that the team of the politician whose article is in question has a tendency to buy off or financially settle any problem that they encounter. Mr. Stradivarius has consistently removed heavily sourced paragraphs and kept replacing them, until just recently, with unsourced hagiography. The following are the sourced (which he maliciously calls unsourced) paragraphs that were removed:

• According to former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky, in his book By Way of Deception, the Mossad "was deeply involved with several other warring Lebanese families, paying for information, passing it between groups, even paying the gangs and some Palestinians in the refugee camps for intelligence and services. Besides Gemayel, both the Jumblatt and Berri families were on the Mossad payroll. Source: Ostrovsky, Victor (1990). By Way of Deception: The Making and Unmaking of a Mossad Officer, p. 316

• Berri is involved in corruption allegations regarding a 1996 coastal motorway in southern Lebanon. The contract for the motorway was won by a firm run by Berri's wife, Randa Assi, and was said to be overpriced by over three hundred million US dollars. Sources: Johnson, Michael (2001). All Honorable Men: The Social Origins Of War In Lebanon , p.236; Schwerna, Tobias (2010). Lebanon: A Model of Consociational Conflict , p.128.

• In 2004, Berri was mentioned in several of the diplomatic cables leaked by WikiLeaks. One cable said that Amal is "near universally derided as corrupt to the core", and that Berri was described by a relative of Musa al-Sadr as having provided social services in the south only through "wheeling, dealing, and stealing". Also according to the cables, Berri receives USD 400,000 a month from Iran, using a fourth of the sum to shore up his support and pocketing the rest. Sources: Gloria Center, Wikileaks cables.

• According to one source, Berri was considered by Rafik Hariri to be "irredeemably corrupt and unreliable", as well as an opportunist, and is thought to maintain his support base through access to state funds. Source: Blanford, Nicholas (2006). Killing Mr. Lebanon: The Assasination of Rafik Hariri and Its Impact on the Middle East , p. 118

• According to leaked diplomatic cables, during the 2006 Lebanon war, Berri, publicly an ally of Hezbollah, described Israel's attacks on Hezbollah to US Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman as being "like honey", and hoped that Israel would complete its mission against Hezbollah quickly. He suggested that the IDF "markedly improve its targeting intelligence to make air strikes more effective. Either that, or they would have to wipe Hizballah out of the south with a ground offensive." He also suggested that "if Israel succeeds in weakening Hizballah militarily, then he will be more willing to weaken them politically". Sources: Wikileaks cables, NOW Media, Aspen Institute, Middle East Online.

• Berri's sister-in-law and close business associate Samira Assi, is said to have made a fortune by getting a contract from Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to print one million copies of Gaddafi's "Green Book". Assi's deals are seen as highly controversial, since the founder of the Amal Movement, Musa al-Sadr, is known to have been disappeared on the orders of Gaddafi himself. Sources: Middle East Intelligence Bulletin report, written by the current news director of Congress-funded Al Hurra.

Why should anyone bother to edit Wikipedia, when their efforts are compromised by the actions of such individuals as User:Mr. Stradivarius with dubious actions and intentions? I hope this could be referred to an arbitration or mediation committee that would decide upon restoring these sourced paragraphs in the article, and I hope that User:Mr. Stradivarius's actions could be thoroughly investigated.

Callsfortruth (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You'd better come up with some proof that he was offered financial incentive pretty darned quick, or else I smell a block ... the panda ₯’ 19:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone hearing a feint whistle getting louder really quick?--v/r - TP 19:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It sounds more like someoen trying to cut air with a stick more like a woosh woosh to me. Amortias (T)(C) 20:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If I had any proof, he would have been blocked already. I am assuming, based on the fact that a PR-firm has targeted this article, and because said politician has copious amounts of money that he spends on whitewashing his image, especially when it comes to the first result in a Google search of his name. Callsfortruth (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, the reason for this post is not primarily to get someone to investigate admin's action (though it is my stated intention), it is to have this article reviewed by a committee. I am not acquainted with the procedures, as I have too little time to edit Wikipedia, so I hope any admin here could help. Callsfortruth (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• I know that this is section has been closed, but I thought I should clarify - I haven't been contacted by anyone off-wiki about this article, and I certainly haven't been offered any money to edit it. Actually, I came across it by patrolling Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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

IP vandalizing

The following discussion is closed. 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 75.180.25.127 has been vandalizing Mary Birdsong page. (notification) diff1, diff2. IP was warned earlier for making similar changes. Also has other warnings about vandalism on the talk page. Kingsindian (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the right forum for reports like this. Epicgenius (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I've reported the IP user already. Epicgenius (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Why is a user being reported for allegedly making good-faith edits? Drmies (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• A BLP that's so poorly verified, so full of resume information, where it's so difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff and every individual little job, no matter the size, is included in a filmography--well, I don't think we can throw an IP in the slammer for some unverified shuffling of content. That article is ridiculously bad. BTW, if we're going to bring the hammer down on this IP (who seems to have done some more work on this article with different IP addresses) because of "unverified changes" (not simply removal, Kingsindian)--well, what are we supposed to do about this wholly unexplained revert of 19 edits by Freshh? Who then warned the IP, a warning that can add up to four, so that one of us admins will block? Well, one thing we can do is tell them to stop using Twinkle. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: I am afraid, I have very little experience in these things, so my efforts might have caused more trouble that they were worth. I was just looking at recent changes and noticed some stuff by an IP and reverted assuming good faith. I looked at the contributions and found that this stuff has been going on for some time. I looked at the talk page, and it seemed that this kind of stuff was widespread. There has been no response by the IP to anything on the talk page. This is why I reported it. Take my report with a ton of salt, and any pointers on how to deal with these kind of things are appreciated. Kingsindian (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

No no, not salt, Kingsindian--that's not the issue, and my problem isn't so much with you--I suppose you're new here, and didn't know, perhaps, that one should be reticent in starting ANI threads. In a situation like this, where editors are simply reverting each other, it's worth something trying to get them to go to the talk page. But that IP editor has nothing but templated warnings on their talk page, so I would say they have very little incentive to do anything but reinstate their information. If your counterpart Freshh had left a human message on that talk page, perhaps the IP might have found their tongue. At any rate, since there is no talk page discussion or edit summaries that explain what was vandalism here, no admin is going to act on it. The lesson, if there is one: judge an edit for what it's worth, and that includes others' reverts of edits. Another one: editors who get templated are more likely to get angry than to start talking. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. This seems to have happened with me before: that I was too trigger-happy. I will keep it in mind. Kingsindian (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Jack Vale

Jack Vale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There appears to be a lawsuit regarding Jack Vale. Two new editors Jackvale (talk · contribs) and Boscositcks (talk · contribs) have repeatedly removed the "controversy" section and two external links. Sources are an article in TheBlaze.com and "The Hunington Beach Police Department Facebook page". Jim1138 (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

TheBlaze is a news website, which I would classify as a reliable source even if a biased source, because face it, 90% of sources are biased one way or the other, and this to me is a pretty newsy article, not an opinion piece about Obama or the Democrats. I don't know that I like using Facebook as a source even if it is an official Facebook page, but at least it's not the only source. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It's WP:CONSENSUS that an 'official' Facebook or Twitter page is an acceptable primary source the same as if it was an official website. (Largely, I'd imagine, because a lot of places nowadays have them, especially the former, instead of/as official websites...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I would support a block on User:Jackvale because it's clear that he is a single purpose account interested only in editing his own page, plus there's a chance it's a troll rather than the actual man behind the account, in which case would be impersonation. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Boscositcks' edits seems rather sockish. JV stops editing immediately after I warned NLT, then Bsitchs edits 22 minutes after JV, uploaded the image, adds it, then stops followed by JV 8 minutes later. File:Jack_Vale.jpg was uploaded by Boscositcks, an uncropped version of what is returned by google image search. Jim1138 (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP policy fanaticism by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

The following discussion is closed. 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 crosses several noticeboards (BLP and Edit Warring at least), hence why I'm posting this here. An issue has come to light by this particular User, but one that is repeated quite often on WP by others. That is using BLP policy as a blanket shield to revert endless times any content that they contest under the guise of protecting WP and/or the person the article is about. In this particular instance, the subject is not only upset over the perceived "gutting" of her article, but has since used her radio show and her Facebook page with over 10,000 followers to comment on this User and also to debase and degrade Wikipedia.

The specifics are as follows: Rebecca Bardoux, is a former adult film actress and currently an internet radio show host and a stand-up comedian. In July of last year, content began to be added (the expansion of a stub article) regarding her comedian work [9]. This went through various revisions, had references added, reworked, removed and re-added, but was left in the article until August of this year when the User in question removed it along with its cited reference [10]. It was subsequently re-added by several other Editors and then removed or reverted by this User [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] using various claims such as "unsourced" and then "sockpuppetry" and finally calling it "promotional".

Then the subject of the article noticed and commented publicly

It appears that new users where involved as well and my next point might explain why I believe this to be true. In the midst of this "BLP compliance allowed edit warring", the person who is the subject of this article took notice of what was happening to her article and she did not like it. She first commented on it on her Facebook page on August 27th [21](forgive me, I am unsure how to get that exact link, but its there now, just scroll down) and then again on her radio show on August 28th [22] at the 27:40 mark. The subject called for her listeners to go on this site and try to recover her article content which was seemingly attempted. Over these two days, Wikipedia was maligned in a variety of ways from being called unreliable to being "a bunch of bullshit" and calling Wikipedia Editors a "bunch of vigilantes". The subject even went to so far as to post Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' User name on her Facebook page. Others joined in and tried to update the article with additional sources, but this User just won't have it and continues to revert all of the material that has been recently added along with the associated references, see difs above.

The subject also mentioned on her radio show another adult film actress, Brittany Andrews, that she has similar problems with her article over several years. the other person also commented on the subjects Facebook page. The subject also questioned the legality of preventing accurate information from being posted on Wikipedia and speculated about what legal action would be required to prevent people from deleting accurate information about her.

Was this attention as damaging as this transpiring in a major newspaper or magazine, No, but my point is that a User who routinely uses BLP policy as a catch-all shield has not only obscured accurate information, but has caused damage to Wikipedia's reputation and the image of its editors. Regardless of your opinion of the subject or her profession, past or present, what this User is doing is making all of us look bad. For the record, I did notify this User of the consequences of his actions here.

I don't know what corrective action to request, because I don't know how this problem should be addressed. We have Editors who use BLP policy to run roughshod over any article about a living person as they see fit regardless of what happens in the real world and/or seemingly without regard for accurate information that even the subject themselves actually want posted. I have heard about similar instances, but this is the first time I have seen it actually transpire as well as hear in the subject's own words about what they think of how their article is managed by the Wikipedia community. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The basic problem here is that PORNBIO is bullshit and these articles should be deleted, not edit warred over. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion, but this happens with all types of BLP articles. Another that comes to mind is for Robert Spitzer. This person has gone so far as to comment directly on their article's Talk page. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Those should probably mostly be deleted too. The reason we have all those restrictive BLP policies that screw up the articles' neutrality is our practice of writing BLP's against the subject's wishes. We should instead write them the same way we write other articles, but delete them if the subject asks us to. Anyway, yeah, it does look like HW is being POINTy and should back away. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I can find no evidence of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz editing the Robert Spitzer (political scientist) article, or commenting on that article's talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, NO! That was NOT the intention or inference AT ALL. I was simply responding to the IP with an example of another BLP article where the subject had commented on their WP article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If we write only what the subject wants, we are not an encyclopedia. If we delete the article if the subject does not like it, we're no better than their PR shill. The policy of paying any attention to subject requests for deletion is a very dangerous one, and this and similar discussions have shown the dangers. (Yes, I oppose a broad interpretation current policy of doing it for non-famous by admin discretion--admin discretion at BLP is much too variable; the proper interpretation of our policy should permit it only in exceptional cases, where for one reason or another, it is not possible to write a fair article. (I have in fact closed a few AfDs as delete on that basis--my objection is to the overuse.0 DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If a person is notable, we don't delete their article just because they don't like it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia was maligned in a variety of ways...being called unreliable" - well, that statement at least is correct. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think 50.0's main point is right, but his supporting argument is weak. If we had stronger notability standards, instead of standards that let us write articles on very marginally known people, then there would be far less problems with this sort of thing.

Notability should be a more or less iron clad answer to "Why do you have an article about me?" Achievement based SNGs are letting us write articles about people who, for some of them, Wikipedia is the only source of serious biographical coverage. That should not be the case. We should amend the GNG to require solid independent biographical coverage before we can write a biography, or amend all the achievement based SNGs to require biographical coverage (or just repeal all the achievement-based standards).

There are far too many cases of "notable work from non-notable people" that still merit an AfD-proof BLP under our current guidelines, which in turn often leads to marginal violations of our other core policies. Yes, the majority of the cases are benign, but this has become a systemic problem, a real flaw in our network of guidelines and policies that is slowly rotting our core mission. Gigs (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Reply

Simply put, this is a crock.

Scalhotrod has saying a lot of things that aren't true. For example, he says that "several other Editors" added content to the article. There's no reason to believe this. Beginning on August 28, three SPA accounts -- User:Inyourhead4ever, User: Mosmos69 and User:Spottytina have been tag-team editing Rebecca Bardoux to add promotional content to the article. None of these accounts have edited any other articles. There is no significant variation between their edits. It's more than fair to infer sockpuppetry from this behavior pattern; at best, it's coordinated promotional editing in an attempt to evade WP:BLP standards.

And HW still seems to be missing the main point. The subject that the article is about is aware of how its being edited, is unhappy about it, has commented publicly about it, AND asked for accurate information to be restored. And we know this via a statement by the subject, here 27:40 mark until the end. What is the point of having any BLP rules if we as Editors can't respect the REAL WORLD wishes of the person being written about? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

And so what? Exactly the same thing happened at Theodore Beale a short time ago (including the article subject teeing off on The Big Bad Wolfowitz off-wiki), and their "REAL WORLD wishes" weren't complied with because they weren't consistent with applicable policy. As DS quite properly noted on that article's talk page, even if the article subject wants something included, we generally don't include it unless it has "drawn significant independent external attention." That's basic RS 101, and there's no special pleading for porn performers in it. BTW, Ms. Bardoux also complains that there is no way for her to discuss the issues on-wiki, or to contact me on-wiki, which makes it pretty clear that she doesn't understand Wikipedia at all, making the idea of indulging her unhappiness even less appropriate. Perhaps you should be trying to educate her rather than inflicting groundless completes on the community here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

First off, thank you for admitting openly that your strict adherence to your interpretation of policy is more important than the integrity of this encyclopedia even if it sacrifices content. So now we all understand that you simply don't fathom the 5th pillar of Wikipedia at all. As for Theodore Beale, I don't see DS's comment on that Talk page, but thank you again for admitting that you have done this before. Since you "edit" so many BLP articles, this is likely a pattern of POINTy behavior. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Promotional content

The content involved (which can be seen here [23]) is highly promotional and dreadfully sourced. Using the reference numbers on that page, we have:

• (ref 3) An AVN article describing Bardoux as a "performer-cum-comedienne" and describing the audience as "barely aware" of her efforts at comedy. This is the closest to a reliable, independent source to be found in the disputed material.
• (ref 4) Promotionally phrased text taken from a promotional biography on a vendor site hawking Bardoux videos. Neither reliable nor independent, and thoroughly unacceptable in a BLP.
• (ref 5) Promotional interview with the article subject, not independent, likely including kayfabe, not really supporting the claim in the article, and inconsistent with other interviews.
• (ref 6) Grossly promotional text taken from a promotional page on a vendor site hawking Bardoux videos. Neither reliable nor independent, and thoroughly unacceptable in a BLP.
• (ref 7) Promotionally phrased text taken from a blog post promoting an appearance by Bardoux on behalf of the blogger's business. Neither reliable nor independent.
• (ref 8) Promotional interview with the article subject, not independent, likely including kayfabe.
• (ref 9) Audio recording of article subject posted under her name to youtube. Not independent, at best.
• (ref 10) Press release hawking future appearances by article subject. Not independent, not reliable, and as a report of future events doesn't support the claim that the appearances actually took place. It's particularly curious that the linked pages for the specific appearances (eg, the "Refried Comedy" page for the gig involved) don't even list Bardoux as a performer.

Extensive copyvios

The same disputed content is laced with obvious cut-and-paste copyvios. For example:

• Paragraph 1, "She broke into hardcore in 1992's 'Brother Act,' and soon was one of the hardest working women in the business" is word-for-word identical to the second sentence in the second paragraph of [24].
• Paragraph 3, "She is best known for her anal scenes that are showcased in many of the over 200 titles in which she performed. One of her most memorable scenes was a threesome with Peter North and Sean Michaels in Sodomania 2" is word-for-word identical to the closing sentences of the first paragraph of [25], except that the original begins "Bardoux is best known".
• Paragraph 4, a lengthy paragraph making up roughly half the body of the article, is cut-and pasted without change from [26].

There are 15 sentences in the article. At least eight of them are cut-and pasted from PR sources, in direct violation of both our BLP and copyright policies.

Scalhotrod's accusations

For all his invective, there's nothing to them. It's important to notice that he makes no claim that any of my edits are not justified by policy. It's even more important to notice that he misrepresents the events involved. Claims about Bardoux's putative standup career have been added to the article without proper sourcing since at least the beginning of this year, and I am neither the only nor even the first to remove them. (I believe the first removal was almost exactly a year ago when an editor using the name "Rbardoux" tried to spamlink her youtube channel and was reverted by a bot.) After multiple attempts to plug her as a stand-up comic without reliable, third-party sourcing were rejected, Bardoux used her Facebook page and podcast to inveigh against Wikipedia and. I guess, The Big Bad Wolfowitz. And then the dispute he describes really broke out.

And, really, who cares? This happens all the time. I don't think a day goes by without an article subject being pissed off that they can't turn "their" Wikipedia article into an advertisement or a promotional soapbox. Their wishes are not indulged. Their off-wiki complaints aren't taken as proof they've been mistreated. There's absolutely no reason to give Ms. Bardoux special treatment here.

So what's the bottom line here? Scalhotrod has repeatedly reinstated obvious, substantial violations of BLP and copyright policies to the Rebecca Bardoux article without any substantive explanation, just his standard "Wolfowitz bad" edit summaries. Removing such violations isn't "fanaticism"; it's applying very basic BLP and copyright policies in a situation where there is no reasonable doubt about their application.

Either Scalhotrod's failure to understand WP:BLP principles is so profound that WP:CIR means he shouldn't be editing BLPs at all, or he hasn't brought this complaint in good faith. As the comments made by User:Spartaz and User:Lightbreather in response to his comments about me here just a few days ago[27] underscore, he applies different standards to those he disagrees with than to himself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course HW, people that act like jerks, get treated like jerks, myself included. When I do something stupid, do I deserve to be scolded for it, of course. But the difference that I perceive between us is that I learn from my mistakes and make the effort to analyze, evolve, and modify my behavior. You... well, IMO you're kind of set in your ways and you're entitled to be that way, but the limits of WP:AGF shouldn't be tested (nor blindly invoked) every time someone wants to be a jerk. For example, Lightbreather and I have had our fair share of disagreements and as you've so keenly mentioned in various places, we've been subject to restrictions as a result. That said, I have learned such a ridiculous amount about the site's inner workings, processes, and procedures because of this interaction that I'll never be able to thank her enough. The most positive thing I have to say about our interactions is that the efforts (regardless of the intention) of yourself with regard to Porn related articles is that their collective quality is probably at an all-time high because so many have been inspired to research and cite sources that either were not cited or that were less than preferred. All we (the Editors who are OK with editing porn related articles) have to do is follow in your wake to see what needs fixing or improving. Thank you HW... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Though I'm not going to actually debate the merits of this case, HW's outright dismissal of any critique is completely anticipated. I brought a similar issue to ANI recently and while nothing happened, I did notice that HW's edit summaries had a lot less BITE to them once I reported. HW's style to other editors tends to always start with a BITE and get worse from there. The only exception is when he's writing to an admin, during which he assumes an obsequious tone so as to not raise attention to his normal communication style. It has inspired an essay I'm working to describe the "Eddie Haskell editor style" where one behaves politely only when the parents are around. All that said, the one thing I will add is that anyone's opinion that some BIOs should be deleted is completely meaningless to this discussion. If he (or anyone else) believes they ought to be deleted, take them to AfD for consensus. Otherwise, keep your opinion to yourself, because that opinion clouds the real issue here - of whether or not the edits are correct. I'm very thankful that HW spends so much time on PORNBIO pages, as it causes our paths to cross less frequently, as I don't spend any time there at all. Whether HW is gaming the system with all the red-letter fanaticism or not is for someone else to decide. I just know he needs to back off the personal attacks. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 00:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I looked at the content of the deleted material and I'm not seeing the problem with it. It could stand to be cleaned up for NPOV, but it is sourced. If the reliability of the sources is in question then maybe this should be brought to the RS noticeboard. In short, I see no BLP violations and the content is no more promotional than any information on any bio of a living person. It's impossible to write an article about a professional entertainer without talking about their careers and what they do... Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• If you believe that "it's impossible to write an article about a professional entertainer" without using press releases and similar promotional material, you are profoundly mistaken. Just check out any of the hundreds of relevant biographies that have been declared featured articles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggest this be closed

Aren't discussions about content disputes supposed to START on the article talk pages? Please read what I wrote[28] on this disputed article's talk page. I suggest this discussion be closed. Lightbreather (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Vertium raises some larger behavioral issues that might merit discussion here. That said, I don't particularly see this thread resulting in any useful outcome. Gigs (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Vertium appears to be another user with a grudge against HW and their comment is entirely diff free. That's character assassination not evidence. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed this should be closed. This seems to boil down to a dispute about whether or not a source is reliable; that belongs at WP:RS/N. Other than that, there's a whole lot of 'he said, she said' but it boils down to whether or not AVN is a reliable source. Nothing to be sorted out here. GoldenRing (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Unresolved COI issue, with veiled threats from other 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.

---

Dear Administrators. Apologies if I am in the wrong place. I raised this matter at the History Portal, but was told it was not the right place for it, took the matter to COI but it did not get any traction there. So I hope that I am now in the right place.

Ndandulalibingi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (earlier Libingi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) is an official of a semi-political organisation representing the interests and aspirations of the Mbunda people in Southern Africa, as can be seen from his user page. This constitutes a clear case of COI.

The editor clearly identifies himself as Ndandula Libingi, as can be seen here, towards the end (even including his own name in the WP in matters pertaining to the Mbunda people, as can be seen here). This editor further says he does not trust secondary sources or sources written by foreigners and is thus changing all references to all things Mbunda across many pages with information gathered in a collection of oral testimonies commissioned by the Mbunda authorities, of which he is himself an office-bearer and two other works. The editor is in fact, the official who signs the communiques on behalf of the organisation, as can be seen hereHe further states that everything that he edits is done in strict consultation with the Mbunda council. Finally, because of trying to stop this editor from rewriting history, he has threatened that he will report me to the Mbunda council. To put things in perspective, Angola, with a population of 19 million, has a population of 250 thousand Mbunda people, i.e., 1.3% of the population. This editor insists in overdoing everything to do with the Mbunda people, with some articles consisting almost exclusively of information about the Mbunda people and their kings, others with numerous notes, references, etc linking to the Mbunda website.

All this has been repeatedly pointed out to this editor over the years by two editors who did their best to get him to work withing the Wikipedia mold, but to no avail, such that these very same editors ended up esorting to threats of blocking him.

For now, I’d be happy for a resolution on the COI issue. The second issue is the rewriting of history, and ensuring that sctions on Mbunda issues are proportionate to both other peoples and size of artcile as per WP guidelines, for which I am counting on history editors to help with. I trust that this is in order. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep looks like the right place to me. "he has threatened that he will report me to the Mbunda council.", sounds like a legal threat or at least aimed to have a chilling effect which should be reported here. Amortias (T)(C) 22:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't look like a resolvable situation, unless he should decide to shape up; your comments here and the links you give, plus things he says at his talk page, convince me that an indefinite block is already in order, but I'll go easy for the moment. I've given him a warning, which basically says "stop using primary sources and stop the COI, or you'll be indeffed"; I included an offer of help, but given your comments above, I doubt its usefulness. Please report him to me should he continue, or come back here. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

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

India Against Corruption yet again

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

---

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

Regular watchers of this page know the sock/meat puppeting that surrounds this article. A new user, Lindashiers, editing on this, and other articles, prompted Sitush to give them a discretionary notice. [29] In a tit-for-tat gesture, Lindashiers placed the same notice on Sitush's page. [30] I observed this could be seen as disruptive. [31] Lindashiers' reply included: [32]

• "Accordingly, I firmly believe that Sitush is a disruptive editor at Wikipedia, hence the notice."
• "he is also incompetent to edit India related articles on such a scale,"
• "PS: surely Sitush is old enough to speak for himself, or is he a minor/child that you must do so ?"

Can we nip this in the bud? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a result of massive copy-violation [33] by User Sitush on this article (which I reported using a template) which controversial copy-vio text has resulted in persistent attacks on the article by Mr Anna Hazare's organisation using sock/meatpuppets. I have put certain specific queries to User Sitush which are here [34], [35], [36]. Lindashiers (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of "massive copy-violation": Talk:India_Against_Corruption#Discussion_on_edits_to_Team_Anna_article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• • This is equally a disruptive edit, because this is not where the discussion on the copy-vio [37] is taking place. Lindashiers (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sitush has directly accused me of being a sock of "Zuggernaut". Prove it. Lindashiers (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not a "new user". I have never claimed to be a new user. I am not a banned user at Wikimedia project either. I regularly edit at Wikipedia, without bothering to open accounts, in part because of the hostile attitude of squatters like User Sitush who target expert females and other minorities. The only reasons I edited under a user name is because the copy-vio notice required it to be from an "auto confirmed user". Hence I made 10 innocuous edits to a minor article page before adding the copy-vio template. Lindashiers (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I also made a genuine good faith offer to Sitush to collaborate to fix the article - which he spurned [38] and persisted in proclaiming elsewhere [39] that I am a sock of "Zuggernaut". Lindashiers (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

When you say "Sitush has directly accused me of being a sock of "Zuggernaut". Prove it." I'd ask the same of you...can you show a diff where he has "directly accused" you of this? - Aoidh (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"You have obviously been around for a long time under another identity" [40], followed by "You are sounding more and more like Zuggernaut by the minute, especially in your anti-British sentiments." [41], to which Admin "Bishnonen" said "Zuggernaut is stale" [42] causing Sitush to modify his statement here [43] and throw up new red herrings. Lindashiers (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

So the answer is no, despite saying Sitush did otherwise, you don't have a diff where you can show that Sitush directly accused you of being a sock of Zuggernaut. Looking through your other diffs, that seems to be a pattern. This idea that you can call someone's edits POV edits and hacking(?) and that means you can dismiss them or that your edits are somehow neutral. This edit, for example, doesn't exactly reflect well upon your attempts to collaborate. What you're saying, and what the diffs are showing, are two different things. - Aoidh (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, since Admin:Bishnonen also drew the same conclusion I did, by saying a SPI against Zuggernaut's CU data is not on.Lindashiers (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm now on a 10 hour wiki-break. Lindashiers (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• TLDR, sorry. The Lindashiers account was created in January 2014 and lay dormant until 3 September. On that date it made exactly 10 edits to a fairly obscure article about a place/administrative unit before launching into the semi-protected India Against Corruption. The creation date falls around the time that there was a lot of meat/socking going on in relation to the IAC article and the person behind this account is making exactly the same sort of edits and arguments for exactly the same purpose.

  In fairness to them, they have since edited a few other articles. However, in those they have continued disruptively to promote a generally pro-India/anti-Pakistan, pro-Hindu/anti-Muslim stance, for example in their efforts at Praveen Togadia (note the talk page stuff here) and with this claim of modern-day persecution at Sodha, where they seem to have followed me and for which there is no support in the source cited. They've engaged in unnecessary attacks on Britain (another Hindutva trope) and have jumped on the misogynist bandwagon for what I suspect is entirely opportunist reasons, as evidenced both on their talk page and in the thread here. Almost all attempts to clarify things seem to be met with a filibustering "I'll address your concern later but answer this first" (paraphnrase) deflecting counter.

  Also in fairness to them, they provided a diff that does indeed seem to show that I committed a copyright violation at the IAC article. I've not bothered seeing whether that actually was a reinstatement by me of some earlier version or whether it really was entirely my own doing: clearly, either way it is my responsibility and I'm very upset with myself. I'm happy to fix it but cannot because of the template; I'm confident that it is a one-off error and welcome a CCI if deemed necessary.

  This account is being used either for socking or meatpuppetry. We'll probably never know which but I'm convinced that they are not really here to collaborate or to improve and that they should be blocked. This comment neatly sums up many of the issues, when they were responding to @DeCausa:. - Sitush (talk) 09:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sitush obviously knows what he is talking about. I had this editor first time when I was checking Shiva, those edits [44], [45] seemed like 'anti-hindu' to me, due to the damage that was done with the sourced information about deity's recognition by Lindashiers. Last day, if we talk about the changes of Praveen Togadia, I never agreed, I assumed them to be 'anti-hindu' again, because few lines of the speeches were added, not even the whole speech. It may have made article look explosive.

Lindashiers has potential of becoming far better editor, if they use same skills in writing and extending articles, especially the popular stubs. If it fails, we may look forward to editing restrictions. DeCausa may agree, we had dealt with the same kind of user(Septate) before. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• • Togadia's entire speech cannot be used here (if at all) until it is published. The portions I selected were but a few examples of his inciendenary statements made that day which were in turn selectively reproduced by PTI and onwards in India's largest English daily in the region as cited. Attributing motives to me is as foolish as attributing motives to the PTI reporter who filed the report from Jaipur. This also shows the low mind-set of Wikipedia's editors, especially those from India, that you can even discuss this.Lindashiers (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

We have a completely different interpretation, Bladesmulti. I think they're pro-Hindu, you think they are not. FWIW, they have a "Jai Anna" notice on their user page and, from past experience, I've always taken to be a message of support for Anna Hazare. Hazare, of course, was involved in the IAC popular movement and is often described as a pro-Hindutva person. - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• • Anna Hazare is not in the least a pro-"Hindutva" person. Anna Hazare was never involved in the IAC popular movement. His was the "Team Anna" movement which is something entirely different. Lindashiers (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I had agreed with every word you had been saying, but I had different intrepretation of the edits that I had, especially on Shiva. I should have detailed my opinion. While I read your statement as well as I had checked the contribution history of Lindashiers, I had seen reverts (eg. [46]) that were correct. So I definitely agreed, that the user has anti-pakistani and pro-indian stance here. According to source it was just an allegation.

Till the time many people who used to support Anna, he was still alleged of being involved with such movements. I remember, during an interview. he would question back "have you never visited them?" And everyone would laugh.

That's said, the edits on Parveen Togadia, apart from the removal of a petition were objectionable. The discussion on India Against Corruption had been turned into battlefield. We agree that the user happens to lose credibility after making various attempts to derail. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

My take on this, FWIW, is that Lindashiers is here to settle "old" grudges per WP:BATTLEGROUND. Althought their first edit was on 3 September, they clearly are very familiar with WP. The level of insults and hostility to Sitush don’t seem, on the face of it, to be explicable from their early exchanges. (Nor are they the typical outbusts of a thwarted drive-by or newbie.) Eg within a week of beginning editing, Lindashiers shoe horns attacks on Sitush in an ArbCom case[47], makes sly (and not so sly) insulting remarks about his intelligence, competence, being a vigilante etc this edit summary [48], [49] - there are plenty of other examples. I mention these not in terms of their lack of civility (I’m sure that’s water off a duck’s back for Sitush), it’s more because of the depth of feeling it displays about Sitush: there’s a "history" there. They also seem to have a grudge about British editors and their "collusion", very quickly posting assumptions like these: [50], [51], [52]. Indeed, they seem to have a grudge about Wikipedia in general.[53]. DeCausa (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Since this is my first time at ANI, but hopefully not my last, I'd like to know what the procedure here is. For eg. is it that only Administrators are allowed to participate in these proceedings. Am I expected to reply to each any every allegation being made here ? Am I allowed to be represented though legal counsel, if so where and by when is service on opposite parties to be done? Is there any panel which frames the issues, takes evidence etc.? What is the locus standi of NeilN to file this complaint ? &c. &c...

• Before we proceed, I would like to formally place the following statement of Sitush on the record here "It's time to make a stand against the arrogant and incompetent Wikimedia Foundation and its complete disregard for those of us who actually build this encyclopedia.". His attitude (and those of full-time editors like him) has completely vitiated his editing and his contempt towards those he deems as "newbies" (I am most definitely not one) comes through in every edit he makes. It seems Sitush (and the other regulars here at ANI) is doing the world a great favour by editing "unpaid" at Wikipedia and expects something in return - (like being allowed to carry on with this sick bureaucratic system which has made WP's content and processes a laughing stock).

• Accordingly, I request that I be "tried" on a formal complaint instituted and prosecuted by editors / Admins whose "real world" identities are formally on the record. I have no difficulty in providing mine !! I have faced enough abuse by being accused of "socking" and other disparaging commments, at ANI and elsewhere, by anonymous editors. If not send my matter over to the Wikimedia Foundation to be handled through the WMF's General Counsel as this dispute is about systematic copyright violation(s) accompanied with long term abuse of editing privileges by User Sitush.

• Is this complaint limited to the topic thread ie. India Against Corruption or can I cite instances of abusive editing by Sitush, Bladesmulti, NeilN, Decausa, Aoidh &c. on any article in Wikispace or at any time in the past ?

• I look forward to receiving a list of the issues I am expected to respond to along with the prima-facie evidence for it and also the verified real world identity(s) of the person(s) making them. Lindashiers (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• FURTHER TO THE ABOVE: As I am editing under my own name, and have a high reputation in eminent academic institutes within India, I am obliged to say that the participation of the article subjects - Anna Hazare, Veeresh Malik and Meera Nanda, or their agents/publishers are obligatory in these copyright and plagiarism proceedings. Lindashiers (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to do that but you will likely be blocked per our policy regarding legal threats. - Sitush (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"A polite report of a legal problem such as defamation or copyright infringement is not a threat and will be acted on quickly". Please examine your hostile and rude reply to my polite report [54] which has vitiated all possibility of dialog ever since. Lindashiers (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I now see from legal threats that it is allowed to discuss libeling content absent of indication of intent to sue. Thus can we also list out various untrue statements about persons in this article India Against Corruption which they have publicly denied, but which Sitush had repeatedly inserted/re-inserted into this article without publishing their denials. Lindashiers (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

HRA1924 (talk · contribs), Mansjelly (talk · contribs), Lindashiers (talk · contribs) were created within minutes of each other and exhibits the same fixation with IAC, Sitush and NeilN  NQ  talk 14:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually 18 accounts were created for individual use of the 18 experts who participated in the Mediation on IAC, under a common role IP, which Sitush walked out of. This was done as per the suggestion of WMF's counsel so that the content dispute is resolved with the Wikipedia English Community. There is still no socking or meat-puppeting if that is what you are implying. Obviously different editors reacted differently thereafter to Sitush's walk-out from the mediation, which had to be closed as a result of it. Lindashiers (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

18? Really? Can you list them, please. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you doubt it ? Actually 23 IAC / Team Anna editors collaborated under the role IP - which was openly declared as such to the mediator - and which you never objected to. But a few of didn't need accounts to be opened for them. As you repeatedly state, IAC / HRA is a "secretive underground organization" which operates on a need to know basis. Lindashiers (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't doubt it. But given that HRA1924 completely misunderstood how we operate and all the known meatpuppets made the same basic misunderstandings, we might as well have a list and block you all right now as a self-declared meatfarm. - Sitush (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Lindashiers, you're mistaking this for a court of law. It's not. You can defend whatever edits and behavior you choose to. Other editors will comment. If an admin thinks some action is necessary per the discussion they will go ahead and implement it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, NQ. And they are now displaying a similar fixation with running to the WMF and referrals to legal processes. Will someone please do the necessary wrt to this obvious sock/meat and close this thread. - Sitush (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is what HRA_1924 explictly wrote on his user page.

This user account is created to report and represent against BLP, defamatory, libel, privacy, false, etc. violations on articles and article subjects deriving from the Hindustan Republican Association. This account is not used to edit Wikipedia articles directly (except to place suitable tags requesting for urgent admin attention), and "we" would request for edits to be made on "our" behalf given our self-disclosed conflict(s) of interest.

Previously the editors (and we stress on the plural, as the guidelines / policy for "role" and WP:SPA accounts has been shown to us) for this account had used IPs "2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747" , "78.46.206.3" and "2A00:2381:72D:0:A928:C888:EE9B:8A91" in connection with India Against Corruption and Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/India Against Corruption. We also stress that we are not "meat-puppets" and this account is created after discussions here [55].

We mention that "User:HRA1924" does not necessarily accept Wikipedia's Terms and Conditions, see for eg. section 19 in [56] for the international treaties involved, and our usage of the Wikipedia project's services is as a guest (ie. not an editor) with a view to urgently bring contraventions and errors to the notice of the WMF or the WP community for them to be reviewed so as to avoid causing "harm" to the subjects.

We have no difficulty in providing our verifiable real world contact particulars on request.

HRA1924 (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindashiers (talk • contribs)

So as this concerns the now admitted plagiarism by User Sitush, which he is unable to confirm the specifics of, we all need to know if Sitush committed the plagiarism or whether is was done by Meera Nanda. Lindashiers (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, did I mention that I have an email reply from OTRS (Aug 2014) asking me to report this matter to the WP community as OTRS cannot deal with it. Lindashiers (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Which means you tried an end-run around and OTRS wasn't buying it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Am I missing something or doesn't Lindashiers' above ramblings confirm that they are part of the meatfarm? DeCausa (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN, I really advise you to read OTRS's email in reply to some very specific queries and requests for action) before you pass such remarks.Lindashiers (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@DeCausa, the term "meatfarm" has no relevance here because OTRS (on behalf of WMF) has specifically requested us to use the links they provided to the COPY-VIO forms (which need an account name to submit). The Legal (and this is now an intimation of possible legal action unless anybody other than an ADMIN takes any action they wish on behalf of the "English language Wikipedia community", including blocking / banning me etc.) consequences of admitted plagiarism by the editor who walked out of mediation over this same "libelous" content remain to be seen. I am here as an alternative to legal action in case Sitush wishes to discuss/resolve this in good faith without his usual diva dramatics (incl. this quarterly ANI circus). Lindashiers (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Clear legal threat. [57] Lindashiers should be blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Above post by Lindashiers warrants an immediate WP:NLT block. DeCausa (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Already blocked by Writ Keeper before NeilN posted.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I've now revoked talk page access as legal threats continued there and referred the user to communicate directly with WMF via email.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone for commenting and acting. I'm still really annoyed about what now looks possibly to have been a deliberate attempt to smear me using Wikipedia's copyright processes. I'm also a bit annoyed with myself for possible close paraphrasing (it's difficult, sometimes), so if any competent person cares to comment at Talk:India_Against_Corruption#The_alleged_copyvio then it would be appreciated. And if someone wants to open a CCI against me then so be it. Whatever happens, I don't want the blanking copyvio template to remain there any longer than is strictly necessary because it just does these disruptive meats/socks a favour. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like Moonriddengirl's specialty. Berean humbly requests her overview on the matter. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been doing a little analysis and I think that copyright claim could be removed as a hoax. But that needs an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent. In the hope that an admin here might be prepared to remove the notice, I'll repeat that analysis here:

The material that Sitush is supposed to have copied is presented as a blog's quotation from Veeresh Malik. It concerns events from October 2010 to late February 2011 and beyond: "by late Feb 2011 P soon realised... demanded we replace him ... who also brought his large support base along with him ... and IAC now attracted ..." It seems to be written with the perspective of more than a few days or weeks, yet it's not only marked as copyright 2011 but also as posted on the blog on 06 April 2011, very soon after late February 2011.

It's shown as having been taken from page 93 of something - perhaps a book or a journal - but no title or publisher is given. Several books by Veeresh Malik appear on Amazon with "Look Inside" enabled, but none have 2011 publication dates. Still, looking inside it's striking how different Malik's style is in them from the style of that extract in the blog.

The blog appears on a domain that was registered in July 2014. It's the only entry; it's titled "IAC Chronicles Day 2" but there is no Day 1.

The perspective is consistent with having been written at a distance of a couple of years. The succinct summary style is consistent, the use of the first person aside, with writing an Wikipedia entry. I believe the burden is on anyone accusing Sitush of copying to show that that this blog is a genuine extract from a work written by Veeresh Malik between late Febrary 2011 and 6 April 2011. NebY (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

collapsing long post
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 3 Fight for this page is sent to all India Against Corruption member to explain you nicely. The copy text is copy from the email date 6/April/2011 08:27 AM of Veersh bhai's intervue of Arvind Kejriwal on 5/April/2011 from jantar mantar Dehli. The email was originally also publish in members section of IAC website http://indiaagainstcorruption.org (WHOIS register to PCRF on 17/Nov/2010) on 6/April/2011. Most of Veershbhai email is published again in page 93 of Veershbhai's 2014 e-book "IAC Chronicles : An Ear to the ground". "blog" link in copyright notice is for issueing the DMCA / OCCILLA notice to other OSP, it dos not have to be original link where it was first published, but only to contain enough of such content to identify the work being copied from. IAC related editor has already disclosed [58]. IAC person telling everything to these editor but they are keep deleting our helps. So if you not take action politely will send OCILLA / India CRA86 notice for takedown to OSP and also Mark Monitor. Since Veershbhai's idea/concept/intellecual property/artistic and creatiove rigts and all other IP is involved undr INDIA COPYRIGHT LAW also please note that just paraphrase the text will not resolve the issue. You must note that since WIKIPEDEA has given wrong COPYRIGHT status as "Creative Commons" to Veershbhai's text, now WIKPEDIA / all involved editors must also ensure for immediate remove the copy content from "mirror sites" of Wikipedia, Facebook and many blogs which have copied / modify it under wrong perception of free from copyright status. As a special case, India Against Corruption, being owners / beneficiary of the domain name/website "INDIAAGAINSTCORRUPTION.NET" since 2010, would consider to release the extract from page 93 para 2 of its founding member's chronicles of the movement under a GFDL or similar licence, subject to the abovementioned link being always acknowledged as the source. This tentative proposal is made without prejudice and the timebound offer is valid for 72 hours..Dkgpatel (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC) As this article India Against Corruption status was reopened after "USER:SITUSH" reverted [59] a batch of edits by "USER:LINDIASHIERS" (containing fresh sources) after previously inviting her to "FIX" the article. The present article contains certain highly untrue [60], [61], and abusive comments made against the official India Against Corruption movement, such as "The popular movement is distinct from a pressure group campaigning for Right to Information that bears the same name.". A notice [62] placed on SITUSH's talk page requesting for the specific source for this grossly disparaging statement has not borne fruit. In these circumstances IAC shall continue to follow on the proper path suggested by WMF in email correspondence exchanged between IAC and WMF's Legal Counsel (Michelle Paulson) 27/Feb/2014 and 01/March/2014, the copies of which are being obtained from the IAC office records and shall be uploaded here shortly. Dkgpatel (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC) Text of IAC email to WMF DT. 27/02/2014 From: IAC INFO Date: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:52 AM Subject: Registrant for Domain "wikipedia.in" To: mpaulson Cc: Philippe Beaudette Kind Attn: Michelle Paulson (Registrant mmr-136257 for Domain ID D7204012-AFIN) registered under .IN Policy r/w INDRP. Dear Ms. Paulson We are "India Against Corruption". We are concerned about specific content directly accessible through the .IN policy NIXI registered domain "wikipedia.in" standing in your name as per the official WHOIS accessible through NIXI's registry. Accordingly, as an Indian body, IAC's Managing Council (aka Core Committee) who are all eminent Indian citizens may like to avail the facility of "Grievance Officer" mentioned in India's Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011 to report specific contraventions of the said Rules (issued u/s 79 of the Information Technology Act, which in turn are based on the United Nations agreed UNCITRAL Model Law on E-Commerce) concerning the content in English and other Indian languages directly accessible through this .IN domain's website. We would appreciate if you would inform us about the contact particulars of the said Grievance Officer. Alternatively, if there is no such officer, the particulars of the person(s) in your organisation empowered to deal with our complaint and disable the offending content / servers promptly or within 36 hours as prescribed. As IAC's core committee members and volunteers are based in various States of India, these complaints are likely to be submitted in languages such as Hindi, Gujarati, Telegu, Bengali, Tamil, Urdu concerning offending content in those languages, in addition to the English language. Your colleague Phillipe B has been very helpful and already has some knowledge of our concerns, so we are marking a copy to him too. With best wishes IAC INFO India Against Corruption media coordination cell. www.indiaagainstcorruption.org.in www.indiaagainstcorruption.net.in Text of WMF email reply to IAC DT. 01/03/2014 From: Michelle Paulson Date: Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 12:27 AM Subject: Grievance Officer for wikipedia.in Dear "India Against Corruption": Thank you for reaching out directly. I understand that you initially contacted Mr. Beaudette over his talk page. The Wikimedia Foundation hosts the Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia. Wikipedia is available in over 280 languages, including many Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages which are spoken in India and around the world. However, as Mr. Beaudette mentioned in his response, the Wikimedia Foundation is a U.S.-based non-profit organization, which abides by U.S. law. As such, we do not have a "grievance officer" per se, as one is not required under U.S. law. That said, those with complaints against the Wikimedia Foundation may contact us either by email at legal@wikimedia.org or by proper legal service to our designated agent at: Wikimedia Foundation c/o CT Corporation System 818 West Seventh Street Los Angeles, California 90017 It is worth noting, however, that the Wikimedia Foundation does not create, edit, or curate content on Wikipedia. That is the work of a global community of volunteer users. If you or any other individual or organization has a concern about content appearing on Wikipedia (regardless of the language), it is far more effective to address that concern with the user community directly. You can address the community in a number of ways, depending on the language (each language Wikipedia has its own community and procedures, meaning that the English Wikipedia community is separate from the Hindi Wikipedia community). One way to have your concerns addressed is to start a discussion on the talk page of the particular article that contains content that you have concerns about. Another is to email info@wikimedia.org, where you will reach experienced Wikipedia users who volunteer their time to answer the public's emails and help out with content concerns. Please note that the info@wikimedia.org is generally most effective in English, but they will try to help the best they can in other languages. Another way to have your concerns addressed is to bring them up on relevant noticeboards. However, the noticeboard that will be most relevant for a particular concern will vary depending on the nature of the concern and which language Wikipedia your concern relates to. It is also worth noting that lodging a complaint about content through any of these venues does not necessarily mean that the complained-of content will be altered or removed. Content on Wikipedia is governed by standards, such as verifiability and neutral point of view, created and enforced by the Wikipedia user community. Content that meet the standards of Wikipedia will generally be kept on Wikipedia. However, if you believe that you have found content that does not meet a particular Wikipedia standard, we encourage you to voice those concerns through one of the methods mentioned above. I hope this addresses your question. Have a wonderful weekend. Best, Michelle -- Michelle Paulson Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Dkgpatel (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• And it should be noted that after Lindashiers (talk · contribs) was blocked and TPA revoked, an IPsock posted this on the account's page, attempting to smear other unrelated editors as part of the meatfarm. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Nabih Berri

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

---

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

---

User:Talal.talal1 was blocked for sockpuppeteering and one of his other accounts had also been blocked for edit warring. Now he's using a new account User:Lebanesetruth to make the same edits, by removing sourced content from an article and adding hagiographic material. He should be blocked indefinitely to avoid disrupting further.

Callsfortruth (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Talal.talal1 was blocked once for sockpuppeteering, then he came up with User:Lebanesetruth which was blocked. Yet User:Talal.talal1 was not blocked again for his repeated violations. Now, User:Philanthropist1001 is making the same edits on the same article. I wish some admin other than User:Mr. Stradivarius could involve himself in this case, because Mr. Stradivarius' edits have been very dubious since he began involving himself in this case. Callsfortruth (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What exactly are you accusing User:Mr. Stradivarius of doing? And you mean Philanthropist 1001 (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was just coming here to make a post of my own when I saw this section. Let me give some background. The Nabih Berri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article was protected on 25 August due to edit warring, and I have been watching the article since 30 August when I answered a protected edit request left on the talk page. I noticed that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Talal.talal1 had not been processed, so I blocked some of the accounts involved, and I also removed unsourced/poorly sourced material from the "Wikileaks diplomatic cables" and "Corruption" sections to try to bring them in line with WP:BLP. There is some discussion about my edits at Talk:Nabih Berri#WikiLeaks and the corruption section. The protection expired today, and the edit war broke out again. Rather than fully protecting the article, I semi-protected it indefinitely and blocked User:Lebanesetruth, as the account looked suspiciously like a sleeper sockpuppet of Talal.talal1. I didn't block Talal.talal1 again though, as their previous sockpuppetry block expired yesterday, before Lebanesetruth's most recent edits. I chose to make the protection indefinite because there have been BLP problems with the article going back to 2008 - for those with access, there are more details in the OTRS ticket at otrs:2008092910055062. After reflecting on my actions at the article today, I think it would have probably been better to bring the matter up here sooner rather than going ahead with the blocks and protections, as it has become a little messy. I'd appreciate it if people could look into my actions here, particularly:

1. Whether the indefinite block of Lebanesetruth was justified.
2. If Lebanesetruth's block was justified, whether Talal.talal1 should be blocked too.
3. What should be done about the page protection. And,
4. Whether my admin actions violated WP:INVOLVED, or whether they were consistent with WP:BLPREMOVE.

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, Materialscientist has answered my questions one and two by processing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lebanesetruth and indefinitely blocking User:Talal.talal1 and User:Philanthropist 1001. (@Materialscientist: thanks for looking into this.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The article in question is an established target of a well-paid Beirut-based PR firm (not to mention party members), so it would be better if a number/committee of admins tried to mediate and establish consensus as to what the content of the article should be, rather than someone who, from the start, has been suspiciously removing copious amounts of sourced material and replacing them with unreferenced, poorly-written hagiography. Callsfortruth (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I note that this morning Painting101 (talk · contribs) arrives, gets autoconfirmed in less than 2 hours and edits this article. Philanthropist 1001 (talk · contribs) also doing the same edits is a WP:SPA. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As noted before, the sockpuppeteer User:Talal.talal1 has returned as User:Painting101 to vandalize the article Nabih Berri once again by removing large amounts of sourced material, moments after being indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I suggest that the article be fully protected, and that any such edits be reverted, as this has been established to be the effort of a PR agency meaning to "clean up" the article before parliamentary elections later this year. Callsfortruth (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've just restored my version of 30 August, as I think there are several BLP problems with the previous version by User:Callsfortruth. The previous version had unsourced, controversial claims, and severe problems with balance. I would go so far as to say it looked like an attempt at character assassination. As this revert has involved making some content decisions, I think other admins should probably take a look to see if my actions here have been reasonable. (You can see Callsfortruth's previous objections to this version here.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Yet another Evlekis Sock

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

---

Hi

A swift block for Pigs posture if someone could please, abuse pattern identical to other socks of Evlekis. Amortias (T)(C) 14:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Someone misbehaving in a school in Orlando is Wiki Vandalizer.

I have something to say. Someone from Freedom High School in Orlando, Florida is misbehaving on Wikipedia and putting posts that are related to ISIS, a terrorist group in Syria. This is Azalea Middle School from St. Petersburg, Florida and they have been vandalizing articles like WXXL, the local radio station in Orlando. I believe he is not good, and has gotten into trouble in the school as he put up this message on his talk page info box:

"I get it <censored> like a bad back. <censored> talking she the queen, when she looking like a lab rat I'm Angelina, you Jennifer Come on <censored>, you see where Brad at Ice my wrists and I <censored> on <censored> You can <censored> if you take this <censored> You don't like them <censored>, give my <censored>. Yeah they know what this is, giving this the business Cause I pull up and I'm stuntin' but I ain't a stuntman Yes I'm rockin' Jordans but I ain't a jumpman. <censored> play the back cause they know I'm the front man Put me on the dollar cause I'm who they trust in Ayo SB, what's the <censored> good? We ship platinum, them <censored> are shipping wood. Them <censored> hoes but my kitchen good I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish A <censored> would. - 168.184.14.9.

Note to this this is not from us, this is from the person that seems to misbehave. He has vandalized some pages with the ISIS leader, but we are going for USA :)!! We agree with 50.9.114.198 and he is right that he is a vandalizer. He should be stopped. Thanks, 168.213.7.78 (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S. 70.27.98.190 from Toronto, Ontario, Canada has vandalized WZJZ and hasn't replied to 50.9.114.198 as of right now.

Thank you. I've blocked the IP address for six months. Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

One more thing, 70.27.98.190, despite only editing 1 page, he vandalized WZJZ, and 50.9.114.198, well he is innocent and dosen't vandalize at all and he is peaceful ;). Nyttend, you should talk to this 70.27.98.190 person that is from Canada. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.213.7.78 (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, we usually warn people four times using the templates here before we block them, unless it's someone blatantly here to cause trouble. Used to be, if an IP caused enough trouble and had been blocked numerous times we'd take them to WP:ABUSE and notify the organization responsible for the IP address (be it a school, an employer, an internet service provider, etc), but that project has been dormant for quite some time. Hope that helps. What you're doing is very much appreciated, and as I said on your user page, I hope you will create an account and keep up the good work. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

To the original IP; this is minor and very silly school IP vandalism, and posting the lyrics to Nicki Minaj's "Stupid H**" or making a claim that they lead the group isn't related to ISIS (though putting their real name in is either proxy bullying or at worst, very, very stupid vandalism). I'll remove the lyrics as a copyright violation, but in the grand scheme of things, this is downright innocent compared to vandalism we see any day, and a simple request to WP:ANI should be used to request action on IP vandalism. As for the Toronto IP, that was months ago; we're not going to do anything about a piece of drive-by vandalism from that long ago. Just say 'this is vandalism' next time and don't make aspersions that they're terrorist recruiters, please. Nate • (chatter) 17:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Nate, it looks like it's either someone being cruel to a classmate, someone writing one of his buddy's name on Wikipedia and saying "look, I wrote your name on da Wiki, isn't that cool?", or it's someone who thinks they're hot stuff and going to write his own name on Wikipedia, like he rules the world for a day because his name is on one of our articles. That said, I'd still be tempted to call that school and inform administration about it because, at worst, it's cyberbullying, and even if it's just a couple of schoolboys playing around, they shouldn't be vandalizing Wikipedia. Two thirds of the time, the schools seem to appreciate it when things like this are brought to their attention if you're actually able to find the right person to report it to (vs. just sending it to whoever ARIN lists as a contact, which may be someone who hasn't worked there in years or never checks their email). Of course, it shouldn't be any surprise to Nate to see me take that position. :-) PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You have to give the OP credit though; (s)he's in middle school and is obviously very new to Wikipedia, yet (s)he managed to find WP:ANI, which is more than I can say about myself. The first things I found were WP:ABUSE and WP:LTA (which is why I gave User:LBHS Cheerleader, another petty school vandal, an entry at LTA that lasted for quite some time); it took me a while to find WP:AIV and all of these other administrative notice boards. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and called Freedom High School to inform them of this and sent someone there links to the abuse via email, just as I would have as a member of WP:ABUSE. The Canadian one only made one edit, not worthy of administrative attention or contacting the ISP. The OCPS IP is already blocked, I say give FHS until Tuesday to look into it, if I haven't heard anything back by then lets oversight the posts and close this thread. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Rpo.castro

User:Rpo.castro insists in blanking his talk page and called me an idiot in my talk page. SLBedit (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Users may blank their own talk page if they wish, per WP:BLANKING. You must not continue to revert his blanking his page. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 19:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You may remove "idiot", they may remove your messages. See WP:OWNTALK. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian War

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

---

Could someone please tell this editor not to accuse others of being Marxist propaganda mongers, and also to actually read what I wrote on the talk page? He/she keeps turning a redirect into a disambiguation page that doesn't meet any of the disambiguation guidelines. RGloucester — ☎ 02:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you see this as a personal attack. On you'r userpage you state "This user identifies as a Marxist." ::I only point out that you beceause of a pro-Russian bias you are try'ing to defend as much the kremlin-propaganda that Russia is not a participant in the war Russia and Ukraine fought this summer discarding all the sources (like Amnesty International) and evidence many users have provided on this.

You keep turning a disambiguation page in a redirect-page, ignoring that it does meet the disambiguation guidelines and is a disambiguation-page in several other language articles.

Clearing a page on which multiple users attributed, without consensus is vandalism.

And I kindly ask you to stop that and I'm trying to convince you how disturbing covering up a war can be for people involved.----Niele (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please tell me, what does "Marxism" have to do with Russia? What, exactly? Regardless, I will not discuss content here. RGloucester — ☎ 02:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

A lot of people with an (understandable) negative view of capitalism, tend do defend Russia as an alternative to much of the rest of the world. No more relevant is the question that you are willing to accept that also a lot of people in this word do see this as a war between Russia and Ukraine. Most of the people who live there in Ukraine and a lot of experts and the term Russian-Ukrainian War is also used by at least a significant part of the world community. Both for the war in 1917 an the 2014 war.--Niele (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even going to dignify this with a response. All I will say is that I'm not "covering up" anything, and any neutral sysop will be able to see that. Your attacks on my character are unacceptable, and your link of pro-Russian ideology and Marxism is bizarre WP:OR. RGloucester — ☎ 02:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said that wasn't a personal point, it was a general referral to the constant attempts on Wikipedia to try to set aside evidence, sources,... to replace it by the official Russian statements.

I just find it disturbing that a war with more than 3000 deaths recognized by as an international conflict by Amnesty International, can't be mentioned in that way in any form on Wikipedia. Even when most people (where I live at least) call it like that. I just want you to understand that it is a sensitive thing that when a lot of people die, truth about it is not fully reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niele (talk • contribs) 03:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Why not have a nice sit down and a cup of tea together. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Tea? Please. I'm tired of being called a propaganda monger. No tea needed. All I need is for someone with rationality to come into this mess and clean it up. RGloucester — ☎ 03:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so here's what I see:

• ArbCom Disclaimer on the talk page.
• IPv6 creates a disambiguation page where a redirect once stood
• Niele edits DAB page
• RG redirects the DAB page
• Niele reverts RG
• RG redirects to a different article
• Niele reverts RG, makes a few more edits to the DAB
• Another editor edits the DAB page
• RG redirects the DAB page
• Niele reverts RG
• RG reverts Niele
• Niele reverts RG
• RG reverts Niele
• Niele reverts RG
• They flame war a bit on the talk page for the page in question
• RG comes to ANI to complain about Niele's alleged incivility. They continue to feud here.
• Niele creates a separate thrad to complain about RG's alleged vandalism.
• Neither one seem to want to hear what other's have to say.

I vote WP:TROUT for both of them for edit warring, name calling, and using ANI as a battleground. Note that I am not an administrator. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• I put the disclaimer there after the fact though as it falls under scope but agree with what you say. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• If anyone comes near me with a trout I'll throw it back into the sea (river?), so I don't recommend you do that, unless you want to waste a good catch. I listened perfectly well to what the other editor said. He said nothing comprehensible, and anyone with a head can figure that out. The fact that this discussion is even happening is indicative of a wider administrator intransigence in Ukraine crisis-related articles of late. PoV pushers and tendentious editors run wild, with no cares in the world, whilst those actually trying to write decent articles are bogged down and accused of being in cabals of ill-meaning editors. Utterly absurd. I shall return to my little Putinite Marxist hide-out and plan more transfixing travails to overthrow the Nato-Wikipedia-Ukrainian hegemony! Farewell! RGloucester — ☎ 04:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I was referring to "other's" (which should have been "others") as in other Wikipedians here at AN/I. Anyway... PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 05:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If you had something to say other than offensive disgusting remarks like "kiss and make-up", perhaps I'd listen. Propriety is lost in this era, I fear. RGloucester — ☎ 05:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Could someone please ask this editor to stop clearing the disambiguation page for the armed conflicts which are at least by a significant amount of people, sources referred to as Russo-Ukrainian_War. Clearing a page of content, ignoring the talk page and doing so repeatedly count's as vandalism. And this is not the way things on Wikipedia are done.--Niele (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I would have to say what he is doing is not WP:Vandalism, but you bother appear to be guilty of WP:Edit warring. The obvious solution is for both of you to take a deep breath and discuss the matter on the talk page civilly, trying not to assume bad faith, and if needed, request a third opinion. As I suggested in the above thread, kiss and make up; we're all Wikipedians, and we should all be working towards the same goal: building an encyclopedia with quality information to contribute to human knowledge. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This appears to have started when an IP made the page into a disamb one. [63]. The page was reset to a prior consensus but undone by User:Niele here: [64] who insisted that a disamb page was needed. This all happened on September 7th which set into motion the series of events, what should have been done in my opinion is that it should have been taken to the talkpage on September 7th and discussed rather than a revert made per WP:BRD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to take to the talk page. This is not a disambiguation page. Read the WP:DAB guideline. Firstly, neither of those names are used for either of the referenced events, and secondly, even if they were, there still would not be a disambiguation page because none of our articles are called "Russo-Ukrainian War". No "disambiguation" is required, because we don't have any articles to disambiguate. I'd like to note that this thread here started here as retaliation for my above thread. Niele did not notify me. Furthermore, this action is proof of his WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and inability to WP:HEAR what I've been saying all along. Instead, he resorts to personal attacks about my "Marxist" and "pro-Russian" ties, and my "covering up" of something equivalent to the Holocaust. That's absolutely outrageous in every respect. RGloucester — ☎ 03:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I've now had a look at the edits involved here, and I have yet to see any Marxist propaganda in any of them. @Neile: You have made some pretty serious accusations about RGloucester, but I can't see any evidence to back them up. Accusations about other editors that are not supported by evidence count as personal attacks, and are not allowed on Wikipedia. Your remarks were particularly bad because they ascribed a political motivation to RGloucester's actions - we are not in the business of discriminating against editors because of their political beliefs. Also, we have a strict definition of vandalism on Wikipedia, and RGloucester's edits definitely do not qualify. You should read up on our definition before labelling any more edits as vandalism. As far as I can see, RGloucester's edits have been motivated by a desire to stick to Wikipedia:Disambiguation rather than any kind of bias. @RGloucester: I think you might have missed something about the disambiguation policy. At Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Deciding to disambiguate, it says Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. So it isn't required that we have an article with a given name for there to be a disambiguation page about it. Also, a little Google searching turned up sources that use the phrase "Russo-Ukrainian War" in reference to both the 1918 war and to the current conflict.[65][66][67] So I suspect that the decision to make a disambiguation page might not be as clear-cut as you are thinking. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: It is absolutely clear-cut, because using it in either manner is WP:FRINGE. Almost no sources use it for the Ukrainian War of Independence or the Ukrainian-Soviet War. You found one, but that doesn't make-up for the thousands of others that do not call these wars that. Note that no redirect with "Russo-Ukrainian War" existed to either of those articles until Niele started with his disambiguation page, proving that the name is about as low on the totem pole as could be. As far as the current conflict, that's why it redirected to "Russian invasion of Ukraine". The problem, Mr Stradivarius, is that you did not read the whole guideline. That guideline is for disambiguation generally, not disambiguation pages. This problem (that does not really exist, but I'll humour you) is meant to be solved with a hatnote. The modern war is clearly primary topic (though I think that we shouldn't cower to WP:SOAP opinion pieces and WP:FRINGE outlets, and should stick with mainstream reliable secondary sources), and hence it should redirect there. You'll probably find many more references for "Russo-Ukrainian War" to the modern war than to those other two wars, which are almost NEVER called "Russo-Ukrainian War" (and there were two of them). Whilst these references are in soapy pieces and quilt fringes, they do warrant the redirect, which is why it was established. If there really is a problem (there isn't), it can be solved with a hatnote at Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014), which is what the guideline suggests. Never does it suggest establishing a disambiguation page for this purpose, which are based on whether we have multiple articles with the exact same name. We do not. RGloucester — ☎ 13:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've merged the two sections about the Russo-Ukrainian War together. We normally only have one section about each incident, otherwise things can get (even more) confusing. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

After the first revert by RGloucester, per WP:BRD, no further reverts should have been made. It It seems to me that Niele started the edit war, (though initially it was just a confusion). RGloucester should not have participated in the edit war, though, in my opinion, he is right (WP:DAB does not apply). The talk page discussion has no overlap between the two positions and it seems unlikely that there can be any consensus. So, some form of dispute resolution should be done, while the original version is restored. A 3O can be the start, but other methods are also possible.

As an aside, to both editors: it is no great tragedy if there is inaccurate content for a few days on Wikipedia. I have about 10 edits I want to revert in an WP:ARBPIA article. It will happen eventually, don't sweat it. Kingsindian (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, User:Niele, the first time I ran into RLGlouster I thought he was anti-Russian, which just shows perceptions can differ, depending on editing issues, WP:RS etc. But lots of people who aren't pro-Russian, including peaceniks, libertarians and people scared of nuclear war, can see certain edits as POV; not to mention those Wikipedia editors merely trying to follow NPOV and other policies to the best of their understanding. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• There is a war, whatever one could call it. Having an extra disambig page does not hurt (and yes, the name was used in sources, exactly as Stradivarius noted). This is not a good reason for bringing someone to ANI. Suggest closing.My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Seconded, although administrative action may be appropriate if the edit warring and incivility doesn't stop, IMO. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Utterly absurd, again. Please read WP:DPAGES. If you can't familiarise yourself with the guidelines on this matter, do not come here and lecture. Disambiguation pages are only used when we have multiple articles with the exact same name. That is not true in this case. Even if this name were to be used, the proper solution would be a hatnote, not a disambiguation page. Personal attacks ARE a reason to bring someone to ANI. RGloucester — ☎ 20:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you actually read WP:NPA? Yes, Niele should refrain from name calling, but less than severe personal attacks are not a reason to come to ANI. If I were a sysop, I would have probably given both of you an involuntary WikiBreak for edit warring (please do read the page on WP:Edit warring). PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That is a "severe" personal attack, as far as I'm concerned. Comparing my actions to "covering up the Holocaust" is "severe" in most registers. I don't need to read anything on edit warring. I need this mess fixed. Thankfully you are not a sysop, since you are clearly very short-sighted in this regard. Comparing my actions with those of Niele is even more absurdity. I'm enforcing policy and guidelines, whilst Niele is attempting to push a point-of-view about Russian invasions and "Russo-Ukrainian Wars" that do not exist. RGloucester — ☎ 03:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I work in sales IRL, if I let every little insult bother me like you're doing here, I would be out of business. I would say comparing your actions to "covering up the Holocaust" is more of an example of Godwin's Law than a severe personal attack, but severe is a relative term. Regardless, if you actually read WP:NPA, you would realize that this personal attack is not on the same caliber as threatening to kill someone or threatening to burn a cross in someone's front yard. Another page you need to read is WP:Edit warring, because if you did, you would know that being right (or thinking that you're right; notice I've deliberately been being neutral as to who's right) does not give you the right to edit war, unless you're reverting blatant vandalism or dealing with a banned user. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 11:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a right to do anything, but I do have the ability to revert edits that harm the encyclopaedia. I don't need to read anything. I'm well aware of what they say. RGloucester — ☎ 12:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Neither one seem to want to hear what other's have to say. I rest my case. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 14:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Like I said above, if you had something worthwhile to say, I'd listen. Instead, you started off with disgusting and offensive language, and continue to ignore the blunt reality in this situation. RGloucester — ☎ 15:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Text Deleter

The following discussion is closed. 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 can we revoke talk page access for this one[68] please. Have tagged the page as {{db|g10}} but am offline for next few hours so cant keep an eye on it. Amortias (T)(C) 17:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk page deleted to save me the trouble of revdel, account re-blocked. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Single Purpose Accounts

Hello, I've notice several WP:SPA editors on the pages related to Israel and the Gaza War. I'm wondering how to deal with these editors. As far as I understand it editors who edit in order to push a certain POV or advocate a certain perspective are not allowed on Wikipedia. Is this correct? If so is there anything I need to do other than just tag those users who I think might be single purpose accounts?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I've moved this section so it's in chronological order. Graham87 05:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Monopoly31121993. No, it's not allowed. The best thing you can do is alert those users to the existence of general sanctions for Palestine-Israel topics by posting the template {{subst:Ds/alert|topic=PI}} on their talkpages. Just start a new section and copypaste the curly-brackets thing you see there, add your sig, and it'll expand to full information for them. I hope that will be sufficient to get them to edit neutrally. I'm obliged to hope that because I'm supposed to assume good faith. Actually with new SPAs, experience shows it rarely is sufficient. But with the template, it will be easier for administrators to sanction them if the tendentiousness does continue. Bishonen | talk 09:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC).

Thank you, Bishonen. I also noticed that one of the accounts seems to already have this tag on their talk page and it has been there for several weeks. Is there a different procedure for users who already have this tag on their talk pages?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The way I recollect it,Monopoly31121993, when you try to add the template, you'll be asked to check the page history to see if it's already there. (The template expires after one year, and during that year the page should also have a category that shows it.) And if it's there, and they've been editing in a problematic way after getting it, you proceed to the next step: discuss with them on their page, and if that doesn't help, take them to ANI. Or, if you've already tried talking with the user in this case, why not just give their name here and alert them that they're on ANI. You can use the template {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so. These template procedures are very barbed-wire-y and bureaucratic IMO… they're intended to simplify things, and for people who're used to them, no doubt they do. Anyway, if you've tried to discuss to no avail, or if other people have, give the account name here and now, with a sentence about the problem with that particular person, and I'll take a look at the contributions, unless some other admin does it first. Bishonen | talk 12:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC).

User talk:Kingsindian is the page that has already been tagged with the template back in July. I recently tried to raise the issue with User:Kingsindian on the talk page of 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict a few days ago but it seems that that conversation was removed or has been archived somewhere else. Please let me know if I can be of assistance and I will notify User:Kingsindian on his talk page that this conversation is ongoing here.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Since AN/I is on my watchlist, I know this conversation is going on. I also got notified by WP:ECHO. However, it is not clear to me what the issue is. Even if I'm a WP:SPA (I don't think I am, but Monopoly31121993 is free to think so), it is hard to respond to vague accusations of POV pushing. Kingsindian (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not making accusations of POV pushing here. I'm just saying that if you look at the edits made by Kingsindian and also at least one other user who I tagged on the talk page and left the tag to their talk page, the style of editing appears to meet the SPA criteria. I don't know why Kingsindian started using the account after a long period without using it and I don't know whether the purpose was for advocacy or whatever but the pattern seemed consistent enough to me to qualify as a SPA.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Monopoly31121993, it's not being an SPA per se that's disallowed, but POV-pushing and tendentious editing. It's true that there's significant overlap between the two. Anyway, now that the editors you were thinking of have DS templates (or are there more of them?), I feel I'd better leave any hypothetical warnings or sanctions to other admins, as I'm lamentably ignorant in this area. If you see unrepentant POV-pushing anywhere, please report it on this board, with diffs. Bishonen | talk 19:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC).

IP promoting the ideas of the reincarnated Christ and Einstein

The following discussion is closed. 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 75.74.130.115 (talk · contribs) from Miami who is promoting the ideas of one Richard Bradshaw Watson II also from Miami, whose forum site[69] states "I, the Christ, have returned. GOD and I have produced the "book/scroll" of The Revelation 5:1-10:10 and opened the "7 seals" which are explained here as 'beyond Einsten theories'. All our eternal souls pass through time by reincarnation and my soul's last incarnation was as Albert Einstein. 2,000 years ago I was Y'shua ben Yosef (Jesus son of Joseph)." According to the IP's talk page, I (also from Miami, this must prove something, right?) "immediately deleted the most important thing on Wikipedia without even reading it". See his posts to the latest 2 sections of Talk:Seven Seals. Spamming and WP:NOTHERE. Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Also editing as User:50.153.102.0 and 50.153.107.0 (talk · contribs) - on 2nd thought not sure where this IP is, south Florida somewhere but it must be the same one as content is the same. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The supposed credibility of Mr. Watson comes from what he claims is a presentation at a NASA conference. I find no evidence for him being invited by NASA beyond Watson's claim. Unless the IP can provide some independent verification of Watson's eminence, none of it belongs here. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The IP has been making numerological edits related to the number seven on a wide range of articles, most notably at History of Astronomy. It seems there's a dynamic IP allocation here; "Ben Franklin", as he calls himself, has been editing as User:50.153.107.0, User:75.74.130.115, and User:50.153.102.0. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Range block? The 50.153.xx IPs that Steve mentions fall in 50.153.96.0/20, a nice small range. Moreover, a check with HelloAnnyong's cool tool winkles out several other numerologically-oriented IPs in the same range. For instance, here's a nice personal attack from 50.153.105.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): Arthur: Your ignorance is hampering the spread of knowledge… A numerologist can also use your low IQ but that doesn't make your low IQ numerology. (The low-IQ "Arthur" there is Arthur Rubin.) Can anyone see any reason not to block this range for at least a month or two? Any useful contributions whatever? Bishonen | talk 19:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC).

Addition: anyway, both 50.153.96.0/20 and 75.74.130.115 are obviously Dougweller editing logged out, per his post above. Block 'em all and let the godking sort 'em out. Bishonen | talk 19:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC).

Captain Kirk solved (maybe should say "will solve") this in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier using a very simple question. "Why does God need an IP address to edit Wikipedia?" It stumps them every time but makes them angry and they shoot lightning from their eyes. Also the transporter was broken. Again. --DHeyward (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Lol. Block the range - I've never done a range block, might to it this afternoon after I eat my way through a food fair if no one beats me to it. Dougweller (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

50.153.96.0/20 range blocked for two months. Not sure what to do about the dynamic 75.74.130.115, though. Considering the amusing personal attacks on Dougweller ("You are one moon-loony-goony"), I've blocked it for 31 hours, even though I frankly don't see a lot of point. Bishonen | talk 19:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC).

Thanks, although I didn't care about the personal attack - funny and ironic, someone pusshing a guy who claims he's the reincarnation of Jesus and Einstein thinks I'm loony? Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

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

SonOfPlisskin

This user has been harassing me on my talk page and participated in name-calling, referring to me as a "troll" on his own talk page and on mine, falsely accusing me of being another editor, while providing no evidence to back up his claims. Note that this is a shared IP used publicly by customers of the restaurant McDonald's, not a home connection. --64.134.96.198 (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There's really nothing to be dealt with here. Some background, since I've recently been intervening here. The IP has been doing some pretty heavy WP:GENREWARRIORing, and not convincing anyone because he's largely dismissing sources that known for being reliable, (Major publications like Revolver (magazine), and trying to interject either unreliable sources, or their personal opinion, instead.

• Does this need intervention on any level? No.

• SonOfPlisskin accused the person on this IP of being responsible for other past troublesome edits from the IP. I don't believe it's that outlandish of a conclusion, but at worst, it would require a polite reminder to assume good faith. I've also instructed the IP to create an account if other people's edits at this IP is truly getting this person in trouble.
• Do we need intervention with the genre warring? No, there's clear consensus forming against the IP on the related talk pages. The IP is already being troublesome with criticism, and I imagine I'll be blocking him if that crosses over into editing against consensus.

So basically, I'd recommend this be closed/archived right away, as everything's under control, and the IP's actual grievance is not actionable. Sergecross73 msg me 01:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at the edit history of the IP user and comparing it to the edit history of ProgGuy, who was briefly banned back in July, it's pretty obvious that it's the same person. The edits made to the Mudvayne & L.D. 50 (album) are identical to those made by ProgGuy as is the insistence that his sources are reliable and that any sources provided that say otherwise are not. Seems like a case of a user who was banned once wants to further his points by acting as another editor, an action he accused myself and and SonOfPlisskin of multiple times back in July. NJZombie (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not obvious that I am the same person, because I am not the same person. The only thing that is obvious is that you, NJZombie are a sockpuppet of Son of Plisskin, and Son of Plisskin is an edit warrior who refuses to let anyone edit outside of his opinion, regardless of the facts. 64.134.96.198 (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No, there is not a "consensus forming against" me, Sergecross. Son of Plisskin is an abusive stalker and needs to be banned. Son of Plisskin deserves an electronic spanking for his vandalism and attacks against other editors, and using NJZombie as a sockpuppet. 64.134.96.198 (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

True to form, here come the obligatory baseless sockpuppet accusations that got him banned last time. Also sent to my talk page. NJZombie (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I WAS NEVER BANNED SINCE I ONLY STARTED EDITING IN AUGUST AND THE FACT THAT YOU CONTINUE TO ACCUSE ME OF BEING PROGGUY IS EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE SON OF PLISSKIN AS YOU ARE THE ONLY EDITOR WHO BELIEVES AS SUCH. 64.134.96.198 (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

64*, if you believe there is sockpuppetry, you need to file a case at WP:SPI with evidence. Please remember that groundless accusations of sockpuppetry are considered personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Amharic language / Til Eulenspiegel

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

---

• Amharic language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs)
• Beetstra (talk · contribs)

(Links above added by --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC))

I have yesterday, after examining a list of external links on Amharic language removed 7 of them as inappropriate per our external links guideline. I will be upfront, if I get proper rebuttal why the removal is wrong, then I am very willing to consider reinsertion (of all, or some). That edit was reverted by Til Eulenspiegel without policy based commentary, but with the reason that removal should be discussed. I re-reverted as I still believe these links were inappropriate, and was promptly re-reverted by Til Eulenspiegel. The links were then removed by another party (user:Yngvadottir), and a discussion was started on the talkpage (I maybe should have done that myself, but I did not feel the burden is on me to defend policy/guideline based removal, the insertion of the links should be defended, per WP:EL), re-reverted by Til Eulenspiegel and removed again by User:Ronz. Some of the links were re-added again by User:Pete unseth, but also re-removed as inappropriate. In the meantime, I did start a more general discussion at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Learning_a_language, as I feel that these links are inappropriate on more pages (in fact, I have removed links since on other places as well).

The responses on the talkpage by User:Til Eulenspiegel have been plainly hostile, aiming more at me than at content, policy and/or guideline arguments (in fact, I have not seen any policy or guideline based reason for inclusion from him), so I am bringing the whole situation for review:

• "I was going to say someone does not seem too familiar with the Amharic language since anyone who is knows that a distinction is scarcely drawn between "Amharic literature" and "Christian literature" -- but nothing like that view from the armchair on another continent when you are crusading against the fact of what people believe"
• "It sounds like you have a special hostility to linking the Amharic language Bible here or making it available, which just makes me sad for you." - I removed 7 links, only one relating to the bible and one relating to Christianity. Where does this come from.
• "... I oppose your ill-informed reasoning to delete them, and suggest you find something else to do."
• "... This is the centerpiece of Amharic, if you dont like that fact that is your problem, that is your problem."
• "... Beetsra insists on showing of his literacy skills by continuing to write "bible" for "Bible" ...
• "... demonstrate your contempt ... " & "... your hatred for Christianity ..."

I'd like to have a review of my actions, and of the actions of User:Til Eulenspiegel in response to them. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I was about to raise a complaint against User:Beetstra here myself. It is beyond the point of absurd to have to explain to someone how a medical dictionary in English and another language is useful to researchers of the language, or how hearing a book read out loud in the language is useful to students of the language, as well as language courses. This user is single-handedly going willy nilly into a lot of languages he does not know or care about, and is enforcing his own interpretations by deleting such useful links, to the point of creating edit wars, and that should not go over too well.Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe Beetstra is HERE to goad other users, he then carefully cherry picks their responses to report them here and cause more disturbance Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think Beetstra is in the right policy-wise; this first arose in connection with World Mentoring Academy, which was being spammed to a number of pages on languages; see this discussion at WikiProject Spam, which I linked when I opened the talk page section. The larger context is that we have a policy against including a list of language-learning resources, as we do against any other type of directory. There is surely an article on Amharic literature where some of these links would find a better home? That said, I did not participate further in the discussion because I trusted, perhaps naively, that editors would come to a consensus through reasoned discussion on whether to reinsert any of the links, rather than returning to having anything in there that includes Amharic, which appears to have become the de facto criterion at many of our articles on languages. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Who would write a policy against including language learning resources (even medical bilingual dictionaries for lesser known languages or harder to find vocabulary for) on language articles which are obviously of the greatest use for learners and researchers of a language? This seems misguided to put it mildly, and I have never seen that enforced on language articles before (since virtually all of them already include such links). Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory, and cannot be. We cannot be responsible for vetting language-learning resources, making sure they are not scams, so we should not imply endorsement by listing them. We also cannot hope to provide an adequately complete list. Plus there will be accessibility/worldwide coverage problems. And finally of course the promotional aspect (regardless of whether it's for-profit or not). Our policy on external links is precisely to avoid directories for all these reasons. Particular links should be discussed on the merits: for less studied languages and where we don't have appropriate articles on the literary heritage, there may be a better case for inclusion, as has been suggested for the Amharic Bible, but it still seems better to me to put such things in articles on the literature itself, even if such articles have to be started to do so. The fact that many language articles evidently have violated policy in this respect is not an argument for ignoring the policy; External links sections are notoriously prone to filling up with excess stuff. When this arose with a particular MOOC provider, it shone a light on the problem. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. I asked "who" would write such a "policy" - clearly it wasn't done with the wide consultation of any language editors, but by someone "behind he scenes" and I'm specifically asking "who" and "how" this became a "policy" to frustrate linguistic study and research on wikipedia. Even ancient extinct languages and languages that have never been spoken have learning resources (not pay of course - we're talking about audio samples of books read in the language to show researchers what it sound like, medical dictionaries and the like.) You will never be able to selectively enforce this shortsighted and senseless, bogus "policy" picking Amharic to start out with. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I support Beestra on removing the links. It was too much, too excessive. Yes, Wikipedia should be able to demonstrate a language, but it should not be used to advertise language schools. Further , Til Eulenspiegel should be blocked or TBanned due to his incivility, battleground mentatility and general making a nuisance of himself. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 16:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I speak, read, write and teach fluent Amharic and what we see here are people with zero knowledge about the language whatsoever and don't care either, throwing their weight around with nonsensical "rules" and threatening one of those who knows something. Once again - and what makes this all really harebrained - is that nobody is arguing for "language schools" or any pay services. We are explicitly talking about a medical dictionary and an audio sample of a prominent book read in Amharic. Whatever your personal issues toward the topic really are here, blocking interested researchers' access to these materials appears purely philistine. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

As a bureaucrat of Amhari wikipedia I am on the wmf African languages list where we have been engaged in quite a lot of discussion on the need to improve translation of medical articles in African languages with the Ebola crisis. Such resources are invaluable to translators who are looking for this information, but somebody puts rules and lulz and ausing disruption ahead of common sense. I am currently drafting a letter to the wmf list to advise them of the block-threatening and backwards attitude problem toward African languages I have encountered numerous times with certain editors on ENGLISH wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Alternately, you could consider working to influence the policy(s) that you find constricting. Tiderolls 17:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Still haven't found out an answer to who would write such a "policy" and by what process that didn't involve language article editors? And what is it now suddenly being enforced highly selectively to remove resources that are only useful to further research into certain languages ? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for all observing this thread, but your questions presuppose facts and conditions to which I take exception. Tiderolls 17:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no denying that language resources that assist scholars trying to find further information such as audio recordings, specialist dictionaries etc. have always been welcome on language articles until now, now we see for the first time they are being forcefully stripped from Amharic in a very ugly fashion, and I wish to know why, and demand to know WHO authored such "policy" and by what process. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Til Eulenspiegel: Replying to the 'who' - WP:EL is a well-accepted guideline written by the community, and with community consensus. It is based on sections of WP:NOT, one of our 5 pillars. Also that was written by the community and has broad consensus. There may be links that I removed which can be defended, but that needs a proper reason - "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link". You have not chosen to give that justification (you plainly reverted), despite repeated requests to do so. Alternatively, you start discussions why WP:EL/WP:NOT need to be changed on these points. When that consensus is reached and the change is implemented on those policies/guidelines, the links could be introduced as not violating those policies and guidelines anymore. As it stands now, I still think that these links are inappropriate (on this page), but please convince me otherwise. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Given Til Eulenspiegel's history, he should know better regarding the relevant policies/guidelines regarding external links, but most importantly he certainly does know that edit-warring and such disruptive interactions with others will only lead to another block. --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I have not edited that article in over 24 hours, I am now preparing to advise the wmf African languages project list of the atmosphere here Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The complaints are against your behavior, which has caused the atmosphere. How about addressing the complaints? Maybe just apologizing, striking out all the inappropriate comments you wrote, and saying that you'll avoid such behavior in the future? --Ronz (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't consider any of my comments inappropriate, so I'm not sure which one to strike out...? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

So you feel that the comments highlighted above are in no way similar to comments you've made in the past that resulted in your being blocked? --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not striking out any comments, the deletion of a highly useful bilingual Amharic-English medical dictionary and an audio recording of the Amharic Bible so listeners can hear what the sounds of the language are, simply cannot be justified by any handwaving nonsense about a directory listing farm policy or whatever. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I had been surprised at all the external links that had been added to the Amharic language article. But I was more surprised, and disappointed, that almost all were removed. I reinserted the medical dictionary and was shocked that this one, too, was removed. I am disappointed at the way people on both sides of this have interacted. I hope that we can agree that a language article can list specialized dictionaries, but that computer software for the affiliated script belongs in another article. I gently ask that all parties speak gently. It may be hard to assume good faith, but I honestly believe that all want to see this Wikipedia page become an excellent page, even if we don't all agree on what that should include, or how to do it. Those of us who enjoy Amharic have no special authority to bypass policies in editing, but those who say they are acting on policy could remember that not everybody agrees on how to interpret and apply the policies. sälam lähullaccən yəst'ən— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete unseth (talk • contribs)

I would argue here that a 'medical dictionary is too indirectly connected to the language, a well chosen English-<language> dictionary (as was now included) is about at the edge of it. I also think that the directory is well-chosen.

I agree that not everybody agrees on how to interpret and apply the policies, and therefore we discuss and get to consensus. Depending on the scope of the issue, that is on the talkpage of a page itself, or, if one of the parties feels that it is broader, either at a noticeboard or at the talkpage of the policy/guideline in question. I think I did ask for that on the talkpage, as well as giving the explanation that I do not see how the Amharic Bible helps in understanding the concept of the language - if I am wrong in that, which may very well be - I am, apparently, talking to people schooled in the subject, then please, explain that to me (however, I think that explanation should then be in the text, not just an (apparent) 'random' list of external links). I note that the removed link to the Bible would be appropriate on Amharic Bible (provided it is the generally accepted 'official' bible or otherwise defendable against our policies and guidelines). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Dirk, the only problem with your argument that a bilingual medical dictionary is of no utility to those studying the language and should thus be made unavailable by brute force, is that that argument is kind of retarded. (Not commenting on you as an editor, just your style of srguing) Would you mind please rephrasing that argument so another could possibly appreciate it? Thanks so much 71.246.153.24 (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear IP, the article is about the language and the article itself should try to explain that as much as possible. Some things that need to be explained about the language can not be included as to having too much detail, etc. That is why I say that a general dictionary is on the edge of that. It does not really explain more about the language (it explains words in the language), but it is a very useful resource with general interest in the subject. A medical dictionary is a step further, those focus on a specific sub-group of words in the subject (the medical terms) and are not of a general use. That is why I say that a medical dictionary is less directly linked to the subject. See WP:ELNO #13 codes this as "Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject." The Wikipedia article is about the whole language, not about the medical language. Hence a general dictionary is defendable as 'directly related', a medical dictionary is 'indirectly related'. That same argument is true for other links. Anyway, the inclusion should be justifiable, and I have hitherto no seen any justification of inclusion, let alone consensus that these links need to be there. Please convince editors on the talkpage that one can NOT understand what Amharic language is about without the medical dictionary (or Bible, or the Windows Vista Amharic Language Pack). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, you say "... thus be made unavailable by brute force" .. what you are arguing is that all links, even remotely suitable, should be included, turning Wikipedia in a linkfarm. Because, when linking to a medical dictionary, why not link to a glossary of chemical terms, and a freely available translation into Amharic of the proceedings of a language conference. That is not Wikipedia's task. We are not here to replace Google (where people, looking for an Amharic medical dictionary, will easily find it). Our guideline WP:EL is wording that as "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense". That is, as linked, based on our pillar WP:NOT, stating: "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia" - the purpose being: to be an encyclopedia. That exclusion is not a retarded argument, it is what we are here for, to write an encyclopedia. Other websites (and even other MediaWiki Wikis) have other goals. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If this were "Junior World Book", I might understand an argument such as "We'd better keep our Amharic article down to the bare minimum nuts and bolts, let's leave the more detailed info for professionals and researchers to the adult encyclopedias and info sources". 71.246.153.24 (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

But that is how we coded it in our policies and guidelines - keep the number of external links to a (bare) minimum (not the article, there is, apparently, still a lot of expansion room, as for example to explain why the Amharic Bible is of prime importance to understanding Amharic). However, for e.g. Wikiversity the story is different, as well as for external search engines. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, as I suggested above, the link to the Amharic Bible is a direct external link on Amharic Bible, which seems to be a missing subject, and I think that the inclusion there would be justified. Maybe also on Amharic language - but that argument, why it would be justified, is still not given. It was suggested that "Amhara" is considered virtually synonymous with "Christian" (which somewhat seems to conflict with that 91.5% Amhara people are living in the Amhara Region, and 82.5% of the people in the Amhara region are Orthodox Christians), still that does not convey to me why the Amharic Bible is needed for understanding what the language is about (nor does that come clearly forward from the prose of Amharic language). Anyway, this is a discussion that is supposed to be on Talk:Amharic language, as requested before; discussions on whether the scope of WP:NOT and/or WP:EL should change should be on WT:NOT and/or WT:EL respectively. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as nearly all language articles currently contain such resources of interest to interested scholars and researchers, it is good to see you are so passionate about your crusade to enforce your new "law" against them by starting with links to bilingual Amharic medical dictionaries and audio recording materials (a most diplomatic choice I must say) with the assistance of the toolboxes of sympathetic admins ready to take out any opposition... really... I only ask when is this thus-far highly selective enforcement going to be extended to the rest of the language articles on wikipedia? 71.246.153.24 (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You've got to start somewhere. Wikipedia is a work in progress. And that other pages contain something against our policies and guidelines is not a reason to propagate that. Glad to see you make the pages you edit a prime example of following policy and guideline. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• I a going to block Til Eulenspiegel those remarks on the talk page. I'm not much of a civility blocker but the toxicity there is intolerable: I find nothing there (or in this thread) by TE that is not a personal attack, an attempt to evade, or just repetitively disruptive and not to the point ("who would write a policy..."). They may well be an expert on the language, but they clearly are not an expert on how to conduct oneself on Wikipedia. As Tide rolls said, if you don't like a policy, try to change it--don't spray acid over those who in good faith edit in accordance with current policies and guidelines. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• And pinging Bishonen, since I'm somewhat in a bind here. I blocked for a week which is, I think, appropriate given the editor's behavior in this conflict--but all this comes with a history...well, you can read the block log for yourself. I am loath to block indefinitely, since I'm just not in the mood, but I can understand if editors and admins see an indef block as a logical conclusion to that block history. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: The recent summary that has been used by Til Eulenspiegel permits indefinite block, and like before, talk page access can be revoked too. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Drmies's one-week block seems good to me. As for TE's rude edit summary when he blanked his page in response to being blocked, I'm against visiting retribution on a user for venting when they're blocked. Always was, always will be. It's human. Being blocked is a nasty shock whether or not you already have a block log. The sensible admin looks away. If TE is that rude again when/if he returns from the block, it'll be a different matter. Bishonen | talk 04:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC).

Thank Bish. OccultZone, sorry. Maybe an indef block can be justified, but what's the point--besides (I haven't seen the edit summary) we give blocked editors some room to respond. (I assume it's not antisemitic or racist or something like that.) Drmies (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thanks for clarifying. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: And if we add block evasion to the mix. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• 71.246.157.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Block evasion --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

IF that's really him, and IF he is " a bureaucrat of Amhari wikipedia" like he says he is, he should loose his 'crat status on that Wikipedia as well , for incivility, battleground behavior, edit warring and then block evading. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 16:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, there's no doubt about those edits. :-( It's a duck from several angles, including being in the same /20 range as the block evasion in May, that I indeffed over at that time, e.g. this. I'm sorry to see it, but thank you, Ronz. I've changed the block to indefinite. Bishonen | talk 16:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC).

Sad but not unexpected. Thanks, Ronz, Beetstra, and Bishonen. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

• And after this rant perhaps TPA revocation is in order. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Copyright issues

We have a new editor, Wondafrash teklemariam re-inserting a link that may hold copyright-violating scans. The site says it has permission from publishers [70] but when I checked a book (link in my revert edit summary [71]) that publisher/copyright holder was not on the list. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Still going on [72], [73] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have temporarily semi-protected the article to get the new editor to come to the table and discuss the issue. —C.Fred (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Protection is a good idea, but I don't think this editor is going to be coming to this table, at least, since I've just blocked them for being among the loudest of possible ducks as a sockpuppet of Til Eulenspiegel. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
      • The Bushranger, time for a community ban? He has moved from using IPs to evade his block to accounts, clearly he's not retired despite the banner he added to his tal page. Dougweller (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
        • I'd say 'not yet', but if it continues... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Revert war at recreational drug use

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

---

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

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

Recreational drug use (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

3RR violations all around. Lack of discussion.

Signedzzz's editing pattern of hundreds of 0-5 byte edits, making the history harder to review, rubs me the wrong way, but I think my rubbing is exacerbated by my opinion on the issue. I'm a wiki contributor that never was; I feel out of my depth trying to moderate/fix this, especially because I have strong opinions and I'm not really sure I could set them aside to moderate. This strikes me as the kind of war that will get worse without intervention. Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 12:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• It would be better handled at the Edit Warring Noticeboard. Epicgenius (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for participating in this revert war, I thought the other user was a bot since it was making so many hundreds of edits within just 2 weeks. WarriorLut (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Canvassing

The following discussion is closed. 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 bringing this here, because when the behaviour in question was pointed out on the talk with the intention merely of stopping it, I have been repeatedly challenged to do so.

User being reported: User:AmritasyaPutra. notified.

I had been involved in a long and unpleasant content dispute with said user, and Reddyuday on Talk:Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana. 5 days ago (In a dispute that has lasted several weeks already) AmritasyaPutra posted to the talk page of Bladesmulti, essentially asking for help. When I called this canvassing on the talk, I was asked to go to ANI with my accusations. I also later received a message on my talk, which said that that accusation had been a personal attack. Amritasya also then stored this.

All I want, at this point, is an admin opinion on whether the post to Blades' talk was, in fact, canvassing. If it was, then perhaps a warning. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Statement of AmritasyaPutra

Ping to involved editors: @Bladesmulti:, @Joshua Jonathan:, @Reddyuday:, @Sarvajna:, @Dharmadhyaksha:

The accusation of canvassing was made very strongly, on two different grounds, on this talk page section:link

Vanamonde93 also made comments on my competence to edit on that talk page, one section: link

Note: The accusations have been carried over by Vanamonde93 to this unrelated talk page discussion: link.

I had requested him to take his complaints of canvassing and competence against me to ANI instead of disrupting article talk page discussions, finally I put this warning: diff link.

This may be related: I had warned Vanamonde93 for outing in that same talk page in this section: link

This may also be related: Vanamonde93 reported me for 3RR violation earlier for same article, the closing admin took 'no action', and pointed out to Vanamonde93 not to make remarks like "Are you deliberately being dense" (to me): diff link.

--AmritasyaPutra✍ 02:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not Arbcom, you don't have to make separate sections for each user. I am not interested in discussing most of that, because how the "accusation" was made does not change your post on Blades' page. I had also already notified Reddy and Blades. Finally, the accusation of "outing" refers to me using Amritasya's old username, which I had interacted with more frequently, and which was (and still is) visible to the public on Wikipedia. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It was the first time someone was insisting on calling my by name despite repeated warnings. I did not know the entire procedure, can the reviewing admin suppress such edits on the concerned article talk page? I have not done canvassing. You say in the opening statement your "intention merely of stopping it, I have been repeatedly challenged to do so." which is nonsensical because you were requested each time to take the repeated accusations to ani and keep the article talk page discussion to the content dispute. The warning I put on your talk page mentioned accusation of competence also which you have subtly brought up in an unreleated article talk page too. Blades did not comment at all in the section where I requested him to give his independent opinion -- that section discusses content that was inserted six times by you against consensus and it finally stands removed by JJ too. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 04:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Both of you, just knock it off. You won't get it settled this way. Go read the Dhammapada, or any Indian Guru: don't stick to hatefull thoughts. And Van, you also notified me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, perfectly acceptable JJ. One request: could you please make similar observation on this talk page: Talk:Vidya_Bharati? That should close all the loose ends. Thank you! My personal closing remarks(will not prolong the discussion): Closing admin in the previous ANI case against me by Van also noted his offensive tone and requested him to avoid it(diff given above). Van did make offensive remarks and made accusations on article talk pages repeatedly which I pointed out to him, I did not appreciate its continuation and put a warning on his talk page. Which was immediately removed and this ANI filed. I needed to respond to this ANI. --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I won't. I'm not going to read yet another quarrel. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay. On Vidya_Bharati talk page he has posted about ABISY -- it is not another case. I am not a willing participant, I must defend myself. Van, if you have any concerns about my behaviour as you have expressed on Talk:Vidya_Bharati please conclude it now/here. I do not have anything to say there what I have not already said and consider it closed from my end. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Both AmritasyaPutra and Vanamonde93 may have accused each other of canvassing but if we look into the definition of canvassing we would better know that there was nothing wrong with what you both were doing. In this type of canvassing, you invited only those into discussion who are regulars of Indian articles. Just like Joshua Jonathan told, I think it is really better to read some book especially the dharma related, and be resolutive like you already been so many times. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay. JJ suggested dhammapada, I prefer that over dharma sometimes, or perhaps they are same. Let me dig in library. ;-) Aside, not in continuation of this discussion and no reply expected: After SPI was done and it was revealed that Van already knew of the socks I raised doubt about such conduct that it should have been clearly declared. I understand the editor wants a clean start and it was a trivial oversight. So, I did not mention it here at all. I know it was not canvassing and neither did I canvass. If I level such an accusation I will make it on ANI directly instead of repeatedly threatening on article talk page. Of course, I was not pleased with all the name calling and accusations and put a warning. I could not have let these continue without as much as defending myself? --AmritasyaPutra^T 14:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

JJ, I notified you as Blades' mentor. Canvassing is inviting an uninvolved editor to influence consensus; by virtue of your position, you are somewhat involved in everything Blades does. Not responsible for, but involved, certainly. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I see; you've got a point there. Anyway, I know Van as a honest and serious editor, and I've seen AmritasyaPutra responding in a very friendly way. You both hav e the best intentions, and both of you were touched/insulted/whatever by the responses of the other. We can wait for either one of you to be the first to step back, say "sorry", whatever, but I think the best thing is just to cool down, let it rest for a while, and just get over it - both of you. Wikipedia hurts, sometimes. Just let it be, okay? Life ain't perfect, we humans ain't perfect, so, act wise. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I step back. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 20:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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

SPECIFICO's WP:WIKIHOUNDING of Carolmooredc - Proposal of Two Way Interaction Ban

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

---

Background: Previously, SPECIFICO and Carolmooredc clashed with one another in the Austrian economics topic space which led to community sanctions[74] and eventually an ArbCom case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics where both editors presented evidence against one another[75][76] and both were sanctioned by ArbCom.[77][78]

The ArbCom case should have ended this WP:BATTLEGROUND but it hasn't. SPECIFICO continues to WikiHound Carolmooredc. Here is the latest example. Carolmooredc has never edited our article on September 11 attacks until now.[79] SPECIFICO has never edited this article before until now.[80] Despite these two editors having never edited this article before, after Carolmooredc makes her first edit on 20:27, September 10, 2014, SPECIFICO show up hours later,12:13, September 11, 2014 to complain about Carolmooredc's edit and then subsequently reverts Carolmooredc's edit.18:13, September 11, 2014

The issue of SPECIFICO's WikiHounding of Carolmooredc was brought up before[81] also in a topic space completely unrelated to Austrian economics.

It's clear that this dispute has become personal. I don't think that we're quite up to the stage of requiring a site ban so I am proposing a two-way interaction ban between SPECIFICO and Carolmooredc. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as second choice. There appears to be broad support for something to be done, although opinions differ whether it should be a one-way or two-way interaction ban, or a site ban. Since editors have proposed other solutions, I'm altering my !no vote to indicate order of preference. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I think that if instead both of those two editors were topic-banned away from the Gender Gap Task Force, the maelstrom at that ArbCom-Case-Waiting-To-Happen would be lessened by about 63%. Carrite (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  The "kill everyone and let Allah sort them out" approach is always tempting. You could probably get rid of all women-hating trolls by just banning all women. —Neotarf (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  Considering that neither the current proposed sanction nor the underlying dispute have anything to do with the GGTF (the dispute predates the task force by quite a bit, IIRC), could y'all kindly not hijack this thread into yet another GGTF thread? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  Well, I'm not familiar with the previous interactions on the economics topics, all I have seen is the gender gap stuff. SPECIFICO agreed here to back off from it. —Neotarf (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. They've clashed on all kinds of different articles, so it's clear the problem is not a particular topic. Gamaliel (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support IBAN – I have observed the interaction between them for many months. It has been an ongoing and insidious disruption. – S. Rich (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I provided analysis for the Austrian economics arbitration case and have kept tabs on subsequent disputes, so I'm very familiar with the background here. Also, back in May I provided analysis of a separate wikihounding claim between two other Aust econ parties, so I'm familiar with the fine points of that policy. AQFK has provided evidence here to meet most of the criteria for wikihounding, but there still remain a couple of points to show: (1) An "apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight" on the part of SPECIFICO; and (2) that SPECIFICO's actions did not constitute "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles" "carefully, and with good cause" in order not to lead others to suspect ill motives. That said, this is my rather wikilegalistic take on the particular charge of wikihounding by SPECIFICO; but I have long been of the opinion that a two-way interaction ban between these two (and certain other pairs of Aust econ parties, but that's outside the present scope) would prevent a lot of unproductive conflict going forward, based on their apparent mutual distrust. alanyst 15:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment My understanding is the gender gap wikiproject was pretty much a dead end project until Carolmooredc revived it. How would an interaction ban effect this project? —Neotarf (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  I don't see how it would affect it at all; they don't seem to have anything to do with each other. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Site ban for SPECIFICO due to overt hounding and harassment of Carolmooredc and others. SPECIFICO is almost surely a ban evaded and has been engaged in egregious POV pushing and partisan slugfests since his inception. His harassment and stalking is the last straw.--MONGO 16:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:Wikihounding means he has been following me around per WP:Wikihounding in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. I did my best to ignore him for the last few months, but when he started Wikihounding me at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force ("GGTF"), responding (usually critically or worse) to just about everything I wrote there, I had to respond at least some percent of the time. This is not a solution to SPECIFICO Wikihounding me. He'll just keep it up, disrupting any article or project I work on, just within the "letter of the law", without reverting my specific edits or replying to me, just making sure he's everyplace I am. It can definitely upset one's balance.

I have to run out in 10 minutes to a doctors appointment, so forgive obvious errors. Also leaving a couple placeholders for new information, but will just repeat what I wrote last week regarding this issue:

• SPECIFICO has been obsessively harassing/wikihounding me for over a year regarding various political differences: posting on my talk page, following me to articles, reverting me and/or negatively commenting on my edits or talk page comments. See these earlier complaints my warning 6/23/13; my 6/29/13 ANI; my complaint to an admin 10/31/13; SPECIFICO's 11/31/13 block for "interpersonal behavior" against me another editor filed at TPNO ANI; my warning on harassment 1/14/14; my later complaint to admin 1/14/14. See also an uninvolved editor's comment regarding SPECIFICO's harassment of me.
• Repeated violation of my talk page ban (except for official notifications): [Placeholder entered:My 6/21/13 first ban which was not explicit enough for people new to the problems, but in context of past discussions, quite obvious, my July 31st reference to the ban here, ], October 31 2013 thread where he denied it and I couldn't find that link, I have had to remind him of the banning and/or complain about continued harassment at my talk page on these dates: Oct 31, Nov 11, Nov 22, Nov 24, Dec 19, Dec 29, Jan 10, June 30, 9/4, 9/4.
• I have tried to ignore the many more recent incidents; see just April 1-September 3, 2014 Interaction Analyzers Results with examples of his following me to 20 articles or pages he had not edited before and harassing me, sometimes repeatedly.
• Examples of constant and disruptive harassment at GGTF, which also disrupts the project: His first at GGTF supports a visiting editor's criticisms of me based on past disputes; here he criticizes an editor objecting to the two of them airing "grudges" against me; a put down of GGTF; hectoring demands not made of an editor who made similar general statements; dubious accusations of sexism in discussions of women at GGTF.
• On SPECIFICO's talk page last week an editor noted that that last GGTF edit was problematic. An admin asks SPECIFICO to cut me some slack, later to keep the page friendly, and later asks him to "staying away from Carol's posts". He writes "consider me on hiatus". But two days later the first editor again has to comment on new negative SPECIFICO comments at GGTF. And on Sept 3. SPECIFCO hectors me about an obvious joke about recruiting admins and writes "please consider departing the Project".
• He has continued harassing me on and off GGTF, even after the Disruption of Wikiproject ANI warning to all posters on GGTF: [Placeholder entered: Just a few examples over last few days of his relentlessly criticizing my comments re: Gender Gap task force: [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87]. Besides reverting my edits on September 11 - which created this long missing section September_11_attacks#Congressional_inquiry - he went back to the main article and reverted material that I only needed a note for better sources, which I'd already stated on the talk page I was looking for. See last couple edits of Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 at this diff. Or see his recent removals.

Possible Solutions:

• Ban SPECIFICO from following me to any article he has not edited before and ban him from the Gender Gap task force and Gender bias on Wikipedia article which covers the same issues. He followed me to both to harass me, the second just four minutes after I edited there.
• Do as [[User:MONGO mentioned at this diff: But in regards to AQFK opening post here, it is obvious that you stalked Carol Moore to that page and this is apparently far from the first time you have followed her to a page. That's blatant harrassment and is a good way to get an indefinite block.

Please show that this kind of intense and ongoing Wikihounding can and will be stopped. Thank you. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm leaning toward a site ban for SPECIFICO. As carolmoore points out, there are too many ways to circumvent an interaction ban, and in this case, I can only see it leading to further drama. It is always unfortunate to lose a knowledgeable user, but we can't tolerate this sort of behavior. Gigs (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral - The basic issue is that SPECIFICO is indeed hounding Carolmooredc. It isn't clear that any harm will be done by imposing a two-way interaction ban, but I see no evidence that Carol is in the wrong. When I filed the (still hanging) Request for Arbitration concerning the Gender Gap Task Force (and I am not sure that I was right in filing it), I thought that two editors should be topic-banned from the GGTF, and that SPECIFICO and Carolmooredc should be IBAN'd. However, as per MONGO's analysis, the toxic interaction is one-way. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, per below, as a 1-way ban on Specifico is what is needed here. Tarc (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, The hounder should get the ban, not the houndee. That's how it should always work. It's basically a restraining order, and you don't restrain the victim of abuse... you restrain the abuser. Lightbreather (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment As always with Carolmooredc, I'd advise everyone to treat the diffs that she supplies with caution. She usually tendentiously brings up the same stuff, often just lists of previous failed reports and often does so out of context. Then she pleads naivety. Some of these issues arose as recently as the last report here involving the GGTF and her.

As far as SPECIFICO goes, there may be some following-around going on. I'm not convinced that is necessarily a bad thing because, on quite a lot of occasions when I've bothered looking, it has served to control CMDC's more wayward tendencies. If CMDC inserts herself in touchy subjects (and those are indeed the only subjects where she edits) then she should be well aware by now that she is going to attract attention, face vocal opposition etc. Since CMDC is only interested in touchy subjects, it is entirely plausible that SPECIFICO shares the same trait. I might have to start following her around more often myself if these proposals go through because someone has to keep an eye on her. I'm worried here that there might be a pile-on from those involved or interested in the gender gaps issues who dislike criticism. - Sitush (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this a joke? In a discussion about an editor stalking and hounding another editor, we actually have someone standing up and saying "well, I think I'm gonna stalk and hound her, too!". Way to keep that Gender Gap in the 80/20 range, Sitush. Tarc (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

No, Tarc. It's just you not being able to read English again. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

"I might have to start following her around more often myself if these proposals go through because someone has to keep an eye on her." - Maybe someday you'll figure out that you really can't lie about something you just said 10 minutes ago. Tarc (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The operative word was "might", Tarc, not "I think I'm gonna". Let's face it, you either can't comprehend English or you are a drama-monger who likes misrepresenting people. Take your pick but either way, drop the "liar" bullshit. - {{unsigned|Sitush}

Adding a qualifier of "might" doesn't make a threat to harass any less intimidating. Tarc (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Twisting the words of others to suit your own purposes seems to have become a pattern with you Tarc. Eric Corbett 19:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Backpedalling madly, now, I see. FWIW, Carolmooredc is not easily intimidated, as should be obvious from her website that she one linked to via her userpage and from the subject areas that she chooses to edit on Wikipedia. What she is good at is using her gender to further her ends, hence all the whimsical "sighs", "little old me's" etc that she sticks on the end of her whinges. - Sitush (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Um, rejecting your claim that the word "might" makes your stalking threat less egregious has nothing to do with "backpedalling", I'm afraid. Whether your threat was an empty one or a serious one, the end result is the same. That's about all there it to this tangent; choose your words carefully in the future, or better yet, stay away from this topic altogether and avoid these repeated foot-in-mouth moments. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

So, not content with calling me a liar, you seem now to be suggesting I'm a misogynist. Is there any reason why I should restrain myself from saying "shut the fuck up"? As I expected, this is turning into a GGTF pile-on. - Sitush (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose two-way ban. Support one-way per below. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support two way ban and only two way ban.--v/r - TP 19:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - don't punish the victim. Prefer one-way or site ban. -- Netoholic @ 19:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: As can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force, Carolmooredc is one of the most active and productive participants at the gender gap task force. Whatever the result of this discussion, I very much hope Carolmooredc can continue to participate at the task force. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Active, yes. Productive? That is in the eye of the beholder. As SPECIFICO has shown, she is quite often just plain deluded or, to AGF, terribly mistaken. There is a valid argument for checks and balances at GGTF and, I think, that has been demonstrated in the still-open ArbCom case. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There is only a request at ArbCom --Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gender_Gap_Task_Force_Issues- which has been declined by all Arbitrators so far. There opinion is that dispute resolution, including WP:ANI, should deal with these problems. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)

Indeed it is only a request, and my apologies for mistyping that. I'm not sure that all arbs declined but, hey. The procedural minutiae aside, the problem remains the same. You're an opinionated "right-on" rabble-rouser, Carol, and I do wish I could demonstrate it here without outing you. Selectively posting a notice about this ANI report is itself an example, I guess, but then rabble-rousers often are very good at manipulation. If you spent more time away from these contentious issues and still got "hounded" etc then I'd have more sympathy. - Sitush (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. They clearly don't like each other. While SPECIFICO is following her, which would annoy the crap out of me, a one way ban would only encourage Carol's disruptive tendency to stir the pot by attacking an editor who cannot respond. Carol is not without fault here, not by a damn sight. A ban is totally ridiculous as demonstrated by the "oppose" votes below. If we made this thunderdome, and one of them had to be banned, based upon my limited experience with both I would choose Carol. She appears to be the more disruptive force of the two. The friction between these two is causing the fire and smoking the rest of us out. Separate these two combustibles and let's see if they become inert.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 03:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support, it's quite clear that the conflict between these two editors is not going to cool down by itself, is not going to lead to any positive outcome, and is going to continue to waste the time of the community if allowed to continue. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC).

One-Way Interaction Ban

• Support one-way interaction between on User:SPECIFICO from all interaction with User:Carolmooredc. One-way interaction bans are difficult to enforce, but the alternative, as Gigs has proposed, is a site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support If Carol has displayed any incivility here, it has come in self-defense against an aggressive and persistent stalker, and is thus quite excusable. Tarc (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support: The post initiating this thread only supports a one-way ban. And from what I've seen in the past week getting acquainted with the history and the Gender Gap Task Force drama, that's what is sorely needed. Keep an eye on Carol, but I think the one way ban is going to end our problem.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support For the reason I gave for opposing a two-way ban. Lightbreather (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support in line with Robert McClenon & Milowent--Cailil ^talk 18:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  I still support this but prefer site ban below--Cailil ^talk 19:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support, clearly needed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support per behavior on GGTF as the interactions are one-way, so too should be the ban. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Carol has been her own worst enemy, and the interactions are by no means one way. Eric Corbett 18:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Two way or no way. I've supported one way bans in the past, but I don't think it'd be effective here.--v/r - TP 18:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I've never seen a one-way ban work well. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course not. Because if they are working, by nature, you won't see them.--v/r - TP 19:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Not quite. I've seen instances where the non-banned party was able to game the system because of a one-way ban. I'm sure this has been discussed right up at ArbCom level, perhaps in the Doncram case? - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
      • That's my point. You will see the one's that don't work like you've described. But the one's that do you - you will never see because they are working. So you won't see a one way interaction ban work. You'll only ever see it not work.--v/r - TP 19:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Ah, sorry. I understand you now. So, rephrasing my oppose: every one-way IBAN I've seen seemed to go wrong. I'll have to dig around for examples. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Then do you suggest a site ban instead? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
            • Eh? I oppose a one-way IBAN. What has that got to do with what I think about site bans or two-way bans or, indeed, whether the moon is a balloon? - Sitush (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
              • You oppose one-way bans because you consider them ineffectual. The more effectual solution would be a site ban. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
                • Perhaps. That is your opinion. It is not necessarily mine. Unlike a lot of people involved in this, I'm not jumping to conclusions. I have a fairly long-term experience of both Carolmooredc and SPECIFICO and I need to think rather than throw in a knee-jerk reaction. I'm really, really concerned here that this is turning into a GGTF circus where CMDC is the star performer. That, for sure, would be an inappropriate approach. Do some research on her. - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
                  • I've had some extended interactions with Carol, especially over the term "TERF" and radical feminism. We do not see eye to eye for sure. But I've at least found her mostly reasonable to work with. I've searched her name a few times but didn't come up with much. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support But prefer site ban below. -- Netoholic @ 19:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support I do not generally agree with these, but in this case it is clearly a one-way issue. Unless someone presents evidence of Carol hounding Specifico's edits this is what I support. A site ban may be in SPECIFICO's future if he does not generally adjust his behavior, however.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose SPECIFICO did well to completely and rationally debunk some of suspicious essays posted at the gender gap project by Carolmooredc. Certainly possible issues aren't purely one-sided. --Pudeo' 20:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs? Knowing exactly what debunking took place would help. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to this thread specifically. Basically some of the "gender gap stories" were found to be completely bogus, like one "victim" had actually tried to change the content of an article about an album to something else. That archive is full of mutual quarrel between SPECIFICO and Carolmooredc. All I'm saying is that it was good that Two kinds of Pork and SPECIFICO kept an eye on what was posted in that project by Carolmooredc.--Pudeo' 23:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

So no evidence of hounding by Carol? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

No. --Pudeo' 00:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

"Possible issues" aren't one-sided? What does that mean? This discussion isn't about about who was more successful in "debunking" the other's claims. We're talking about who is hounding whose edits. Can you present evidence of Carol following Specifico around? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

"Following someone around" is not synonomyous with "hounding", as you ought to know. There are quite a few editors who follow me around, but I don't regard that as hounding. Eric Corbett 21:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. No evidence has been presented that Carol is hounding Specifico. It looks like she wants to disengage from the interactions with Specifico but can't do it because Specifico keeps initiating contact. In the unlikely case that Carol starts hounding or baiting Specifico, the interaction should be extended to her as well. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support per the evidence of harassment towards Carolmooredc, I also notice that the majority of those opposing have been involved editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  By "involved", do you mean those whom Carolmooredc has in the past attacked for various imagined misdemeanours? I'd be interested to see what your definition of "uninvolved" is when it comes to those supporting this proposal. Eric Corbett 21:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  Involved meaning not bringing up things that were discussed in the past that had already come to a conclusion. What is key here is what has happened since. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  Then your accusation of "involved" does not stand up to scrutiny, and I invite you to withdraw it. Eric Corbett 21:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  That definition actually scuppers almost every diff that CMDC ever brings here. Oh, and I would have thought that this, which is typical of CMDC's subtle canvassing, explains a lot of the pile-on here. Sure, it's phrased neutrally but, as in the past, it stinks. - Sitush (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  Quite. It's entirely biased and dishonest. Eric Corbett 21:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. After the topic bans in the Austrian economics case there shouldn't any natural reasons for a substansial overlap in page editing between Specifico and Carol. The reason they still end up at the same talk pages where quarrels sometimes ensue is because Specifico is following Carol around. Specifico's speciality is economics and an interaction ban with Carol won't hinder him in editing those articles. Iselilja (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I might be able to support a one way ban, but I fear Carol would treat this sanction as yet another tool in her arsenal to gain the upper hand in disputes. Remember, it's more than just these two that has to put up with their infighting. If Carol were to abuse the 1 way ban, it will, certainly cause some resentment.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Carol is a minimum of 50.0% of the problem here. Carrite (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Actually, if he's been stalking her, and told not to, and still stalks her, really, he should be told to go. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support As third choice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Site ban of SPECIFICO for repeated hounding

Evidence of SPECIFICO hounding

Hounding of Netoholic

• May 15 "tag notability" - Tags an article I added a category to the previous night. He's never edited it before.
• May 24 "ce. Conform to cited reference" - He makes an edit on a page I just edited about 20 minutes earlier. He's never edited it before.
• May 26 "Stefan Molyneux edit warring: new section" - He goes shopping around for an admin to block me for "edit warring". His complaint was logged 2014-05-26T03:45:20, 7 hours after my last edit at 2014-05-25T20:38:35‎, which was 21 hours after the last edit by anyone else at 2014-05-24T23:40:10‎.
• May 30 - After I made an observation on my sandbox page that SPECIFICO doesn't add new sources, his very next edit (20 minutes later) is to add a citation to an article. This proves that he is monitoring my every edit.
• May 30 - A completely bogus warning accusing me of "4RR" which is completely off-base. Clear WP:HUSH violation.
• June 6 "Removing unsourced content. There is no general agreement as to all the figures depicted in the painting" - My "content" was an image of a painting, with a link and description directly taken from The School of Athens. This revert was done within just 4 minutes, and over 4 hours after SPECIFICOs last edit. The version he went back to is zoomed in detail from the same painting of a figure that has no expert confirmation of, per the article footnote "The interpretation of this figure as Hypatia seems to have originated from the Internet. Serious sources don't mention it at all. H. J. Mozans (=John Augustine Zahm) specifically regrets that Hypatia doesn't appear in the painting in his book Women in Science p. 141".
  • Immediately after I post the above item to my sandbox page describing his error[88], he revisits the page and removes his mistake.
• June 6 "Remove off-topic definition of EMIS. The topic of this article is environmental management, not environmental information management. This article relates to the physical management of the physical environment." - Removes a sourced and relevant item I added to an obscure page. He's never edited it before.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Netoholic (talk • contribs)

Hounding of Srich32977

(To try and keep the section short, I am only citing what I've found to be the most gross examples of SPECIFICO hounding Srich32977's activity on Wikipedia. There are others with longer time gaps (like [89]), and some less straightforward ones. -- Netoholic @ 03:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC))

• May 2 - 7 minutes after Srich32977 uses {{rpa}}, SPECIFICO reverts it (SPECIFICO has never edited that article or talk page before)
• June 29 - 3.5 hours after Srich32977 edits an article [90], SPECIFICO edits the page also [91][92] (neither had ever edited it before)
• June 29 - 3 hours after Srich32977 makes a post on a talk page, SPECIFICO replies to Srich. (SPECIFICO has never edited that article or talk page before)
• June 29 - 24 minutes after Srich32977 makes an edit, SPECIFICO does too (neither had ever edited it before)

• Comment – let me make this clear, I do not consider any of these (or such other) edits involving me as hounding. Specifico may sit on his High Horse and dispense bullshit about me, but I've never felt harassed. (I can and have refuted each aspersion set forth.) Also, I am disappointed that Netoholic has added this sub-section. A site ban for Specifico is certainly not in the offing. – S. Rich (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC) 04:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Further comment by S. Rich. Having taken a closer look at these diffs, I can see that they offer no support for this allegation of hounding. Two diffs are legitimate article improvements that did not revert my edits. One is a legitimate, albeit misinformed talk page comment. The first diff is Specifico not having liked the {{rpa}} template I added, but so what? Specifico had not edited on that page before, but he was supporting his friend Steeletrap. In next edit I removed the whole messy interchange. – S. Rich (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hounding of other editors
Per above section, I believe SRich and SPECIFICO enjoy going at it on talk pages; and 4 reverts are only minor compared to my dozens of diffs of his harassing me above. I don't even have the energy to document all the hassling he's given other editors on articles and talk pages. To note a few:

• They are discussed in these 2013 ANIs 1, 2, 3.
• Two editors got so pissed off they were uncivil and/or 3rr'd were sanctioned: User_talk:Xerographica/Archive_5#March_2013 Site banned and User_talk:Byelf2007#Topic_ban_from_economics Topic banned.
• User:Sageo took a long break after SPECIFICO templated the heck out of his talk page on often dubious grounds (templates still User talk:Sageo).
• User:Id4abel was quite frustrated by SPECIFICO's "disruptive editing"[93] and encouraged Sageo to join my ANI against SPECIFICO for disruptive talk page templating.[94]. Id4abel quit editing weeks later.
• In response to this 2013 SPECIFICO comment about my taking a vacation from editing (because of my frustration with SPECIFICO's disruptive editing), at this diff User:Liz wrote to him: It's mind-boggling that you seem to think that an Editor who is burned out from constant arguing and so just quits the discussion is a good result. The goal is not to drive away those who believe differently from yourself or "wear them down". When Wikipedia content is determined by the "last Editor standing" mentality, it's really a sign that there is something wrong with the project.
  

I don't know why no one has proposed at the very least a SPECIFICO topic ban on his editing the Gender Gap task force pages since it is clear his original and ongoing motivation is more about hassling me than contributing to the project. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Lovely, Carol. As is your wont, you've added yet another bolded pseudo-heading to grab attention and you've used a drama-inducing edit summary. There are plenty of reasons why people hassle you, the most obvious of which is that you are you and will inevitably attract attention. That's why I suggested that you and SPECIFICO should both try to work in less contentious areas and it is why I suggested below that perhaps one way to introduce that would be a six-month ban for both of you from all areas where discretionary or general sanctions apply. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of site ban proposal for SPECIFICO

• Support - Since this was suggested multiple times above, adding it as a voting section. Carolmooredc is not the only victim of SPECIFICO's hounding. I believe SPECIFICO does not have the self-control to avoid stalking the edits of *anyone*. Its become standard battleground tactic for him. -- Netoholic @ 19:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - One-way interaction bans rarely work. A straightforward block or ban is preferable. PhilKnight (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Question. Who are you proposing to site ban? I'd support some kind of ban placed on Carol, following which I'm certain you'd see a much calmer atmosphere at GGTF. Eric Corbett 19:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment – Seems that Netoholic is proposing to site ban SPECIFICO. Considering that the diffs pertain to CMDC and Netoholic, shouldn't Dispute Resolution or WP:RFC/USER be undertaken? With this in mind, I oppose. – S. Rich (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I was gathering evidence to that end, but seeing as a site ban was proposed above, and its clear his stalking behavior extends to other people (including you, Srich), I think it can be addressed swiftly here. The stalking behavior is clearly a pattern. Since he's stalekd you too, would you prefer to add evidence here or would you to join me in an RFC, since you're a victim of it as well? -- Netoholic @ 20:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support As per my earlier comment. There is no doubt that SPECIFICO has been stalking and harassing Carolmooredc and now as evidence clearly shows, others. This deliberate effort to engage others is battleground behavior and to be frank, very creepy. SPECIFICO can ask for reassessment in no less than six months.--MONGO 20:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support The evidence is there, nobody should have to put up with this kind of harassment here on Wikipedia. No evidence of wiki-hounding by Carol has been put forward per the above section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  Not yet, but it would be rather easy to collect given the number of AN/I threads, ArbCom requests and canvassing on user talk pages that Carol either initiates or involves herself in against the same few people. She is the problem, not SPECIFICO. Eric Corbett 21:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  Do you have diffs of new things? Recently a discussion closed here without finding that Carol had done any wrongdoing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  Assuming that you can count, have a look for yourself as Carol would say, don't expect me to spoon feed you. Eric Corbett 21:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

In other words you don't have any evidence. --NellieBly (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - AFAIK, SPECIFICO hasn't engaged in sock-puppetry, vandalism or making threats. Those are my yard sticks for banishable behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - There are other reasons, in my opinion and that of many editors, to ban editors, such as trolling, flaming, and incompetence. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support site ban. The nuclear option is regrettable, but the wikihounding seems to be a pattern (rather than two editors who just can't get along, which is what IBAN is for). Miniapolis 22:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Does not appear to be warranted. Any concerns can easily be addressed with an interaction ban. Gamaliel (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Confused Comment Sorry for my failure to keep up with Wikipedia policy/procedures (as I've taken periodic extended breaks). But, when did a full fledged indefinite site ban become a matter for a public vote exactly (with people involved in assorted edit disputes voting)? I thought this kind of thing was handled by arbitration. I thought this page was for more straightforward and/or shorter term things; not something that requires a fuller and more comprehensive discussion and consideration. --Rob (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sitebans are not restricted to arbcom, community approved sanctions and site bans have happened but not every opinion is regarded with the same weight based on factors involved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose the diffs brought up by Netoholic are all over three months old. They are also not super bad , although they may indicate a continuing disagreements between Netoholic and Specifico. Evidence ofsuchdisagreements can also be seen at Specfico's talk page. In this context, I notice that, on May 21, 2014, Netoholic was blocked for "personal attacks or harassment" at Specfico's talk page. Regardless, bad blood with Netoholic is not a reason to site ban Specifico. Cardamon (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support site ban. He made his bed, now let him lie in it. This is a hostile environment for women editors because of conduct such as this. --Drmargi (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per underwhelming evidence, and a clear grudge. I like to see proposals from uninvolved editors per my essay on the subject.--v/r - TP 03:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As a victim of his hounding behavior, I can't say that I am impartial, but that doesn't mean its a grudge - I just want him to stop using this tactic against people he has disagreements with. I added a section of examples of his hounding of Srich32977, and I think there are other examples of hounding of other users like Binksternet, VictorD7, Reissgo, and perhaps others that can be found by someone impartial who wants to evaluate SPECIFICO's edit history. -- Netoholic @ 03:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @TParis: like I said something has to give, the aura over at the gender gap task force is toxic, I hold no grudges here as well, I am not even involved with the project but based on what I have seen and discussions that were already held nobody should have to put up with being wiki-hounded. It is easy to say otherwise when you are not the victim of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Feel free to change the aura. But this is not a desirable outcome per my essay. Doesn't meet the "least amount of sanctions" nor "NPOV" criteria. I prefer a two-way interaction ban. It is functionally no different then a one-way interaction ban and the only reason to oppose it, if you support a one-way ban, is for idealistic nonsense. The desirable outcome with the least amount of sanctions is a two-way ban.--v/r - TP 03:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @TParis: I am uninvolved and am not well versed on the history. However, this dispute has obviously been through many versions of dispute resolution including arbcom. The fact that it is still ongoing seems to meet your criteria for being at this board. It's obvious that the dispute is disruptive to the project. The next question is resolution that is the most beneficial to the project. A two-way IBAN appeals to a sense of egality but egality is not what we are trying to accomplish. Does a two-way IBAN improve the project or does it disproportionately burden the least disruptive editor? Your support of a two-way IBAN did not address this. A one-way IBAN imposed on the most disruptive editor is more in line with improving the project. Given the history though, why has this not been voluntarily done? If it's clear that one editor is following even an informal one-way IBAN and the disruptive editor has not, I question the abilitiy of that editor to be constructive. If it's the same type of behaviour being directed at multiple editors even after arbcom, an indefinite timeout is possibly needed. In short, my evaluation of your criteria is that a two-way IBAN is unnecessarily burdensome. A one-way IBAN of SPECIFICO possibly with multiple editors or topics is the least disruptive sanction that allows all editors to continue contributing. An indefinite ban is justifiable if, on balance, the conflict arising from SPECIFICO's presence outweighs the benefit and that would be the case if a majority of edits, even across many topics, create conflict with specific editors. --DHeyward (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral - Something has to be done, but I would prefer a one-way interaction ban. The other examples cited are stale. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  Proposals from uninvolved editors, TParis? Ha. I tried that, but as soon as you propose something they tell you that makes you "involved". This should have been a topic ban. The reason we are back here now is that the original topic ban discussion was closed before the vote could finish.

  Carol is banned from economics issues, right? And that's where SPECIFICO usually edits. And SPECIFICO is not very good with gender issues, a quick look at his talk page can tell you several people have tried to coach him there, and to no effect. If he does not buy into the basic premise of welcoming new women to the project, why is he participating in gender gap in the first place. No, there should have been a topic ban. But that proposal failed, so we are left with interaction ban, or site ban. —Neotarf (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Robert. Yes, something should be done, but to be blunt Carol has not shown the temperament necessary to be awarded the ability to comment on SPECIFICO knowing she is immune to his response.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarification: Both Specifico and Carol are banned from editing on Mises.org-related topics. Carol (I believe) is banned from Austrian School economics topics, but Specifico is not. As you say, Neotarf, an IBAN would be helpful. I think as a matter of equity it should be mutual. Carol has not shown much inclination to follow Specifico, so it would not matter to Carol if it was two-way IBAN. So once Carol edits on a gender-related issue, an IBAN would mean that Specifico would simply have to let other editors respond to her. Then, without so much as a hint that he was responding to Carol's comment, he could respond to the other editor with circumspect. – S. Rich (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

An I-ban would probably be a good idea, and would give Carol and maybe some other editors a little piece of mind, but unless you do something about the gender gap project as well, it's all going to come right back here again. Look at the gender gap talk page now. It's a mess, SPECIFICO has been all over it, along with a few other individuals, and the reasonable people are no where to be seen. —Neotarf (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)f

• Oppose - Interaction ban them if you wanna. Otherwise, take it to ArbCom, not LynchCom. When the smoke clears there will be indefs levied on leading GenderWarriors from both sides of the aisle. Carrite (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not convinced about an interaction ban either but the arguments of TParis and Carrite against a site ban are convincing enough and Netoholics diffs (including those for Srich) are not at all so. A six-month topic ban of both from editing in any subject area where discretionary or general sanctions apply would, I think, be my preferred approach. Let them learn that Wikipedia is more than just some rolling battlefield. - Sitush (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support SPECIFICO's modus operandi with regard his dealing with me, is to revert my edits but then refuse to take part in discussion on talk pages. So B.R.D. becomes B then R, then I start discussion, then silence. If I repeat the Bold edit he reverts immediately with no further talk. This then puts me at risk of being accused of edit warring. I have seen many other editors complain to him about a lack of communication with his reverts. This has been going on for years. He does not operate within the spirit of Wikipedia. Reissgo (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Really. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support as first choice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Two canvassed witch hunts on AN/I at the same time? How unpleasant. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: I made just one notice, to the Gender gap task force talk page, where several editors had noted disruption of the task force, including explicitly by SPECIFICO. See links above. If he had not so relentlessly hounded me at the task force, disrupting it, his Wikihounding would not be so obvious. So this is at least in part an issue pertinent to the project. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Notifications to Wikiprojects are considered to be appropriate. —Neotarf (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Without a limited-time site ban, SPECIFICO will continue to disrupt the project. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support I'm sorry, but when I go to a persons talk page and see that they've been brought here time after time after time after time - it shows that a person may be more of a net negative than a net positive, and that's not what we're about. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, whoopee. Have you ever seen my talk page? Have you ever seen Carolmooredc's? Yours is a ridiculous rationale, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Strong Oppose When I think of a site ban, I think of editors who have doxed others, harassed them in real life, sent threats to them, is incorrigibly disruptive, cannot be remedied and all other remedies have failed. That their editing style is irrepearable and the only thing that would them listen is to wait 6 months for the standard offer. I don't believe SPECIFICO has passed that point here. Other remedies have not been trialed as of yet, and they should. Site banning is a very last resort and should be reserved for those who's conduct and history cannot be repaired and have resisted/skirted any kind of remedy. Tutelary (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support When I think of a site ban, I think of editors who have stalked and harassed another editor to the point that the community can no longer ignore it. I only wish the community, myself included, picked up on this a year ago. Tarc (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

RFC/U

Sorry for having to split this out into another section. Is there any mileage in starting a RfC/U for this? Maybe one for both Carolmooredc and SPECIFICO, together or separately? It does seem to me that there has been a bit of a pile-on here: they are people turning up whom I wouldn't normally expect to be watching ANI and, however neutral it was, probably got here via CMDC's notification at WT:GGTF. I've had run-ins with both parties over the last year and both have had their "good" and "bad" points ... and I'm probably persona non grata to both most of the time. I understand that RfC/U is often considered to be a toothless process but what is going on right now is very scary. As someone said above, it seems to be practically rule by lynch-mob. - Sitush (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This is probably a bad idea to have five processes running at the same time. It's also one that could backfire on you. You've been pounding away at CMDC quite a bit here, even going so far as threatening to out her off-wiki. You obviously feel very strongly here, but you've crossed some serious boundaries because of it.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Basically it's probably better to close all of these AN/I threads before launching another one to run at the same time. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sheesh. You are sidetracking already? Why are five processes worse than four? Where have I threatened to out her off-wiki? I'm not involved in Wikipediocracy or anything like that and any outing that I may have done here is merely to suggest that people check out her user page history, where she once had a link to a website. She chose to put that there, not me. I'm quite happy to be scrutinised, bearing in mind that (for example), neither party's talk page has ever been on my watchlist and I've generally not been involved in WT:GGTF discussions etc. I've got better things to do than watch two people go at it hammer-and-tongs. - Sitush (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

One day, I'll post the link to your website on WP and then everyone will understand. Hard to read that as neutral or benign. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It would look like forum shopping. —Neotarf (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer a diff, please. That's the more usual way to prove a point and it helps to put things in context. - Sitush (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really, what would he/she be shopping for? RfCs cannot impose remedies but may lead as proof to ArbCom that there's a problem. Tutelary (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP " Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus....(This is also known as "asking the other parent".)" —Neotarf (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

At this stage I doubt an RFC/U would be helpful. Participants would simply see the same ole allegations and diffs being trotted out. (Which assumes anyone has the energy to get into the RFC/U process.) The IBAN, as originally proposed, is the best course of action. With an IBAN in place each editor can contribute in the areas they feel comfortable and there'd be much, much less friction. Make it two-way – CarolMooreDC has little reason to follow SPECIFICO about so it would not be a "punishment" in any sense. – S. Rich (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Would Carol be open to a two-way interaction ban? What about SPECIFICO? I haven't seen him comment yet. Did he get notified? —Neotarf (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I have now left a message on his talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO usually stays out of these things that involve him, and given his lack of editing activity since the ANI opened I'm pretty sure he is aware. You might ping CMDC and find out what her feelings are. – S. Rich (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there is enough evidence, including the direct admission from SPECIFICO below on this very page that he actively follows CMDC's edits (as if it is his personal responsibility), to handle this with a site ban of SPECIFICO (reevaluated on his request after, say, 6 months). His activities are a net drain on resources in the project, not only because of his hounding and other things that have landed him on the ANI page, but also because of his deletionism, POV editing, and his lack of actual competence in regards to editorial balance, sourcing, factual accuracy, and WP policy. If a drawn-out RFC/U (or ArbCom modification request of his current prohibitions) is the course of action that people want to take, count me in. -- Netoholic @ 05:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO response to Neotarf's request

The overwhelming majority of the sentiment on this thread originates from the GG task force, where Carolmooredc selectively and solicited participation with biased language (i.e. “canvassed.”). All in all, I see a disappointing amount of opinion which is not supported by evidence, diffs, or detailed discussion.

Moreover, per WP policy on banning, any bans imposed as a result of this thread must be based on consensus of uninvolved editors, of which there are very few here. If you read the page which presents the applicable policy, you’ll also see that the page contemplates that editors should self-identify as involved or uninvolved in the course of the thread. Such disclosure is important because it provides all editors to evaluate evidence in the context of that information. It’s very questionable in my opinion whether this thread is ripe to result in a ban of any sort.

That having been said, it’s evident that many members of the GGTF have lined up behind Carolmooredc’s de facto command there and that most of those who’ve felt motivated to comment do not value my participation there.

Slim Virgin asked me, in early September, to reduce my participation on the GGTF page. I immediately reduced my activity there considerably but not entirely. Given the current situation there and the tenor of this thread, I am willing to resign my membership in that group and to discontinue my participation on the GGTF pages. I feel that’s responsive to the good faith concerns several editors have voiced in this thread.

I’m not willing to volunteer for any other sanction, and I doubt that, per WP banning policy cited above, the imposition of any such outcome could be justified from what I see here. I deny the accusation of hounding for reasons cited by several editors here. I do not follow Carolmooredc’s activity in order to upset her but rather to help ensure that any text conforms to WP standards with respect to Reliable Sourcing, Neutral Point of View, and other key policies. As is well known from her own on-Wiki narrative, she participates in Wikipedia as an extension of her off-Wiki activism. She has used her talk page to direct users to her personal websites which she details her views on various controversial subjects. For many years, long before I was here, she has been embroiled in controversy in many topics which have ended up at Arbcom.

What appears to have precipitated this ANI thread was my removal of poorly-sourced and cherry-picked SYNTH text at the 9-11 article [95] and my objection to her use of a non-RS reference (per RSN) to promote an undue narrative about living persons of the Bush Administration in the 9-11 inquiry article.[96] It has been my observation that such lapses occur repeatedly in Carolmooredc’s editing. On occasions when I read and comment on such edits, not on Carolmooredc personally, to improve them, that is not hounding or harassment. There is justification and nothing to be gained for the benefit of WP by banning me from such edits.

So I think it’s reasonable for my fellow GGTF members to vote me off the island there, if they so choose and I would withdraw from the group. No other sanction is warranted or justified by this thread based on the evidence, discussion, and applicable policy, nor would any other sanction serve any purpose. SPECIFICO talk 04:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I think it very helpful and I have left a message on Carol's talk page. The biggest conflict I think is one of style, since you like fact-checking and probably writing BLPs, while I think Carol's energy level is a big asset to the group, especially with so many disruptions going on now. Maybe after 6 months you can ask to reconsider, if you wish, and if the group is still active, but I think after all this excitement you will each prefer to find a niche where you can be content, and just leave it at that. —Neotarf (talk) 04:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a bit of mixup here. Per WP:CBAN, the decision to ban is "via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute [emphasis added]." The particulars of any underlying dispute have not been described or discussed on this thread (at least my scan of the postings does not show me any such discussion). Actually, the concerns raised go far beyond the interaction at the GGTF. In fact, the discussions are largely about the original proposal for a IBAN based on the long, continuing, and disruptive interaction. That said, anyone who has been watching the interaction between SPECIFICO and CarolMooreDC has a perfect right to opine. Their opinions are valid because they do not involve any particular underlying dispute. The fact that a notice about this ANI was posted on the GGTF is a red-herring and only served to complicate the basic discussion. That is, the interaction between Specifico and CMDC on the GGTF is but one episode in the soap opera that pre-dates GGTF interaction. (Moreover, is there any analysis that shows that the editors supporting some sort of ban are allied with CMDC?) So it comes back to the basic question – would an IBAN between Specifico and CMDC benefit the community? Again I say yes and I believe the consensus supports such a ban. – S. Rich (talk) 05:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There has been some speculation that Specifico's interest in Gender Gap is because of Carol. Do they normally interact in any other areas? In any case, an IBAN would not necessarily extend to GG pages, and I believe they should. So I would propose the following sub-agreement, no matter the outcome of the interaction ban discussion: 1) Membership : SPECIFICO has agreed to give up his membership in the group, however I don't know if this is necessary or desirable. He may want to keep informed of various topics of interest presented on the pages and just remain an inactive member. 2) Interaction: SPECIFICO agrees to discontinue participation on the GGTF pages. This is absolutely necessary. But what if SPECIFICO has, say, a list of articles to work on that he would like to post to the pages? Could there be one or two individuals volunteer as conduits, to post something on his behalf, or would this be unwise, as a further source of possible contention. —Neotarf (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you read alanyst's comment above. In fact, I recommend that you consult with alanyst. You will find the interaction has been ongoing and diverse. – S. Rich (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Mass reversion and disrespectful language - Proportional Representation

I am writing regarding issues with another editor, BalCoder. Remaining differences between us regarding content do not appear to me terribly large, so I am reporting this as an instance of what seems to me inappropriate behavior rather than as a content matter.

I began working on the WP page on Proportional Representation last March, but worked on it more actively beginning on August 5. As it turned out, this was shortly after BalCoder had also made some significant changes (August 2).

On August 20, BalCoder reverted a significant part of what I had done by skipping over intervening versions and reverting to his August 2 version of the Lead section. (I tend to work in manageable chunks, so my edits are saved in multiple updates.) I felt that skipping over intermediate versions in this way was dangerous, since useful edits could be lost in between one version and the other, so I reverted the Lead back, then engaged with BalCoder in Talk to determine what the issues were, so that they could be addressed. Discussions were extensive, and I believe that BalCoder's concerns have been addressed. See Talk on the Lead section in particular, but also the subsequent sections on the "new Lead" and on "Advantages and Disadvantages."

However, from early on, BalCoder took a very possessive approach to what he had written on August 2, and any changes were strongly resisted. On August 23, he wrote: "What I should do, in the spirit of WP:BRD, is to revert your changes, then we could discuss and you could start over but I don't have the time or the inclination. What you should do is revert to the combined section yourself and then build on that." I thought it would be less work to address BalCoder's comments, so I did that.

We went back and forth, and I felt we were making progress, although I found Balcoder's language excessively abrasive on some occasions. On August 28, Balcoder took me to task for responding so extensively in Talk, writing, "please try to keep your posts to a moderate length - this is a joke. And it doesn't even say much." This put me in a catch-22 situation where I would be criticized for not explaining my edits, but chastised for writing too much. Regarding a relatively modest edit on Sortition, he wrote: "You have so misshapen the paragraph that it is borderline garbage." In other cases, I found his accusations of bias to be both unfair and disrespectful. Balcoder has made some good points, which deserve to be taken into account, but often seems incapable of respecting alternative points of view.

As Balcoder wrote on Sept. 11, "I do have precious little respect for your work... Most of it was unnecessary, unconsidered, wrong and ignored WP guidelines, and all of it was overly wordy. Refs have been displaced, narrative flow replaced by non-sequiturs, and structure destroyed." Were I a novice with feelings of inadequacy, I would feel the need to accept this judgement, but I enough confidence to avoid being browbeaten in this way. I am a published scholar of several books and have considerable experience as a writer, editor and senior policy analyst.

Finally, on Sept. 11 and 12, Balcoder decided to revert all edits to this WP page since his own revisions of August 2 (I had rejected his first attempt and made further edits to address his comments, so he reverted my changes twice). His view is that we can take it from there.

I beg to differ with BalCoder's general comments and responded that dismissive comments such as the above were too general to be useful. Furthermore, I have made considerable effort to engage with BalCoder on the Talk page so that we can properly understand our differences. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, and BalCoder definitely has things to teach me, which I appreciate, but I don't fee that gives him the right to be abusive or to revert all of the work that I have done.

I have spent countless hours working on this page, including extensive efforts to accomodate BalCoder's comments. In my view it is not appropriate to revert back to a version that is now 40 days old with numerous interim versions in between. Such a radical approach could be justified if the work I had done was shoddy or unsubstantiated, but it is not, and the fundamental problem appears to be BalCoder's excessive attachment to his own contribution on August 2. Redoing all of the work that I have done over those 40 days would be an undue burden.

I would thus like BalCoder's reversion of this morning to be reversed, and for us to take if from there, as proposed in my Talk contribution of Sept. 12.

Secondly, I would like to invite BalCoder to be more respectful, and to recognize that others may legitimately have different views. His work from August 2, however useful, is not the last word.Reallavergne (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Reallavergne, please read WP:BRD. That essay recommends that discussion take place before the second revert. Tiderolls 20:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick and helpful response. WP-BRD is a useful reference that I had not yet reviewed in detail. BalCoder has pointed out to me the protocol that I should not revert his reversion so I have now decided to follow that advice until the matter is further discussed. It gets a bit more complicated when the reversion takes place AFTER a lot of discussion has been made and considerable changes to accommodate that discussion have already been made. Applying BRD indiscriminately to multiple edits as has been done here also seems rather odd. BRD also suggests the following: "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes."Reallavergne (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want, you can open a Request for Comment on the talk page to get more opinions. Epicgenius (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:BalCoder has engaged in another edit war on the proportional representation article. BalCoder has once again engaged in personal insults, mass reversions, and a refusal to provide sources. I discovered this dispute through the archives on the Talk:Proportional representation page.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

EZILADNAVLLIWI

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

---

Yet another Evlekis sock abusing talk page while blocked. If someone could deal with please. Amortias (T)(C) 11:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears Smalljim already blocked the account. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Crazy People Crazy Papa

The following discussion is closed. 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, yet another Evlekis sock talk page abusing, another talk page revocation/deletion if someone would be so kind. Amortias (T)(C) 17:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

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

What the heck is this?

The following discussion is closed. 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 not sure where to address this but what is this? [97]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I got a random message that include this "You were mentioned in their post "test". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this some sort of hack?? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it's someone using Flow (and when they did some copy-pasting of a version of ANI, almost everyone that were on there is getting notified...), but.... why the heck does an IP have access to it? 2607:FB90:270A:C91E:E6EC:3C70:F405:154C (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the editor in question. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Info at WT:Flow. Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing things up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Penwhale your page protection didn't do any good, maybe contact Wikimedia? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: the fact that an IP can rather unceremoniously ping many editors with something that's under testing is rather bizarre... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

An IP editor could easily do that by doing what they did - which was subst WP:AN/I into another page. This actually isn't a Flow but, but an Echo bug. I'll be on the team about this tomorrow.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that in Flow, you don't need to substitute it, trying to transclude it (just like e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure is transcluded at the top of WP:AN) has the exact same effect, since Flow doesn't want transclusion and automatically changes it to pseudo-substitution. I just tested, and "subst" doesn't even work, you "have" to transclude it, but then it auto-pings everyone on that page. So, contrary to what Jorm said, this isn't a pure Echo bug but also (or even mainly) a Flow bug, one that was reported in February right after the initial deployment. Fram (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Was that a happy face emoticon in their edit summaries (not part of the coding right)? Shearonink (talk) 04:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That was part of their edit summary (well, topic header). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't get edit summaries in Flow. Fram (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Short summary:

• Nothing was substituted, only transcluded
• Flow automatically changes a transclusion to a substitution (technically, it's not a pure substitution apparently, but that's hardly relevant here)
• Flow in Echo was badly changed last week, and slightly improved this week (the devs refused to roll back the change laast week because that would cause more problems, but despite requests no examples of what problems that would be have been given)
• The problems that the transclusion of such pages give have been shown since February. I'm amazed that only now some IP tester or vandal has tried it. Nothing has been done to solve this problem.
• No edit summaries were used, as those don't exist in Flow
• Flow pages can not be deleted, and protection only works after a fashion (or sometimes not at all)
• The page where this happened was part of a 2-to-4-week test in February, which was indefinitely kept alive afterwards (for no apparent reason, mainly on the insistence of a WMF employee). It was said that pages could be turned back to the standard text format, but a forced test on another Flow page this week showed that this is not really true (lots of things get lost in the conversion, and the Flow topics remain parallel to the converted text)
• For a more general overview of Flow, the many (sometimes hard to believe) problems it has, and the rather one-sided discussion of them, please read WT:Flow. It may be time to have a thorough discussion about the immediate future of Flow on enwiki. Fram (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey Fram, according to this revision (now deleted) this was a bulk copy and paste, so neither a subst nor a transclusion. (Correction: It was indeed a simple transclusion, I was confused by the output.) Echo is susceptible to mass pings and this would have happened in other contexts than Flow as well. How is this a Flow issue? It's possible I'm missing something, but if not, we should fix this in Echo (limit pings from one user if there's not already a throttle in place).--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey Erik Moeller, guess what, you're wrong! Of course, because you are no longer an admin here, you couldn't check it, but perhaps you could have believed those who are? I've now undeleted the edit (hope that hasn't caused a new round of pings), since, you know what, we can't see deleted revisions in Flow (unlike everywhere else in Wikipedia) without actually undeleting them. Too bad... Yes, you can force Echo everywhere, but Flow has made it considerably easier to do (and to do it without wanting to, as happened to me the first time). If you don't know how one can see the difference between a bulk copy and paste and a Flow transclusion, you can ask your Flow Product Manager (although he seems to have trouble answering questions lately). Fram (talk) 07:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Fram, thanks for taking a closer look even if I don't think it was necessary to undelete the page to do so; we could have investigated further without exacerbating risk of annoyance of other users. I recommend that we delete the comment again at this point.

Bulk notifications with transclusions have been an issue with Echo before Flow (cf. bugzilla:50082 and others) and can be generated by other means, but we'll fix any new issues specific to transclusions on Flow boards ASAP.--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction of your post. As for "we could have investigated further without exacerbating risk of annoyance of other users.", I have a good solution for this. Take Flow of enwiki and only bring it back after most major bugs have been solved and missing tools have been added, and the people at enwiki agree that this seems to be the case and that the tool is ready for testing at enwiki. It will seriously reduce the risk of annoyance to other users and to yourself and your team. Fram (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Erik Moeller (WMF): I have first transcluded today AfD page on my sandbox, [98]. A 57 byte edit with no pings involved. I have then substituted it on my sandbox, [99] a 3277 byte edit with no pings involved. Any idea what would happen if I transcluded it on Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page? Care to try it out? Fram (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Fram: Mentions in transclusions work (that's why stuff like {{ping}} works), but regular mentions are restricted by namespace (Wikipedia: and talk only) and to comments within sections and with signatures. I haven't tested the exploitability in bulk. If you want to do bulk tests, please do so on test.wikipedia.org so you don't annoy users here.--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Erik Moeller (WMF): What is mw:HHVM and why are you using it here? KonveyorBelt 17:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Which was not what I was asking about. If you substitute a page, you go down one level, i.e. you only display / save the code of that page. With Flow, you do cascading translusion, you transclude things that are transcluded as well. That is why WP:ANI is about 500K big, but the edit that started this was about 950K big. If you would have tried the edit I suggested, the difference would have been a lot larger (relatively) and the difference in who gets pinged as well (if you add an AfD to the daily log, the editors that have edited the other AfDs on that page don't get pinged of course; but with Flow, such things would happen). Apart from that: if you want months or years of testing, do it on test or mediawiki so you don't annoy users here. Fram (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the others, I do not like how there are no edit summaries, I do not like that it pings users each time a response is made, and I do not like the idea in general. It may be a great breakthrough idea to you guys but so far from what I have seen here nobody has warmed up to the idea as there are too many problems with it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Fram: Are Wikipedia users going to have any opinion on the matter or is Flow something that is just going to be forced upon everyone? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

They only roll it out to pages that have agreed to it, or where they think they have agreed to it, or where a WMF member is the main driving force, or where the page is sponsored by a WMF grant. Tests are temporarily but never get ended. Errors in rollout don't get reverted but patched somewhat sometimes. They will not roll out anything we don't agree on, but it is a foregone conclusion (and said by devs in so many words) that Flow is the Future and that Flow will eventually be mandatory. No amount of errors, no matter how serious can convince them that ending the tests here and going back to the drawing board is necessary. If the problems get too serious, they simply ignore them. As an example, you can see WT:Flow#Deletion of Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Flow test, the results of their first and only test to delete a Flow page here (forced by an MFD). The results are a complete disaster, but not a single WMF member has responded to this. They are fast to mention when something seems to work, or when something is not a Flow error but an Echo problem (see this very discussion), no matter if they are right or wrong; but they keep mum about real Flow problems that are rather serious. It's the new Community Engagement Strategy, which is the same as the old one, but with nicer packaging. Our opinion will be asked, and will be ignored if it doesn't fit their needs. Fram (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Flow really reminds me of Skype or a chat-room type of thing I really hope that there is a community discussion on the matter but history has shown with anything that money invested speaks louder than anyone ever could even if it has driven major companies under as a result. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Fram is correct. I transcluded ANI onto the Flow page for lulz. I typed {{WP:ANI}}, only half expecting it to work. I, for one, applaud the WMF on this extension. This might be as much fun as the MoodBar. :D I did also try a second time (this time with a colon "subst" between the left curly braces and WP:ANI), because my phone did not show the transclusion at first. The subst: didn't work. Good luck with all your endeavors and I look forward to the next rollout. :P 2607:FB90:2705:E23E:FD79:23B3:4FBE:79B6 (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

edited. 2607:FB90:270E:5DC6:4D14:C867:C698:A8CB (talk) 08:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• So, let's see here: No edit summaries were used, as those don't exist in Flow - So, not using edit summaries is considered disruptive, but now they want to make all discussion pages so that you can't use them? Flow pages can not be deleted, and protection only works after a fashion (or sometimes not at all) - So we won't be able to delete talk pages when we need to move them in order to move pages? This is a good idea why? The current discussion system is not broken. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, what The Bushranger said. GiantSnowman 08:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Usually, edit summaries on talk pages are just something like "cmt" or "re", and a lot of the time they are left out altogether. You only really need them when you're doing something unusual like changing auto-archive settings. Do we really want to force users to type "cmt" or "re" every time they leave a Flow message? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• There is quite some room between "force" and "don't allow". No one is forced to use edit summaries now, but that's not the same as no longer allowing them at all. Fram (talk) 09:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Speak for yourself; I try to give something better than cmt, re, etc. most of the time when I'm on a talk page... it's useful for people who have the talk page watchlisted. Particularly if I make what I consider a strong point, I try to summarize it so watchlisters have a chance of reading it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we take this off of the wiki until things like protection work? Chillum 08:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Obviously Flow is broken. Epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thirded, pro forma, not that the WMF will care. BethNaught (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

What is needed to close this down on enwiki?

Considering the discussion here, and the reactions on WT:Flow and the test pages, I would like to know something.

@Erik Moeller (WMF), Philippe (WMF), and DannyH (WMF): (feel free to notify other WMF people if necessary): what would convince you to remove all Flow test pages from enwiki for the time being, and to come back, once all major functionalities have been built and tested and all major bugs fixed, to get consensus to re-enable it? This discussion? A vote? An ArbCom case? Something else? Fram (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Can the WMF at least protect or otherwise limit editing of those pages to a very narrow group of users? I'm not at all technically adept, but it sure looks that incident provides a road map for vandals to abuse the notification system, if not render it almost useless. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Over the last day or so, a couple of vulnerabilities in the way that Flow uses Echo mentions were found by users testing the limits of the system. A user transcluded a busy talk page into a Flow message, and sent a lot of Echo pings to users who hadn't used Flow before. We've identified those problems, and we're currently writing and backporting fixes that should take care of those holes by the end of the day.

After the current fixes are deployed, we'll keep monitoring and getting feedback. If we see that there are still cases where a significant number of users are being distracted or impeded from doing their work, then we have a few options that we can use, starting with protecting the test pages.

There's still a lot of work to be done on Flow, including some major features that haven't been built yet. That's why it's currently deployed on a small number of test pages, here and on a few other wikis. Definitely let us know if you see more problems that are currently distracting people who aren't choosing to participate on the test pages. Being unfinished, or unpopular with some people, isn't necessarily a sufficient reason to pull the test pages. DannyH (WMF) (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@DannyH (WMF): Thank you for once again ignoring the big question. Can you please respond as to what level of community agreement would be necessary to withdraw Flow. BethNaught (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I was going to wait and see the reaction to BethNaught, but really... "Over the last day or so, a couple of vulnerabilities in the way that Flow uses Echo mentions were found by users testing the limits of the system. " Really? The last day or so? Have you read Wikipedia talk:Flow/Archive 8#Flow + Echo = Error? from 5 February 2014? As for "users testing the limit of the system", first this was far from a test of the limits of the system (although it's nice that typing ten characters into Flow is already testing the limits, and second if you don't do this kind of tests before going live, then don't be surprised that it happens here (isn't that what you actually wanted?) When you release software, don't just test whether it works as expected when people use it in the right manner (which it doesn't anyway), but also test whether it is fool- and vandal-proof. No, you can't predict everything. But this test was extremely simple, and had been done with disastrous results seven months ago already. Fram (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"Being unfinished, or unpopular with some people, isn't necessarily a sufficient reason to pull the test pages". Maybe, maybe not. But having security flaws that lead to disruption of other users' work is a reason not to deploy software on a production system. Deltahedron (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Aside from active dangers such as security flaws, we really shouldn't attempt to stop a test midway through; it's not like a deployed thing that is demonstrably causing problems. Where are the security flaws here? I've read through this section but didn't notice anything about security flaws until this most recent comment. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, this latest piece of vandalism used a known existing bug to produce numerous bogus notifications with no obvious provenance to uninvolved editors. I call that a security flaw: a trivial edit that produces a disproportionately disrruptive effect. Deltahedron (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I hear "security flaw" and think something with password theft, unexpected auto-logging-out of editors, etc. Nyttend (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an unfortunate distraction. I'm sorry for the disturbance. The fix is going to be deployed to en.WP in about two hours. I can't really speak to bug reports that were filed in February; this became a top priority issue when we saw the abuse happening overnight, and we're releasing the fix in the earliest deployment window. Again, I'm sorry that there was this distraction that got in the way of people's work. DannyH (WMF) (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@DannyH (WMF): I think you guys really need to do more tests and fixes on flow, I will approach it with an open mind in the future but I cant say im big on it being in the form of a chatroom type of thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@DannyH (WMF): I also think you have still an unanswered question. Just say if it's not up to you, then we'll ask someone else. BethNaught (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Erik Moeller (WMF) and Philippe (WMF): perhaps either of you can answer the question DannyH has so nicely ignored twice (which is a quite clear answer in itself)? What would convince you to remove all Flow test pages from enwiki for the time being, and to come back, once all major functionalities have been built and tested and all major bugs fixed, to get consensus to re-enable it? This discussion? A vote? An ArbCom case? Something else? Fram (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I cannot express how offensive it is to have a very reasonable question asked and to get an answer that does not address it at all. The complete disregard for consensus and seemingly intentional failure to communicate significantly compounds the technical failures of this flow project.

Frankly if not for the fact that they are apparently beyond community checks and balances this project would not be allowed on this wiki in its current state. This sort of behavior would not be tolerated from a user lacking special status from the foundation, people are often blocked for forcing their desired version of Wikipedia against consensus. There is much talk about working with the community but the actions of those imposing flow on us shows that this is lip service only.

I fear that the answer is not forthcoming because the answer is that there is nothing we can do to stop them. I think they have every intention of continuing regardless of the opinion of the volunteers who wrote this encyclopedia. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 04:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

At this point it's in early development and used on three production pages and one test page. The main reasons to disable it would be:

1) The two WikiProjects or the Co-op page participating it in the trial want it turned off. In that case we'd disable it for those talk pages and help them convert back to the old format, no questions asked.

2) It's causing continued problems for people not participating in the tests. We deployed fixes for the issues reported here today (by limiting post size and pings). Any remaining issues with pingspam, AFAICT, could equally easily be exploited anywhere else. Page protection should be working in case of emergency (this was also improved recently). What other issues are there that are dealbreakers for having this small number of pages Flow-enabled?

Disabling completely is on the table if there are dealbreaker issues for users not participating in the tests that can't be easily fixed. We can test in other contexts (e.g. smaller wikis where people are willing to play with it) to iron out issues. So this is not a matter of pride or anything. We want to do the right thing, both for the users on en.wp who want to play with it and for the larger community who's concerned about system-wide impact.

Thanks, --Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

No thanks. You are giving reasons to turn it off. I'm not asking about those. What you present is we find bugs, and you decide if they are serious enough. What I want to know is what kind of community process is expected to be sufficient to make it clear that enwiki at the moment no longer wants to test this or to host these test pages. Whether you agree that the issues are serious or not is completely besides the point, and is still you imposing your will instead of listening to what the community wants. I'm not saying "turn it off", I'm not saying "the community wants you to turn this off", I am asking what kind of community input would be considered a sufficient consensus for the WMF to turn it off. Your reply seems to be "no input will ever be sufficient if the WMF decides to continue the tests". It is not up to you to decide whether e.g. requests to only have once the promised "you-can-convert-back-to-wikitext" really works are sufficient, or whether requests to have working history, contributions, or functions like undo, rollback, delete, ... are sufficiently serious; if the feeling here is that these, individually or taken together, are sufficient to end the test, then you should end the test, without ifs or buts. Fram (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Fram, I think you did get an answer about the kind of consensus that would be needed. The consensus would have to come from the wikiprojects dealing with the affected pages, unless there are sufficiently bad bugs to affect people in other places. This is a bit different from normal en.wp practice where wikiprojects don't have special authority (LOCALCONSENSUS) over the pages they support, but it's not unreasonable in itself, and might reflect normal practices on other wikis. Anyway you can't really say your question wasn't answered. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

But that's of course not how it works. A project can not decide to keep working with a tool or product if the general consensus is that the tool should not be deployed on enwiki anywhere. Furthermore, the tool does affect other people, not only through the pings but e.g. also through (at least) one person getting edits in his contribution list that he never made. Fram (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Or to put it differently: the projects can ask for it to be turned on or off, no problem; unless the community (in whatever form, see my initial question) decides that for whatever reason, justified or not they no longer want Flow anywhere on enwiki. The WMF is encouraged to join the discussion, convince us that we are making a bad decision, show where our arguments are wrong; but in the end, it's not their turf, it's not their decision that we have to keep testing this on enwiki. Fram (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You're now saying you don't like the answer, which is different from saying you didn't get an answer, so ok, that's a reasonable point to proceed from. But no, I don't believe the wiki software or even the editing culture is "our turf". Those of us (including me) who still edit here are just a self-selected group of fuckups. The community has shown consistent incompetence on the technical side and gradual degeneracy into a morass of bureaucracy and COI on the content side, so I think we need a shake-up. The project's real stakeholders are its readers and the world at large, and when the WMF and the community disagree on what's better for the world, I'm not going to automatically assume the (dysfunctional) community is right. On technical matters the WMF has a good track record, so I tend to cut them some slack when they make an error here or there. Erik: I'd be interested to know why this feature has to be tested on en.wp instead of on meta or someplace like that. The issue of revdel raised by Bushranger also seems important. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that I don't consider it an answer. If the answer is "the community has no say in this, it's the projects on individual basis and the WMF for the whole test", then let them say so outright. Then I will be dissatisfied with the answer, but we will have gotten one. The current reply seems to imply the answer I just presented, but is absolutely not clear on it. Fram (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The projects are part of the community, of course. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Let's ask an additional simple question, as well. At WP:FLOW, it states that Flow is intended to replace - fully, I presume - "the current Wikipedia talk page system". I see above, statements that Flow pages cannot be deleted.

The simple question is this: is it true or is it not that Flow pages cannot be deleted?

And as a follow-up: if the answer is 'they can', is this 'by anyone who can currently delete a Wikipedia page', or does it require additional procedure?

And thirdly (which just occured to me): is it possible to perform Revision Deletion on Flow discussion pages?

If the answer to any of those questions is 'no', then Flow CANNOT be utilised on Wikipedia, full stop, because the deletion of discussion pages is often necessary as part of routine maintenance by admins (page moves, etc.), and revdel ability on talk pages is something that is (far-too-)often required by WP:BLP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

People will be able to delete Flow boards. Right now, the only way to turn a Flow board on is for a developer on the Flow team to enable it on a single-page basis. One of the developers is in the process of creating a Special page that will allow people with the appropriate user rights to enable Flow on an existing page, or create a new Flow page. That system will also include the ability to reverse this -- to convert an existing page back to the way that it was, or to delete the new Flow page. That ability isn't currently in admins' hands, because, as people have correctly pointed out, Flow isn't ready for widespread use. DannyH (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

In your last sentence, there is no logical link between the first part and the last, despite the "because" you interjected. The reverse of that sentence, that Flow isn't ready for widespread use because (i.a.) no admin tools are available would be correct. But that's not a reason not to have them now. On the contrary, there is already a page where the ability was needed, but it turned out to go all haywire. Please don't try to answer pertinent questions with illogical statements. Fram (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I was approached a few months ago to test Flow's integration with checkuser and oversight. I found a number of major bugs that were blockers for any kind of deployment, and those were fixed within a few weeks. I also found a number of minor bugs which were less important. It was my opinion at the time that after those major bugs were fixed then Flow's integration with the checkuser and oversight extensions was good enough for the limited test deployments that were proposed. To date, I've seen no evidence that this functionality isn't good enough for these test deployments. So, as a checkuser and oversighter, I'm satisfied for now. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Just for the avoidance of any potential issues, I'd like to explain my non-response... I'm not on the product team, and have zero input into what it would take to get to the action Fram originally asked. It's outside of my department, team, and expertise. :-) I wasn't dodging the question, it's just not within my line of work. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Philippe, your user page says "My role is to serve as an advocate for and to the Wikimedia community." Which of those processes would it need for it to become clear to you that you should advocate on our behalf to "get to the action Fram originally asked"? Or what other scenario, if none of those? Begoon ^talk 18:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Huh. Quite right. My userpage needs updating. Since the addition of the Community Engagement (Product) team, that advocacy role has been subdivided. I'll make that change; I can certainly understand the confusion. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

At this point, unless there is some action that requires intervention by an administrator, perhaps the discussion should continue at Wikipedia talk:Flow or mw:Talk:Flow. Deltahedron (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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

JoinTial‎

The following discussion is closed. 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, recently blocked editor is now abusing talk page can someone pull talkpage as well. Have messaged blocking admin but no response yet. Amortias (T)(C) 22:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Scratch that its just been done. Amortias (T)(C) 22:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Recruitment?

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

---

Having just read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#The ACS, it is surely recruitment and a breach of the no promotions policy. Moreover, the opening post in the topic seems to contravene WP:DENY. Should it all be removed? GnGn (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It's harmless and not overt.--v/r - TP 21:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Protonk (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Sandra Bussin

Sandra Bussin was protected from editing by User:Bearcat due to a brief edit war, yet there is no expiry for the protection, and there has been no response to my latest discussion on the talk page. PortugalPepe (talk) 04:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

What's the rush? the panda ₯’ 07:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: Don't EW-protected ṕages usually have expiry dates of a week or so? Epicgenius (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, oftentimes. It can always be amended, although in this case it might be necessary to keep it locked throughout the upcoming municipal elections. My point is that there's no rush - wait until Bearcat has had a chance to answer - a couple of days won't make a difference the panda ₯’ 18:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's not a problem, as DP points out. But I will reiterate my position that indefinite protection for articles (or anything where you don't actually expect the protection to last forever) is not a good practice. If it's expected that an article will need protection for some rough period of time then just guesstimate and set a reasonable expiry date. That way if you take a break or what have you there's no situation where another admin has to interpret your intent and needlessly reverse an admin action. Protonk (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  So by "indefinite protection", "pick an expiry date later" is meant, not "never going to be unlocked". Got it. Epicgenius (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  Sometimes "indefinite" means "never going to be unlocked", see widely used templates as a good example. I just mean that ideally every admin action should be one which does not invite or require a reversal in a reasonable scenario. Meaning if I protect the article on Tulips indefinitely I should only do so if I think that the passage of time is not likely to alter the reason for protection. Otherwise at some point I have to remove or modify the protection or (more likely) someone else is tempted to do the same but has to worry if I'll get upset at the change. In practice we can (and do) resolve this by communicating w/ the admin taking the original action but it's much, much better for the original action to not require that communication or reversal. So instead if I protect Tulips for 2 days odds are after those two days the reason for protection will have diminished and the action will resolve itself on its own. If inside those two days someone feels that the protection should be removed (or extended) then a discussion can happen about that--great, the system works! But indefinite protection requires such a discussion regardless of the underlying circumstances or the passage of time. In an extreme case where I'm not willing to modify the protection someone has to bite the bullet and reverse my action against my will because the alternative (an article being protected forever) is untenable. That's not a wheel war but it's the first step toward one. Our best practices should push us away from that scenario wherever possible. Protonk (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Editor ignoring repeated requests

The editor User talk:D47817 consistently ignores my requests to stop reverting formatting changes made to the article DB Schenker Rail (UK) - requests made on the users talk page, and on the article talk page.

There actions are counterproductive - essentially the last 2 or more days I've had to clean up after unneccessary edits to the named article, all of which were reversions to work I had done. Although the editor makes useful contributions, they are ignoring my requests to "play nice" with other peoples work.

Also possible sockpupptettry - the editor keeps reverting to a non standard reference form that ignores the proper title , and reverting to a category formatting that ignores guidelines:

User talk:D47817 A B

User:Bbjet A B

The edits are similar, and the form of replacement is identical. Both editors were requested by me repeated times to stop various counterproductive actions - requests which were ignored.Prof.Haddock (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Same user is now edit warring - on the point of citation titles eg - the editor is replacing the obvious page title in the title field, with an abstract of the page contents. Prof.Haddock (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Prof.Haddock is getting upset when I replace a dead link with a live one that is not in his/her preferred format. I consider the formatting of cites secondary to including the cites in the first place. Yes some of my posts may inadvertently have overridden his or others work, yet some of his posts have done likewise to my posts. Overall I have taken the number of cites from 60 to 100 on the DB Schenker Rail (UK) article and it appears the editor is unwilling to accept some of these changes. D47817 (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't reverted any of your positive additions. The insinuation that I am acting in bad faith just more low level abuse. The issue is that you keep reverting my work, and have ignored repeated requests not to do so.Prof.Haddock (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There was no insuation that deletions were deliberate, merely an occupational hazard when editing, which I just dealt with without fuss. Guess I should be greatful I wasn't addressed a cunt as Prof.Haddock did when recently addressing another editor.[100] Maybe someone is getting a bit stressed and needs a wikibreak? D47817 (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Admin threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Minor misunderstanding clarified. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Would an uninvolved admin please take a look at this edit? User:Andrevan is explicitly threatening using his admin tools in order to enforce his preferred version of an article. This seems like a blatant misuse of admin privileges. StAnselm (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hm, that's not what "explicit" means. I didn't use any admin tools nor did I threaten to; I made an oblique reference to means and mechanisms. Note that I have stopped edit warring and slapped an NPOV tag on the article. "Engage in the mechanisms" refers to starting RFCs or coming to noticeboards like these. I would however love if someone would come by and explain WP:RNPOV and WP:RS/AC to these folks. Andrevan@ 10:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You said "I have an argument and the means to pursue the accomplishment of policy-driven goals". That is clearly referring to something I don't have - namely, admin tools. And then you explained that you were, in fact, making a threat: "Yes that is a threat - a threat to engage in the mechanisms which enforce policies like those quoted above." Personally, I think that is appalling behavior from an admin, but of course that would be for the community to decide. StAnselm (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The means I have which you lack are primarily that I have a logical argument, familiarity with this system and policies, and the ability to make some noise. Perhaps I left this hanging threat ambiguous, but you know full well I could not follow through on a use of admin tools in this case. The edit warring I've already done is in bad form as it is considering I began as the formal mediator of this dispute. Even assuming I were referring to admin tools, that would be implicit, not explicit. If I were going to block you or protect the article I could have done that already. Andrevan@ 10:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It's not explicity what Andrevan was referring to by "means to pursue" could be admin tools, could be anything else, however would the original edit war and underlying conflict not be better resolved with an RFC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs)

• Comment To editor Andrevan: - the only "ability to make some noise" that you have and St Anselm doesn't comes from your status as an Admin. As you admit goading St Anselm into edit warring maybe it's time you took a step back, some deep breaths, and came back later when you're a little calmer? DuncanHill (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Andrevan said "If you and your sock/meatpuppets keep this up I will have no choice but to pursue other means. Yes that is a threat - a threat to engage in the mechanisms which enforce policies like those quoted above." "The mechanisms to enforce policies" are as said above RfCs and noticeboards. What I see here is a big lack of good faith on the part of the OP. He has also made it clear that he feels he was and should not have been edit warring - what more could he say? Both parties need to take a deep breath and move on. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• • @StAnselm: While I do understand that the statement could be interpreted as threatening admin tools in fact that is not what it meant. Because Andrevan has been actively involved in editing the article, he is involved and thus precluded from using admin tools. I hope that Andrevan takes a deep breath and approaches this in a calm manner. However the statement essentially says that Andrevan has a lot of experience and knows how to navigate the dispute resolution mechanisms.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: There have been chippy threats to other editors as well. diff I asked Andrevan what hat he is wearing here diff1 and his reply was that he is here to mediate diff2 I pointed out that one person asked him to intervene on their behalf and that is not mediation. diff3 He retaliated by stripping the tags off my talk page.diff4. Andrevan has repeatedly issued talk page warnings and taken actions consistent with an admin enforcing policy. I pointed out on the article talk page that it is considered admin misconduct to advocate for a preferred version of content and wear the admin hat at the same time. diff5 The issue at hand is conduct unbecoming an admin, per expectations of adminship. Ignocrates (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

While not a threat to use admin tools in a dispute it was worded in a way that could cause one to think that. I don't think the OP was unreasonable in their confusion and that Andrevan should be less oblique in his threats. I also think that now that the comment has been clarified that there is nothing actionable against Andrevan. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 16:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Yakupyilmaz

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

---

Yakupyilmaz is vandalising the page Authoritarianism after my warnings and possibly a sockpuppet of those ip vandals (see Authoritarianism: Revision history). Also it occurs that he opened his account only for this reason (check his contribs). elmasmelih 19:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Place to report vandalism is thisaway. Amortias (T)(C) 19:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Anita Sarkeesian, again

Evidently sparked by some YouTube video, disruptive editors are trying to remove[101][102][103] an academic journal as a source from the Anita Sarkeesian article. See also this comment. Semi-protection keeps anons and new accounts from disrupting the article, but JJAB91 is evidently a confirmed account.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• It is time to impose discretionary sanctions of some kind. The comment in the last diff above is "Hi! Just wanted to say, I hope it's well worth your time keeping criticism off Anita's page, because it's coming whether you like it or not. It is out there, it's not being given attention, and we will not give up until it does. What's the point of what you're doing? Are you going to keep this up forever? Who's paying you?". It is not reasonable to ask a couple of volunteers to cope unassisted with the massive misuse of Wikipedia that many want. Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • How about putting flagged revisions on that article? Cla68 (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Good idea - endorsed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Two questions. (1) Who is Carpenter, and why do we care about his perspective? If he warrants an appearance by name and a quote, we ought to explain why he's relevant; nuclear physicists and historians of Late Antiquity are also scholars, but we wouldn't pay attention to their comments on Sarkeesian. (2) Why do you say that it's sparked by a YouTube video? I've never heard of this woman before, so maybe it's an obvious answer to someone familiar with her. Nyttend (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
        • I'll answer 2 for you: She is a noted pro-feminist in video game circles who has a series "Tropes vs Women in Video Games" (ETA: The YouTube video series in question) that points out some of her opinions with how games unfairly treat women (She and her series are notable per WP:N, as many game journalists and developers respect her observations). She is very outspoken in this and her opinions, as such , this series has drawn ire from the "broad" class of gamers to the point that she has been given death threats for speaking her opinion. She is also currently now a side of the GamerGate situation for similar reasons. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Understood; thank you. Nyttend (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
            • Actually, when the OP says a video "sparked" the edits: a Youtube video specifically called out a part of the article for removal (and it was subsequently removed in the diffs from the OP); that's the central point of the discussion at Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian#Batting_against_.2Aexpunged.2A.27s_most_recent_video -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I support flagged revisions on Antia's article, just to cut down edit warring. I'd also suggest the same at Zoe Quinn and, once it's unprotected and assuming it is kept from its present AFD, GamerGate. All three of these are articles that, because their topics involve opinions from sites like reddit and 4chan, are going to be hot topics for at least a few weeks. --MASEM (t) 05:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't see how flagged revisions would help—it will keep ephemeral nonsense off the pages, but the problem is that there are a significant number of active editors who will argue forever that GamerGate must be kept to give the world a lovingly documented list of allegations against two BLP individuals. There needs to be some discretionary sanctions (like WP:MRMPS) so normal procedures are not disrupted. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

        I think discretionary sanctions are (already) available, under the auspices of WP:NEWBLPBAN, if there are admins willing to make judicious use of them. -sche (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

        • Correct, and as a starting point I've placed the BLP/DS notices on this article, as well as Zoe Quinn, Depression Quest and GamerGate. Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

          • Dreadstar had been active in taking on the disruption, but it seems they're on a break right now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Tropes vs. Women in Video Games is now being hit as well. I'd support flagged revisions at both articles - it won't solve all the problems, but it will help us out on some of the minor ones.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I should point out that there is a push by outside groups to "fix" WP's coverage of the various articles above, so anything that will help in the near future with BLP and other types of disruption would be appreciated even if we have to use 1RR prevention on these. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Or just lock them all entirely on WP:THEWRONGVERSION (making sure they're BLP compliant, of course) until this particular teapot's tempest stops whistling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually this is a reasonable step, though in the specific cases of some articles, I would even go beyond BLP and remove things that are leading to this offsite push to change the articles due to percieved bias; specifically removing some statements (even those sourced) of opinion on the matters.--MASEM (t) 15:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that we have involved admins lying and violating wikipedia's policies to protect these articles, I can certainly sympathize with why they might think that the coverage needs "fixed".--211.215.156.184 (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• This has now extended to the Video game journalism article - see this and subsequent edits. Some revdel and page protection would be very nice. I can't do it myself, as I'm involved with this by extension of my work at the Zoe Quinn article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's cool. I just put some GamerGate stuff in with some sauces. That should appease the angry gamer gods, though you should perhaps put a circle of salt around the article with Jack Thompson's still-beating heart at the center to ward off further enraged gaming spirits.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Protection expired today, could someone re-add semi protection or flagged revisions?--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Propose a new notability standard: If the article/subject didn't exist until reddit/4chan/wikipediocracy talked about the subject, it should be speedy deleted/salted. It's either trolling or feeding trolls and will be drama magnet. Feminism, gaming, misogyny, privacy violations of celebrities, etc, already exist in the adult versions in other sources. --DHeyward (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:LIKELYVIOLATION. KonveyorBelt 20:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking more like WP:ITEXISTS. I don't mind the vandalism. It's the vandalism and overhead of a subject that has nothing notable beyond being hated/loved by reddit/4chan/wikipediocracy (and you can add tumblr too). It seems we have a rather large cadre of editors that think WP is the repository for every thing ever fought over at those sites. "Let's document every hashtag ever created on Wikipedia." --DHeyward (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic

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

---

Sourced information (quote from Srdjan Djokovic) was added on Novak Djokovic page about the ancestry of his mother. Soundwaweserb is constantly reverting this sourced information claiming to be a nationalist provocation altough he himself made several nationalist statments on my talk page while refusing to accept the provided source-quote. Please advise. Thank you. With regards,--SadarMoritz (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Such information is not a place on the page! That is incorrect information, a newspaper Kurir not a relevant source. I'd like to stop the attacks on nationalists Wikipedia. Please, do not let this behavior of the user SadarMoritz. Thank you. With regards.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Soundwaweserb, could you explain why you think this newspaper is not a reliable source? (I assume you mean "reliable" when you say "relevant"?) Generally newspapers are considered reliable sources, but there are specific exceptions; can you give clear reasons why this specific newspaper is not reliable? SadarMoritz, I'd like to ask why you believe his mother's ancestry is important. This especially since our policy regarding living persons is fairly clear that we should avoid personal details like ancestry, birthdates, sexual orientation, politics, or religion unless the person himself or herself makes them public. This especially when this information is not related to the individual's notability. We don't need to know his ancestry; he's not the Crown Prince of a monarchy where his ancestry actually affects his notability. --NellieBly (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Because newspapers Kurir is frivolous, tabloid without coverage and in Serbia they are not taken seriously, like Politika or Danas. Especially since this particular information is incorrect, never confirmed, he is not a president or a monarch to his perceived origins. He plays tennis and it has no place on the page. Please do not let the problematic users from Croatian Wikipedia to enter incorrect information.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Can this be handled someplace like WP:RSN? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Misuse of rollback

Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) has misused rollback to revert non-vandalism edits on some 200 articles. Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk · contribs) used AWB to add Category:American films after a brief discussion at WikiProject Film. While there wasn't much time to develop a consensus as to whether he should use AWB to mass-add the category, the category itself clearly states that it is non-diffusing and should be added. BMK mass-reverted these edits. When I told him to stop using rollback to revert non-vandalism, his response was to ban me from his talk page and tell me to "stuff it" because he has more edits than me. I was going to leave this alone, but he seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of when to use rollback. These good-faith edits were clearly not vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Errmmm... In your second contribution to that talk-page you make ANI-threats. Trying to reach consensus does not usually imply acting as if you were the benevolent dictator of Wikipedia. That's Jimbo's job. I can't say your approach is one that engenders any form of consensus and it sure would have antagonized me, too. "Stuff it" seems rather moderate, some terms come to (my) mind that are distinctly less flattering. I don't give a hoot on whether you're "right" or not, but the way you talked to BMK is a surefire way not to get what you want. Next time try asking "What's up, doc?" instead of "telling people" what to do. You may get better results. Kleuske (talk) 07:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, the fundamental misunderstanding seems to be on NRP's part. Rollback is primarily intended to be used for vandalism, but, as stated clearly in WP:ROLLBACK, it is also suitable to be used

To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page

The appropriate explanation is provided on my own talk page.

Having left a comment to User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao on their talk page about their errant AWB edits, the editor responded on my talk page and I replied there as well. There can be no mistaking my response, combined with the rollback-reverts of Ser Anatio di Nicolao's AWB edits, as a clear explanation of what was happening. Certainly Ser Anatio di Nicolao understood, because he stopped making the edits in question almost immediately. It is only NinjaRobotPirate, significantly not one of the two editors actually involved, who seems to have a problem with understanding the use of rollback to undo unwarranted AWB edits.

I do not ask for any sanction against Ser Anatio di Nicolao for the use of AWB for controversial edits (which is not allowed), because I believe that he thought the edits he was making were justified, and I am convinced that he understood completely the point of my rollback-reverts, as he stopped making edits of the type under discussion.

It's worth, I think, talking about the type of edits that I was rolling back. Articles which already were categorized with Category:American Western (genre) films were having Category:American films added to them. It is my understanding that a basic principle of categorization on Wikipedia is that if an article has a child category already on it, a parent category should not be added, and Category:American Western (genre) films is certainly a child of Category:American films.

This is clearly a case of an editor getting poor advice from a Wikiproject and proceeding on that basis to use AWB to make a large number of inappropriate edits, of another editor (me) catching the mistake and using rollback to revert the errant edits, and of a third editor (NinjaPirateRobot) inserting themself into the situation to complicate matters unnecessarily. BMK (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's any problem with BMK's use of rollback in this situation. There is, though, clearly a WP:CIVIL issue in BMK's responses to NinjaRobotPirate - but Kleuske's comments above regarding NinjaRobotPirate's actions here are also valid; NRP clearly antagonised BMK rather than dealing with the situation calmly. I don't think any admin action is needed here but both editors need to cool down a bit and discuss the issue in a much less aggressive way. WaggersTALK 09:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I note here that Ser Amantio di Nicolao plans to resume making these edits in the morning. If he does, I will be asking for his AWB privileges to be removed, as AWB is very specifically not to be used for controversial edits, and the addition of a parent category to an article which already contains a child category is very clearly "controversial". BMK (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• BMK is correct: it is fine to use rollback "To revert widespread edits... provided that an explanation is supplied". By contrast, it is unacceptable to use AWB to add a pointless category after a discussion with two comments. Yes, BMK should not have been uncivil, but what was expected after the ex cathedra statement that BMK was "especially disruptive"? Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'll comment only on the use of Rollback: the use of any automated tool, including AWB, carries a much higher standard of quality to the community. As AWB can literally do hundreds of edits over a few minutes, the hazard to the project is greater. Improper edits using AWB (even if well-meaning) are obviously subject to the use of Rollback as a not-quite-as-quick methods of undoing those hundreds of improper edits. the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ken has missed the point of a long-standing consensus on this issue. It has been discussed at the Film Project many times (example 1, example 2). In the above text he cites the category Category:American Western (genre) films. This is not a sub-category of Category:American films, but a sub of Category:American films by genre, which is explained clearly in the reply in example two by Betty Logan. Maybe Ken should try and gain a consensus with the Film Project to change this? Until he does, then he should not rollback any edits. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • But Category:American films by genre is itself a child category of Category:American films, so the point still stands, whether we're talking about a child category or a grandchild category. The "consensus" at the film project should not override normal Wikipedia-wide categorization procedures, which is not to add a father (or grandfather) category to an article when a child (or grandchild) cat is already there.

    The point is moot, because Lugnuts has himself used rollback to undo my reverts, and I will not, of course, edit war to restore them, but I do note that having been charged with "disruption" for upholding normal procedures, it seems to me somewhat more disruptive on Lugnuts part to make a mass-reversion when discussion is ongoing here. BMK (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

    • Wrong once again, Ken. Disruption is going against the current consensus. Which is what you were clearly doing. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Wrong, User:Lugnuts, going against current consensus is not necessarily disruptive. Maybe the consensus has changed, or the consensus is not in line with policies or guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No issue with the use of rollback, entirely justified by policy. My question is, why don't we remove AWB before the threatened disruption begins again tomorrow? That is the definition of preventative that underlines our blocking policy itself. Daniel (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If the edits are consistent with a long-standing consensus on film categorization, then it is arguably not "disruption". I have no problem with an editor challenging a consensus—that's how we effect change on Wikipedia—but it seems a bit rough to penalize another editor who is editing within the current consensus. If an editor wishes to review or change the way articles are currently categorized then there are several sensible routes: start a discussion at the Film project; start a discussion at the Categorization project; file an RFC at the category itself. However, reverting or preventing editors from normal categorization procedures seems unhelpful at best, and most people would consider disruptive since it makes the categorization inconsistent i.e. the cat should be added to all American films until there is a consensus to remove it from all American films. Betty Logan (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No, User:Betty Logan. One is not adding something when one knows it is discussed, one is not en-masse performing edits to that extend when it is discussed, and one is not reverting removals while it is discussed, it even if a previous consensus (which was a local consensus which seems in conflict with policy and guideline anyway) established that practice. You first re-establish the consensus and check whether that (local) consensus is in line with policy and guideline (or change the consensus there). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

YOU establish that the consensus no longer stands and we will stop adding the category to the film articles. Until that happens it will be business as usual as far as categorization is concerned. Betty Logan (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that that is clear from these discussions: some people have now commented against, which means that the consensus does not stand anymore. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is primarily about the use of AWB/rollback. So far only a single editor is opposing the current system of categorization at the corresponding discussion at WT:FILM, and the world doesn't stop simply because a single person wants to have a discussion. Since when has filibustering become an acceptable tactic on Wikipedia? I'm quite happy for this to be discussed, and if the consensus is to remove the category or to diffuse it then so be it. Even if the consensus is changed then the catgeory will have to be removed from 20,000 articles, so is it much more of a problem if it has to be removed from 21,000 articles, or 30,000? However, if a discussion goes on for weeks then we could end up with hundreds of articles not correctly categorized one way or the other, and going back to articles and adding a missing category is more difficult than removing a catgeory en masse. Betty Logan (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The AWB additions were in good faith, the mass-revert was because it was deemed in contrast with what we have in policy/guideline (even if that has local consensus). Both those actions were 'correct', but since the addition was challenged (yes, challenging something starts with one person) that indeed needs a re-establishment of consensus (and checking whether the local consensus is actually in line with the global consensus). That makes AWB additions controversial (and I am predicting that AWB removals are equally controversial, per my comments below). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my original statements were worded way too harshly. I must have been feeling rather irritable at the time. In the future, I'll try to get more than three hours sleep before I write messages on talk pages. Sometimes I agree with Lugnuts, and sometimes we trade insults. This time, I agree with Lugnuts. There is long-standing consensus at WikiProject Film to add this non-diffusing category to articles; the "non-diffusing" tag was added years ago, and it has, to the best of my knowledge, never been challenged. I thought the AWB action was taken a bit hastily, but there had been an existing consensus for them; I do not see how this can be "misguided". However, it seems like I'm on the losing end of this debate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"Sometimes I agree with Lugnuts, and sometimes we trade insults." Another line to be engraved onto my tombstone. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

All very well for the folks at the Film Project to agree among themselves to operate counter to Wikipedia's normal categorizarion procedures, except that WikiProjects don't really have the authority to do that. BMK (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS may well be relevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, this seems in conflict with the consensus in our policies and guidelines. Can that please be clarified and`/or put in line before editors (re-)add these categories in places where they are controversial? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a non-diffusing category. As per WP:DUPCAT: "They provide an exception to the general rule that pages are not placed in both a category and its subcategory: there is no need to take pages out of the parent category purely because of their membership of a non-diffusing subcategory." There is no conflict with policies/guidelines/general practice here. If editors believe it should be diffused then they should start a discussion about that, but obstructing the addition of a non-diffusing category where is clearly applies is disruptive. Betty Logan (talk) 06:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Non-diffusing categories are not rare. Over 20,000 articles are already in Category:American films—as per long-standing consensus to have film articles in wider by-year, by-country, and by-language categories for ease of navigation—so how could it possibly be controversial to add the few remaining ones? —Xezbeth (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that some people have commented against it now shows that it is controversial .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

So because some people mistakenly believe the edits are controversial, that justifies threatening to remove AWB from someone with nearly 800,000 non-controversial edits? I see. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I said that, nor did I say that that was OK. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, User:Betty Logan, note that categories can be both non-diffusing ánd diffusing at the same time - and I believe that here that is the case, and that because of that the inclusion of the Category:American films is unwarranted in many cases, and should be removed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Armish Smeetesh Patel - User:Smeetesh Patel

Ok. First things first, an SPI is open here. Ok here is the history:

• User:Smeetesh Patel creates Smeetesh patel
• An AFD is opened
• Smeetesh patel moved to Smeetesh Patel
• AFD closed as Speedy delete - both Smeetesh patel and Smeetesh Patel deleted under G3
• 3 hours later Smeetesh Patel was created by User:Smeetesh Patel
• Smeetesh Patel deleted under G3
• User:Smeetesh Patel blocked for 48 hours
• Smeetesh patel recreated by User:Armish Smeetesh Patel (an account created in December 2013)
• Smeetesh patel deleted - G4
• Smeetesh patel recreated by User:Armish Smeetesh Patel
• SPI opened
• Smeetesh patel - deleted
• Smeetesh patel - SALTed
• User:Armish Smeetesh Patel - blocked for 24 hours

My recommendations:

• SALT Smeetesh patel -  Done by Deb
• SALT Smeetesh Patel  Done
• Indef block User:Smeetesh Patel for block evasion  Done
• Indef block User:Armish Smeetesh Patel as a sockpuppet - come on the SPI result is kinda of obvious  Done
• Do an IP-range block so more socks aren't created of different IPs

-- NickGibson3900 ^Talk 10:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Just to confirm your second recommendation probably wants to be SALT Smeetesh Patel. And looks good to me. SPACKlick (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep NickGibson3900 ^Talk 10:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The IP check will have to be done by a checkuser, obviously - I have done the others. Black Kite (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikihounding

From: WP:WIKIHOUNDING

'Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.'

(...)

'The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.'

I kindly request the admins to have a look at redlink user:Tiptoethrutheminefield's edit history, attitude towards me and the language they use in referring to me in discussions and edit summaries.

I already warned them enough and indeed they believe they are harassed by me and were going to report me (I am taking the trouble in their name) so please also look at my behaviour against them and tell me my faults.

Thank you very much and regards to all. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I am reporting a user for the first time, so I may have made mistakes. Sorry. (I hope I will never again disturb this board.)

While Tiptoe shouldn't have called your warning WP:vandalism, there was zero reason to reverted their removal of your warning which you appear to know they were fully entitled to do by the WP:TPG. At worst, you should have left a simple message on their talk page something similar to in the summary. Nil Einne (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Why should I have a User Name? has placed multiple "warnings" postings on my talk page: [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109]. When I told him that his reverting of material that I had deleted from my talk page amounted to harassment, his response was "challenge accepted"! [110], and those numerous "warnings" he put on my talk page is also a form of harassment (according to WP:HUSH). He posts similar warnings on the pages of other users as well, such has [111], [112], [113], [114]. Rather than try and justify edits through talk page discussion, Why should I have a User Name? trys to silence those who reject his edits by posting these sort of messages on users pages. Of course he is every bit as involved in any on-going editing issues as the recipients of his messages - that is why I called them vandalism, and I think they are a misuse of Wikipedia form messages.

Many of Why should I have a User Name?'s interactions with editors consist of threats of Wikipedia sanctions or insults, he regularly misuses edit summaries to make them the delivery method: take these examples from the last month: "This is your last warning. One more POV edit and you will find yourself before a board defending yourself", "Go to discuss somewhere else and please do not threaten other users; you may get blocked", "Rv disruptive edit by Wikihound troll", "we have a right to expect some seriousness", "You cannot make the articles your own, in WP. Better make your own encyclopedia or participate in a forum where you can act the way you like, here there are rules to obey", "you are stealing the article! Please edit in a resonable and NPOV manner", "Please read our guidelines and try to understand how WP functions", "For User Alessandro57: Actions speak louder than words", "Comment to the 'creator' of the article", "Keep your OR to yourself", "1. First learn to sign your talk. 2. Read my page and review my edits before making stupid images of mine in your head. 3. Please do not come back here", "Read my contributions and TP before I take you somewhere", "You are trying to "own" the article and edit warring. You are trying to make a tailored suit, ignoring WP rules and practice and are about to be reported for disruption. So please stop absurd editing.", "Talk page only for civilized users".

I have been following some of Why should I have a User Name?'s edits because he makes lots of AfD proposals, some of which I feel are unjustified, he regularly deletes material from articles on the grounds that they are unreferenced (rather than posting a fact tag beside that content), and he regularly deletes material that has been fact tagged without ever bothering to find sources. On occasions I have restored content that he has deleted, giving that material new sources, sources that could have been easily found by Why should I have a User Name?, and on occasions I have opposed his AfDs, in most cases successfully. If required, I can provide many diffs illustrating these sort of edits and I don't think they come under wikihounding - they were not done for no overriding reason. I have concerns about this editor's editing style - he seems far to eager to delete and almost never uses article talk pages. This talk page thread shows my very first interaction with this editor [115].Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The case of harassment against me is so clear that I was intending not to comment anything here, but I cannot accept sheer lies like our very first interaction is being postponed five months when, indeed, it may have taken place in April 2014 instead of September 2014 as claimed. Therefore, some user either has a very weak memory or... (Note: I only responded to one simple claim. The only thing I want is to be left alone by this user, and not discussing their other claims.) Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The link I gave was to a July interaction, not a September one. But yes, I had forgotten all about this earlier one. Though I am surprised you brought it up - it shows all of your editing mistakes: you made major content changes without discussing anything on talk pages, you made threats of "reporting" people, you made bad-faith statements against editors, you refused compromises, you continued edit warring. If you want your edits to be left alone, just start to edit more carefully and responsibly. [[[User:Tiptoethrutheminefield|Tiptoethrutheminefield]] (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Regular repeat of EW by User:151.225.63.6 at Sam Parnia

It seems 151.225.63.6 (talk · contribs) is engaged in a long term slow edit war at Sam Parnia. Please see the 3RR NB filing here for a clear example of EW that occurred last month, resulting in the article Sam Parnia being semi-protected for ten days. Note the reinsertion of the same OR on 15 September diff and the repeat of the removal of the same material diff on the same day. Note this behavior began before the 3RR filing: August 1 diff, diff essentially the same edits and August 8 diff, diff. As this editors contributions seem to consist of only these same two edits with comments on two user talk pages diff, diff. No engagement on the talk page of the article. No response on the editor's talk page where multiple notices and warnings have been placed. It seems this editor is not here to improve the encyclopedia. More than one editor feels these edits constitute vandalism and have expressed frustration at dealing with the same actions repeatedly link. Essentially the same edits were made by 151.228.53.231 (talk · contribs) on May 24 and 25 diff, diff, diff. I don't know what the best remedy here is, but I would suggest a topic ban. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The user never responds to messages. Since the problem has continued for several months I've semiprotected Sam Parnia for a year. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat and edit warring by User:‪107.133.164.7‬

The IP user ‪107.133.164.7‬ has been edit-warring over the article Art Bell. They were 3RR warned to stop adding unsourced information to the article.[116] They responded on their talk page with a legal threat. [117] --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Now they've gone one further: diff2.--Auric talk 15:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

They were just blocked for a week. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Dusti - and thanks to Stephan Schulz for the quick block. And I see that someone did revert their SEVENTH addition of unsourced information to the Art Bell article. (They claim personal knowledge.) Wikipedia can move quickly when it has to. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd substitute "when it has to" with "sometimes", but in this case, yes. WP:NLT is very clear. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Quick attention to an edit summary

May I have this edit summary blanked? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Might as well revdel the whole thing since it's an automated edit summary based on a section heading. I'm sure it qualifies for WP:RD2. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No argument from me! (Though - it may come in handy one day as evidence of the chronic abuse inflicted by this particular editor.) JohnInDC (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete on the basis that they can't spell "motherfucker"? Kids these days. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked IP and revdel'd two summaries and contents. Naughty kid. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 16:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, he's got very bad manners. JohnInDC (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Avenger2015 - Third submission

Avenger2015 has twice been blocked for failing to edit per MOS:TV. In these 15 edits they again submit a voice cast list that duplicates content found at List of Generator Rex characters, and include indiscriminately minor characters who would typically not be noteworthy. User has never responded to discussion or warnings and they appear to be here to edit per their own POV. I should also mention that there was a long-term vandal who had similar behaviors, though I have not pursued a SPI case. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Voice Cast Vandal Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. All I am trying to do is provide accurate information on the cast list of multiple tv shows like Generator Rex. Could you please explain the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avenger2015 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The issues have been explained numerous times in detail on your talk page. You are adding duplicate content against the Manual of Style for Television; the content you are submitting is unsourced; you are adding insignificant characters like Male Parent #1, Child #4, which conflicts with "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"; you refuse to discuss your edits when they are challenged; you are ignoring consensus and appear to be editing per your own point of view and preference. I find it difficult to believe that you've received numerous warnings, have been blocked twice for this behavior, but are somehow oblivious to what the problem is. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

1,300 edits, 5 months, dozens of requests on the user's talk page, two blocks and three AN/I cases are all it took to get a first non-article space edit. Avenger2015, what finally got your attention? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User still doesn't acknowledge the full problem and I think a disinterested admin should offer some guidance. [118] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Npk Twice

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

---

Hello Admins, over the past few days Kasirap (talk · contribs) has been re-creating Npk twice, Npk Twice and now NPK Twice, after an AfD result was to delete despite being told that "there does not seem to be any connection between the statements in the article and the citations to them".. could they all be SALT'ed please? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done That plus a 1-week vacation from creating any more inappropriate pages the panda ₯’ 21:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

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

User:SchroCat and User:Cassianto

The following discussion is closed. 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 apparent tag team has turned uncivility into a habit. As they have shadowed and dittoed one another's edits when attacking an editor like me or others, the team label seems appropriate.

They do this primarily on talk pages, and a review of their style of comments will show a continual and long-term misuse of talk pages for making personal attacks, boastfully assuming bad faith, and generally engaging in discussions in an uncivil manner, all of which amount to disruptive editing.

In reviewing, please also note that while PAs, etc. are frequent, there is never a counter-attack or reason to attack an editor to begin with. It's simply their method of discourse which has become so expected that I usually ignore them. However, their most recent comments on Peter Sellers talk has been noted with disgust by a new editor to the article, User:Wordreader, who wrote, "I find the comments of SchroCat and Cassianto to be disparaging and rude." I personally am embarrassed that WP is shown in such a poor light.

For the record, while I'm posting this issue, I don't expect any censure of any sort against them. Their blatant PAs have appeared on talk pages with hundreds of watchers and many long-term wikipedians also commenting, and most seem to cower and say nothing, effectively giving their PA style tacit approval.

Just a few the diffs from various talk pages.

Peter Sellers talk

1. diff 9/2014
2. diff 9/2014
3. diff 9/2014
4. diff 6/2013
5. diff 7/2013
6. diff 8/2012
7. diff 8/2012

Stanley Kubrick talk

• diff 8/2014

Charlie Chaplin talk

• diff 11/2013

Light show (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Lightshow, you have engaged in endless sniping during the Sellers re-write—sniping that has lasted from mid-2012 to date—and managed to turn the work on the Sellers article into the most unpleasant editing experience I have experienced on Wiki, and you are the one that has managed to suck the joy out of that process. Your behaviour on the article has been so bad that a topic ban has been mooted here more than once.

This is yet another re-hash of a previous visit to ANI (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive252#Request to censure personal attacks and harassment re: Peter Sellers article which was quickly dismissed, as was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Request review of personal attacks. A trawl through the Sellers talk page will show everything from Lightshow/Wikiwatcher's abuse to passive-aggressive sniping that merits a topic ban on Sellers. Requests for him to take Sellers off his Watchlist have proved fruitless, and a ban might be the best way forward here.

Finally Lightshow, numerous people commenting against you isn't tag teaming: it's people disagreeing with you, based on the fact that you're not a very good editor. – SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Dare I say it, but I agree with my fellow tag-teamer. From the moment we touched upon Sellers to this very day, Lightshow has done nothing but condemn, snipe, and criticise all the hard work that we have put into it. We have taken Sellers from the lowly depths of C-class to the heights of FA which Lightshow disagrees with; he/she has done nothing in terms of helping with the articles development. Instead, they keep the article on their watch-list hoping that one day, someone will come along who is as like-minded as they are and join their "this article is shit" gang. Until then, every time a new editor comes to the page with a question, Lightshow seizes upon the opportunity to bad mouth the article and the two of us. Frankly this ANI is pretty wasted, but nothing unusual as this is always how dealing with them ends up. Pathetic! Cassianto^talk 08:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Gentlemen, your PA phrasings and word choices have become so similar and repetitious, I'd like to suggest a new one you can freely use with my full approval: Sucker. When you first started editing Sellers, you both honestly had me going for a while, with Schrocat writing friendly notes like:

"Hi WW, Sorry for taking so long to get back to you - a brief holiday intervened! I think the article is broadly OK, but it doesn't hang together well at the moment—I think because of the alterations of passing editors. The overall structure is also broadly OK, although we need a few tweaks ("Acting technique and preparation" is in the middle of the chronological run through of his life, for example). I suggest that most of what is already there remains and the following structure is used (please let me know if you have any better ideas—this is just an initial suggestion!)"

I assumed your intentions were positive. That was then, this is now. And now you can freely call me "sucker." --Light show (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was friendly: I always am when there is a receptive editor to deal with. Unfortunately you did not prove to be amenable to the development and improvement of the article, and attempted to block every change, edit warring and running spurious RfCs to hamper every step. The RfCs were largely rejected out of hand, and numerous editors advised you to drop the stick, but all to no avail. After such a campaign of negativity, even a saint's patience would have evaporated by now. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Troll elsewhere:your endless bitching and sniping is deep in the territory of tedium, and your toxic rumblings have done nothing positive to this article. You are too bitter about your ownership being swamped by losing in nearly every single RfC you started to ever see anything positive here, and you make yourself look more and more ridiculous every time you post another of your pointless messages, so do yourself a favour and take this off your Watchlist and move on. - User:SchroCat 08:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC) That's not cool no matter what the provocation. If you're that angry step away before typing, regardless of whether you think you're "right".__ E L A Q U E A T E 11:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Neither is two years of trolling, bitching and sniping, but let's just gloss over that behaviour. FWIW, I stand by every word, as it is true, justified and entirely correct. I'll also add that I wasn't angry at all: it was written while I was extremely calm, and is an honest straightforward appraisal of this editors approach both on the Sellers page and elsewhere. – SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This editor appears to be engaged in a form of Wikihounding of those who he either disagrees with or won't let him have his own way, despite rules or consensus. He seems obsessed with the Peter Sellers article and the talk page history shows his many RFCs when that doesn't happen. Here we have one started at Mike Todd over the photo he placed in the infobox. The Sellers obsession is everywhere; up it comes at the Red Skelton talk page.

Those of us who don't agree with him become a Wikimafia in his opinion. From the article sandbox he started: "Obvious problems: You have greatly expanded a clear and brief paragraph into six separate topics, mostly film-related trivia, divided below, all jumbled into one hodge-podge paragraph. Which, btw, is exactly how the demolition of Sellers began. Note also that another editor has joined your team by now tagging the lead image." The infobox photo was a copyvio. He's been unwelome at my talk page since an exchange in March over a Commons-deleted photo ruled to be a copyvio.

As for his complaints about incivility, This comment "BTW, your math is about 3,000% off, since it's closer to 5K at most. Guess math wasn't your favrit subject either, huh doc?" to User:Dr. Blofeld is taunting and rude, yet he's crying about civility. Let's close this misuse of ANI and hope this editor will finally learn how to work congenially with everyone else.We hope (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, in the spirit of congeniality, I'm not sure I ever thanked you for getting me blocked from the Commons, investigated with your CCI, and for tirelessly tagging hundreds of recently uploaded public domain images, currently used for leads or body, with large red warning signs. --Light show (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

To refresh your memory and for the edification of everyone else This is how you got blocked from Commons. We hope (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Your off topic Lightshow. Leave others alone and concentrate on trying to get me and my tag-teamer blocked. Cassianto^talk 16:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It was We hope that decided to join in with his image issues, not me. Nor am I concerned with getting anyone blocked, since you're both obviously immune from even mild censure or criticism. This is a notice board, and it's worth noticing the level of arrogance that has become acceptable. --Light show (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I urge an admin to close this thread asap, obviously there is no action to be taken against Schro and Cass in light of the circumstances.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

In my experience both users indeed act like a tag team, often together with two other editors. The Banner talk 19:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, my other favourite editor how lovely to see you Banner. Cassianto^talk 20:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Can someone co-propose and hopefully support an IBAN here, as I tried to do on Kubrick's talk page? The same three editors, SchroCat, Cassianto, and DrBlofeld, as can be see on Sellers talk, are creating an atmosphere for new editors that does not invite collaboration or goodwill. My proposal to self-impose an IBAN is being ignored. The three editors, I've already pointed out, blitz-edit, comment, and perpetuate uncivililty in an identical team manner, and mock what they know is unacceptable talk page behavior, for example. We don't need to turn away more new editors, we need to attract them. --Light show (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The behavior of SchroCat and Cassianto really sucks. Caden ^cool 01:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Ban User:Light show from editing at the Peter Sellers article

Some of the above comments look pretty bad taken out of context, but entirely understandable when this haranguing has been going on for two years and I think this situation needs some resolution. After SchroCat and Cassianto put considerable effort into taking this article to FA standard (which they successfully steered through an FA review), Light show (under a previous user name) proposed junking all their effort and putting the article back to its C-class version: Talk:Peter Sellers/Archive 2#Is this "Feature Article" incomprehensible?. Now, I think it's fair to say that anyone who sincerely believes that junking an FA rated article is in the best interests of that article probably has nothing more to contribute in a positive way. Therefore I propose an article-ban for Light show: the article, SchroCat, Cassianto and Light show himself would all be better off if they didn't interact any more at that particular article. SchroCat and Cassianto are the ones that got the article promoted so they are best placed to stay and maintain it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. 19:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Non-issue: As Schro-Cass has/have prevented me from adding so much as a comma over the last few years, putting up a no-trespassing sign when the article is already ringed with barbed wire, will add nothing. As the proposer has, in their comment at the link above, accused me of somehow reprogramming Wikimedia and gaming user feedback, I'm not sure their good faith is clear in their proposal. --Light show (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Betty. It's not just the Peter Sellers article though Light show has kicked up a fuss about, it's other articles on film biographies any one of us has been involved with. But all were motivated by the Sellers vendetta he has and it is indeed the Sellers article which creates the bulk of his comments still. An interaction ban banning Light show from editing or discussing any film biographical article primarily written by myself, Schro or Cass would be more appropriate. I support of course, but I fear a ban on just Sellers will prompt petty responses on other articles. I 'd suggest a full interaction ban.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support What Dr. Blofeld has said. The insult difs above took place on the Stanley Kubrick talk page and the sandbox the editor started. While the basis for this is the Peter Sellers article, that rancor has been spread around by him. We hope (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Lightshow, to say anyone has stopped you changing a comma is an untruth. It's also an untruth for you to say that Betty Logan has accused you of anything: she provided you with an explanation regarding the feedback, not accused you of anything. Sadly the two untruths here are just the latest in a string of mud-throwing from you, where you a unable to accept that anyone who disagrees with you on Sellers is part of some massive tag-team. It's time for the community to stop your interaction on the Sellers talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support, needless to say. Lightshow has shown himself to be a thoroughly difficult editor to work with. I'm sure he does some good somewhere, so for that reason I think a full on block is not justified, but I think the ban as proposed above is a great comprise. Lightshow needs to let this one go and accept that the C-class Sellers is a long and distant memory. He also made things difficult for the FA nominator's on Charles Chaplin, but that is a different article altogether. Move on with your wiki-life, for god's sake! Cassianto^talk 21:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on this article and a broader one one should anyone propose it. A read of the relevant talk pages shows a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that makes editing by other members of the community an unpleasant task to say the least. MarnetteD|Talk 21:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think waiting for some neutral editors to review and comment is required, since the editors above, excluding MarnetteD, have in some way, repeatedly attacked the editor, his edits, comments or uploads. There is no way to assume their neutrality. It's also worth noting how the original ANI against their PAs has digressed and been hijacked so easily into blocking the complaining editor. The message is that guidelines about civility, including not using PAs, can be ignored. --Light show (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

this-"I'm glad you found a buddy to cover for you, but this will go to ANI if you can't get over your erroneous edits." and this-"Before posting there, let me know if you've used or are using different usernames, since socks are an exemption to 3RR, and your arrogant style of discourse and warring methods are too similar to previous events." is civility? We hope (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The request, yet unanswered, was reasonable. Unlike this comment, from one of the above team members. And my mentioning his soliciting support there, was also fine. --Light show (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Although I would expand this to include the talk page, as that's where much of the conflict between the three has happened. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support – I concur with Crisco 1492 and the earlier editors supporting the proposed ban. I have not previously encountered Lightshow, but the evidence above and in the pages linked to makes it clear that such a ban is in the interests of good editing and collaborative conduct. Tim riley talk 09:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support – and, yes, it should be extended to the talk page as per Crisco's suggestion; hopefully the dissent will not continue to spill over into the other articles. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This is looking a bit kangaroo here. Looking at the article history, Lightshow hasn't edited the article for about six months. If you look at the history there is a clear pattern of SchroCat reverting all changes made by many other editors to the article during that time. It looks like all edits require SchoCat's explicit approval to be included. Not a very welcoming environment. Dr. Blofield's comment is telling here, wanting to ban someone from discussing any film biographical article primarily written by myself, Schro or Cass. It's hard to read that as anything but a demand for uncontested ownership of certain articles. __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Elaqueate: Frankly I'm sick of your sanctimonious uninformed comments here. You have no experience of what we've had to put up with for two years and it is rather annoying for some holier than thou individual to make judgements. Butt out, please.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Elaqueate, and you are? Cassianto^talk 17:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh! Do you have to be someone to comment here? How is this attitude supposed to convince other uninvolved editors that others weren't similarly "welcomed" on pages you edit? Is this a "closed" !vote? Are we somehow not at AN/I anymore?__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't, no, just stop commenting on things you know bugger all about. Lightshow has a very long history of making snide comments on talk pages of articles, Peter Sellers mainly, but his vendetta has surfaced in article talk pages as diverse as Charlie Chaplin and Stanley Kubrick. It is incredibly annoying to have somebody who has not had to deal with this for the last two years turning up and telling people to be civil or accusing people of OWN. That several very experienced administrators support a topic ban should tell you that this has gone on so long it's time for something to be done about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Just asking who you were, that's all. No need to swing your handbag at me, if anybody has an "attitude" it is you sir. Oh, and FWIW, I'm not here to convince anyone. Cassianto^talk 18:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You were just collegially asking me for my papers, got it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you have got the shitty end of the stick. I didn't know in what capacity you were commenting from; bystander, admin, etc.. But thanks for showing your true colours which owing to the aforementioned shitty stick, is now brown I see. Cassianto^talk 18:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Classy argument.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

and one it appears, you have no business in. Cassianto^talk 19:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I should keep talking to someone who just called me shit?__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Who would that be, because I haven't called you anything. Are you having trouble understanding, or are you only reading what you want to see? Cassianto^talk 20:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to descend into personal attacks it reflects on you more than me. It doesn't improve anything here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll add another question to my a answered "Who would that be?" What personal attacks? Cassianto^talk 20:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the smear, especially as it is catastrophically wrong: I have not reverted "all changes made by many other editors". I have reverted the introduction of errors (grammatical, factual, or use of the wrong ENGVAR elements), which is entirely acceptable, I believe. If I am wrong on that point, please let me know. You are also very wrong to say that "all edits require SchoCat's explicit approval to be included": that utter tripe. It's also not a question of ownership either: it's a question of having to deal with the behaviour of one disruptive editor who has been sniping and trolling on the talk page, not within the article, as well as on other talk pages. – SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Elaqueate: In my experience it is very normal for all the but the highest quality edits to be reverted on a featured article. The standards are very high on those pages. Chillum 14:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum:, you are right that changes to a quality FA should be made conservatively and that most proposed changes should demonstrate they meet that higher standard. I was only commenting that it seemed to be an individual editor that was ultimately judging that quality over a very long period, and that struck me as a bit of a warning flag for possible POV bias, conscious or not. FA doesn't mean perfect or finished.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really. If I had not reverted the poor edits, someone else would have done. I have not reverted any improvements to the article, and it have explained my edits when I have reverted. - SchroCat (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you find your own edits reasonable and necessary. Thanks for sharing that opinion.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not, however, find your smears and untruths to be reasonable or necessary, but you seem to have skated by that. Thanks for sharing and smearing. - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussed editor hasn't edited the article in six months, and the talk page currently only has a total of seven comments. No recent diffs were given in this proposal, but that hasn't stopped people from !voting on it. I can't see that any uninvolved editors have been given any actual evidence, other than being told to "butt out". The only diff given in the proposal is two years old and the user had a different user name (what's the deal with that? Is that public?) __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The change has always been noted at the top of my user page. --Light show (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• As I noted above, it's even worse than a kangaroo court, as I came before this body with diffs to show a lack of civility and habitual flinging of PAs. Yet that original reason has been hijacked into a digressed topic of banning the complaining editor with almost no mention of the original complaint or its validity.

For a current example of how and why Schro-Cass resort to simple name-calling over calmly discussing things, visit the current Sellers talk page, where a new editor, User:MrBalham2, who is trying to point out exactly what I did years ago, is already being badgered and seems to be leaving in disgust. A quick link to what he observes in the article was first pointed out by me here, and the result of that was later pointed out here, which supports his and my observation. But this is not about Sellers, it's about the near total unconcern and ready acceptance of uncivility by this board.--Light show (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

And for the benefit of anyone appreciating some ironic humor, note SchroCat's first reply to the new editor: in the future, please comment on issues, not editors. and his most recent one, I have asked you not to dip into uncivil comments about other editors . . . not just insults to others, when in fact that editor was extra civil. --Light show (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should have considered your own actions before rushing to ANI and posting this hastily added report. As for MrBalham2, they came to Sellers asserting their own POV which has been opposed by SchroCat and I. Their edits are not an improvement, and like you they can't accept that. It's just a coincidence that they are complaining about the same thing as you and they have an unhealthy interest in Sellers. Oh, and they came at the same time as this ANI having never expressed an interest in Sellers before; a bit iffy if you ask me. Cassianto^talk 17:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

An example of iffy is when a new editor, SchroCat, starts working on Peter Sellers, and 5 minutes later, you, another new editor, join in supporting his every edit, comment, and PA from then on. That's what may be called iffy, IMHO. And noting such things can get one banned from a talk page, it seems. --Light show (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

New editor? I have been here since 2010, SchroCat possibly longer. It sounds like you feel aggrieved at us "new" editors coming along and making your shit C-class version into an FA. Careful, your pal Elaqueate may accuse you of ownership if your not careful... Cassianto^talk 18:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

New editors to Peter Sellers article, in case anyone wasn't clear about it.--Light show (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support: Light show's edits and talk page postings at Peter Sellers (and other film biography articles) have been entirely disruptive over a very long period of time, and their behavior is not collaborative, but rather intended to upset other editors and make it so unpleasant for them that they will not challenge his/her edits. I also support the broader interaction ban. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support It is difficult enough to bring an article to FA without someone stepping on your shoes the whole way. Light should contribute to areas completely unrelated to Mr. Sellers. I am not sure about a wider ban, though I think as long as Sellers is not mentioned it may be okay. Repeat performances would likely result in quick consensus for widening the scope. Upon further reading I support a wider ban cover Kubrick and such. Chillum 14:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support and we should probably look at Stanley Kubrick as well. This is a talented and potentially productive editor but needs to learn to work better with others. Over-quoting is a defining and annoying fault, and doggedly defending the over-quoting starts to make other editors think about walking away. --John (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Having seen the present issue spill over to Stanley Kubrick, and judging by other interactions I've had with Light Show which, by no means the same degree that would require any type of action, do point towards a battlefield mentality they hold when they don't get their way. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I've made 517 edits to improve Kubrick, vs. 0 for you. Thanks for your support. I'll also note that Kubrick is a more honest example of how I, and other editors, should collaborate. For instance User:WickerGuy, the primary contributor, began his edits a year and a half before I started editing it. We, and other editors, including MarnetteD, had many discussions during the 8 months or so that it was heavily improved. There was never a heated discussion, no PAs, no uncivility by anyone. After much of the article was improved, WickerGuy even added some positive comments to my talk page. I know how to collaborate and work with other editors. You will not find any accusations about uncivility anywhere since I started editing 7 years ago.--Light show (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's your talk page behavior, eg [119], clearly pitting yourself as one side against Dr. Blofelt and SchroCat, specifically bringing up the Sellers article issues here. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

An odd example, since you agreed with me that he was adding trivia. And under your watchful eye, you've let Blofeld do to Kubrick's personal life material, namely turn it into a choppy hodge-podge, of short, disconnected factoids, exactly as Schro-Cass-Blofeld did to Sellers. Blofeld did that to Kubrick, cutting out 75% of his personal life material, about 2,000 words, under your protection, all in a matter of minutes! All three(?) of those editors use the exact same editing style, and unsurprisingly they all use the same uncivil PA style of discourse in protecting their demolitions. Their comments above prove the point. Nuff said. Kubrick should have stayed in NY.--Light show (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, and I'm sure @John: would agree on this, no personal life section needs to be well over 2000 words!!! I cut it by 75% because it needed such a drastic cut. I haven't got around to writing a decent personal life section yet so obviously it's still not going to read wonderfully well. You're absolutely clueless how to write encyclopedia articles and don't just get that bloat and excess quotes are just not good. An actor dies and there you are adding excess quotes and bloating it out..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Dr. Blofeld—are you really responding to User:Light show? They pointed out that this was all done "in a matter of minutes". Incremental edits are conducive to collaboration. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You can be 100% certain that Blofeld knows exactly what he/they are again doing. The same as they successfully did to Sellers, ie. make it "incomprehensible", by making it unreadable. He/they quickly moved in with chain-saws and earth-movers to demolished 2,000, well-written, fully descriptive words of clear prose about his personal life. They turned it into a pile of rubble, as anyone can read here. The writing quality is enough to embarrass a twelve-year old. And that's probably the idea, IMO. The primary editor of that article had thanked me for improving the personal life material, after months of research and using numerous key sources. Blofeld is now beginning to demolish it like his team did to Sellers. I wonder what Kubrick and Sellers had in common? --20:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the primary editor on Sellers had also thanked me: You added a lot of valuable detail and also some good sources that the article needs—very well done. --Light show (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You're not helping your case by maintaining the battleground attitude here, trying to drag me into this when the only reason I have the Kubrick page on my watchlist was from NFC issues years ago. Yes, some of what Blofeld added was not really well suited, but note the difference between suggesting that trivia be cut down for improvements and holding a grudge from a different article. The ban from editing the Sellers article seems well merited until you can drop this attitude and work cooperatively. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The ban from editing Sellers has been in effect for about two years. Every attempt to change punctuation or almost any other minor change by me or anyone else, has gotten reverted often without the courtesy of a rationale. A new editor tried to make some change yesterday, calmly discussed it, and still got pulverized with uncivility immediately. Maybe we should add the new editor to the proposed ban, just to make sure he doesn't try to improve things again. I do make comments on the Sellers talk page, but banning that kind of activity by a civil editor would amount to eliminating freedom of speech, not something I'm used to on this side of the pond. I do not use uncivil language, which is a bit tricky when pounced on by the PA team. --Light show (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a lie to say there has been a ban on editing the page. Numerous people have improved the article and their edits stand. Those who introduce errors, change spellings (and punctuation) to AmEng variants, or introduce unsupported information or delete sourced information may be reverted, with an explanation. The editor yesterday (with whom the discussion continues) was not "pulverised" with anything, although he has been requested not to make personal remarks about other editors (he is extremely new and has not yet learnt the ropes here). You manage to turn up to pretty much every thread, and will bitch about the article, linking back to one of the many, many RfCs you started during the re-write (which the community decided against your opinion on nearly every one). Your negativity on the Sellers page has been seen in comments on threads on Chaplin, Kubrick, and I think one or two others, and I sincerely hope this will bring an end to it. – SchroCat (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

We haven't banned you, we have disagreed with your attempts to try and "improve" the article. Your edits were not an improvement and went against everything which seemingly passed the strict reviewers at peer review, GAN and FAC. But somehow, you think you're above all that and when you were rebuffed, you snipe at the "state of the article". Two years...of that! Cassianto^talk 22:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Should anyone need an example of the exact opposite, note comments by another new editor to Sellers, who also had some suggestions. They were logical ones, so I chimed in with a link to a similar issue from an earlier discussion. I was speaking to the new editor, User:Wordreader, yet the team members came charging over the hill like a bolt of lightning, with swords out:

Troll elsewhere:your endless bitching and sniping is deep in the territory of tedium, and your toxic rumblings have done nothing positive to this article. . . .

Needless to say, that editor, who later wrote: I find the comments of SchroCat and Cassianto to be disparaging and rude, also hasn't returned. That's the kind if banning I'm referring to, the psyop kind. Very effective. --Light show (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that as soon a someone makes a comment you "chime in" with the same old comment that links to one of the pointless threads you implemented during the least enjoyable editing experience I suffered on Wikipedia. As to Wordreader, I agreed with his comment, and less than an hour after he had posted his comment, I edited the article to overcome his issue, and commented appropriately in the talk page. All you did was bitch and moan. Can you not see a) just how annoying and depressing it is for others for you to constantly bitching about the same topic, and b) why this thread has been proposed by a third party with no axe to grind here? As to saying Wordreader hasn't returned because of the comments, I find that so dubious to be laughable. – SchroCat (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Why not ask him? And that third party proposer, out of the blue, accused me of gaming user ratings, so your editing team wouldn't be too embarrassed, I presume. Oddly, all user ratings disappeared from WP soon after. --Light show (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

And note that the above discussion in the link, whereby I was immediately attacked, took place just a few months after the team began their editing of Sellers. Back then, SchroCat made comments like: Hi Wikiwatcher. I've finished my major overhaul of the "Personal life" section and this is now actually smaller than the previous version and a lot tighter than it was: I hope that you'll agree this is much more balanced than it was before. or . I'll be starting shortly on updating various bits, but any thoughts or suggestions are always welcome! Cheers -, or please let me know if you have any better ideas—this is just an initial suggestion! Within a few weeks, his comments took on a different tone, I've got a few other books knocking around, including a largely unread copy of the Lewis book (how much bile and hatred in one book can there be?!) so I hope we can get something fairly special out of it. Cheers And a few weeks later, he stopped using "Cheers" to sign off. And Sellers, IMO, is now in the cellar. Cheers.--Light show (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Those of us who support a ban are more than tired of being served Wikiwatcher/Light show WP:SOUP regardless of the type. This is the Skelton talk page, yet your inane nattering about the Sellers article found its way there. If there wasn't an agenda, this wouldn't have been posted there by you. We hope (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If any neutral editor read those comments, they'd have a hard time calling it anything but totally logical and inherently beneficial to discuss. So I'm glad that was the best you could find.--Light show (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOUP's on again! We hope (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Improvements? Says who? Cassianto^talk 20:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment – re-reading the exchanges above, I wonder is it normal for a new user to register a username solely for the purpose of intervening at a discussion such as this? It looks rather as though this is an interested user flying a flag of convenience (a sock-puppet, I think is the WP term). Is it possible for Elaqueate to identify him/herself as a separate entity, please? – Tim riley talk 20:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Give me a break. This: is it normal for a new user to register a username solely for the purpose of intervening at a discussion such as this? is completely fabricated. What is wrong with you?__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want a break, then log off and log back in as Light show... Cassianto^talk 20:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that Elaqueate, a user who has been editing here since Aug 2013, is a sock of Light Show. Such an accusation would need significant evidence. Chillum 20:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Chillum: see Elaqueate, that's all you needed to say in response to my first question to you. Now all Elaqueate has to do is show me "the personal attacks" I have made against them and who called him/her shit? Cassianto^talk 20:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually if you are interested in that then go to their talk page. This is not the appropriate place for you two to bicker. Chillum 20:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's appropriate inasmuch that it was a question which he/she failed to answer. If he/she had of told me their interest in the case to start with then we wouldn't be here now. Their failure to answer even prompted someone else to ask. My original question was a civil, pertinent and innocent question to ask which was ignored. That is why we are here now. Anyway, moving on... Cassianto^talk 21:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Chillum, I don't want an editor who just accused me of sock puppetry without proof and said But thanks for showing your true colours which owing to the aforementioned shitty stick, is now brown I see. anywhere near my talk page. I think I've been pretty patient after being told my true colors are shit brown, but I don't need to deal with more of it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't care if you two go to one of your talk pages or not. Do not engage in back and forth bickering about each other in a topic about another user. The noise being added to this discussion is not helpful. Rule of thumb, if you are talking about someone other than Light Show then you are posting in the wrong place. Chillum 21:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as Light show, I'm beginning to see why there are only "Supports" here, even though I can see that various editors supported some of Light show's suggestions on the concerned talk pages at times. Whatever Light show's behavior, it seems to have been met with some pretty nasty business in return. I didn't even cast a !vote and I was told to "butt out", asked to identify myself twice, was told my true color is shit brown, and had a sock puppet accusation as a "new user". I wonder how much filth I would have gotten if I'd actually !voted. Something's off here but it looks more entrenched than anything I'd want to spend too much time on. It doesn't look exactly one-sided to someone outside of whatever bubble people are editing in. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The real rule of thumb, practiced by the team, is "The best defense is a good offense." Hence, an editor going to ANI about uncivility by a tag team, turns into a proposal to ban the complaining editor. Forget the rampant uncivility. Or when some new editor calmly suggests changes on a Sellers talk page, notice how the new editor is set upon immediately by the team. Very sobering and discouraging stuff. You would have been amazed at seeing how the team jumped on some other editors who were also criticizing Sellers at its peer review. --Light show (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

* Oppose. At least on the Peter Sellers Talk page some of the above have presented a caustic environment for those that disagreed with them. I disagreed with some of the above folks and User:Light show disagreed with some of the above folks. I don't think these comments are proper for Talk page use:

• "Why is it the same people turning up time and time again here? A couple of times it's easy to assume good faith but this sort of thing seems to happen every few weeks."

• "And, once again, it's trivial shit by someone who never met of knew either man."

• ""The reader may want to know why Sellers' was attracted to playing the role of Wingate. -- Then again, they may not give a toss. Now move along, there is nothing to see here! "

• "These are trolls, pure a simple. Let's stop feeding them."

• "THIS IS NOT OUR FUCKING OPINION, IT IS THE VIEW OF THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK! Dr. B has addressed that. Now for gods sake move on!"

Just my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

So you "oppose" here based on our comments? Sorry, I thought it was Light show on offer here because of his behaviour? This is not a valid vote as you have missed the point of this proposal entirely. If I remember rightly, you accused the article and us of anti-semitism? Cassianto^talk

There has been some incivility, I don't think anyone supporting this proposal would deny that, but what do you really expect when someone has sustained a 2-year campaign to junk other people's work? The problem isn't really the incivility, that's just a symptom; the problem—and it's a fundamental one—is that you have an editor who is committed to a vastly inferior version of the article and who won't let go. The reason I proposed an article ban (and I did intend for that to include talk page input) is that I simply don't see how to resolve Light year's continued involvement in the article with maintaining its quality. You can see from the tone of this discussion just how much bad blood there is, and if it isn't ended here then it will almost certianly continue back at the article. Do SchroCat and Cassianto have another two years of this haranguing to put up with? What happens if they get so sick of it they withdraw and let Light year do what he wants to the article? The truth is it's a great article and it wouldn't be out of place in a professional encyclopedia, so the community should take action to safeguard articles of that quality. Betty Logan (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment

Hello All

I'm a "newbie" so please treat me well. Please excuse typos and bad grammar, formatting etc. I think there are a lot of experienced editors here. Some of you have done some great work and rightly some of your articles have been promoted to FA status.

However, with your experience a little arrogance has crept in, and with that you've forgotten that anyone can edit these articles regardless of experience. This is the golden rule and the overriding principle.

Any disputes are discussed on talk pages. However, I've come across something that is worse than vandalism on these pages.

Some of these articles have over 300 notes and references. A majority of these pointing to a handful of books and their page numbers. But also sophisticated named ref tags as well. Deleting lines also means deleting these named tags. There is a lot of hard work put into them. The people who have created them have read all these books and created these references.

These editors have done some painstaking research. In this pursuit they have become quite experienced and are aware of all the rules and coding. However, this is where the arrogance creeps in, and worse still, they have become "experts". They then start forgetting the Wikipedian principles and become corrupted in their overzealousness.

If you look at my experience, as an example, on the "Peter Sellers" Talk page you can see that a group of editors who have clubbed together and built FAs are commenting. Some of the FAs are very good...and here's the problem....some of them are not.

1. When the editors are challenged and and it becomes one editor vs another "separate" editor and it is merely a difference of opinion. If the "separate editor" stands their ground, another editor from the club steps in and sides with their fellow FA editor.

2. At this points the consensus principle is abused.

3. Here's where the sophistication comes in. A third editor steps in and becomes disparaging and also sides with their fellow FA editor. Opening statements are also confrontational. A distraction to anger/wind-up the "separate" editor from the original argument which gets lost into, and deteriorates, into mudslinging. Since all three club members have the consensus there is no chance for dissent or objectivity on FAs.

This "ganging up" tactic is worse than vandalism. It's perfectly good editors who have become corrupt and forgotten the Wikipedia golden rule is (and in the words of Brian Cohen) is that "we are all individuals". This "gang"/club consensus should be avoided.

Light show is quite passionate and annoying to some of you, but they are on their own fighting their own point of view. They are entitled to be as challenging as they want. You can't shrug the principle because you don't like someone.

If you choose to block this editor from the "Sellers" article, then equally, SchroCat, Cassianto and Dr. Blofeld need to be banned/blocked from this article too. I believe Tim riley is part of the same club as well, and should also be blocked. If there are others, please point them out.

It'll be a painful object lesson for them all, however, they need to realise that "gang mentality" or bullying is unacceptable on Wikipedia.

Administrators please investigate this more widely. If there are already existing rules regarding "editor clubs" please make those on this thread aware. If there is not, then I have highlighted a policy problem.

Newcomers to Wikipedia will be put off by this type of hostility. Wikipedia is one of the great achievements of the net neutral internet. Please don't wreck it with bad behaviour and the arrogant assumption that you are the true "experts".

Please note I am not a sock puppet for Light show.

Good luck all and happy editing! MrBalham2 (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

As I have explained to you previously, having people disagree with you isn’t "ganging-up": it's part of the way things are discussed and agreed upon here, and once you have been editing for more than ten days you will come to appreciate that. In other words, people joining in discussions is how we reach a consensus, and is to be encouraged: just because people disagreed with you, does not mean that anyone has been "ganging up" on you. This has all been explained to you before, and you have not taken it on board, just as you did not seem to take on board explanations in the talk page. WP:ICANTHEARYOU is not a good way to start your Wiki life, and I sincerely hope that you read and take on board other people's comments, both in talk and forums such as this. - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've let it go on on the "Sellers" talk page. Don't worry! That discussion is closed. I'm illustrating your process of consensus here.

I've already highlighted your method and how I think the consensus process can be abused, so have other editors. Administrators can decide on whether that process was fair and whether you and your Wiki colleagues should be blocked from that article. I'm merely highlighting your methods in discussions. I'm entitled give my views and experience of that process. Your tactics are under scrutiny. MrBalham2 (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Putting forward a reasonable opinion on a talk page about edits isn't a "tactic": it's how wiki works, and I am not sure that with your ten-days experience here that you've fully grasped that. Additionally, just because other editors disagree with you, doesn't mean there is anything underhand about it: that's how we build a consensus, and how the consenus changes. - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm clear about the consensus process. It is you and your Wiki colleagues' approach to that process with any editor (not just me) that is under scrutiny on this page. It is up to Administrators to decide whether that process was fair. I hope you concur. MrBalham2 (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you are not clear about consensus on Wiki, given your comments here and at the Sellers talk page, and that you are still in WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory here. I'm sure that your ten-days of in-depth experience here has provided you with a vast amount of knowledge of how this all works, but you're just not taking on board what is being explained to you. As to what is under scrutiny on this thread, it is not my approach, but a proposal as to whether Light show should be banned from editing on the Sellers page and talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrators need to get the whole picture. This will include Light show's grievances. Light show has used my case as an illustration on this thread. This includes you and your Wiki colleagues' approach to that process with any editor (not just me) that is also under scrutiny on this page. It is up to Administrators to decide whether that process was fair. I'm entitled to express my views. Thanks. MrBalham2 (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Reality check: Earth calling Balham – how would a ban on editing the Peter Sellers article make any difference to an editor (me) whose total contribution to it was correcting three typos in August the year before last? – Tim riley talk 13:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're innocent then there's nothing to worry about! I think you work with the aforementioned Wiki colleague on other FAs. Administrators need to be aware if FAs are becoming "no go" editing areas apart from a select few.i.e. if an FA editor is having difficulty with a another "unfamiliar editor" standing their ground then other Wiki colleagues swoop in to help out by applying a consensus. I think it's a practice that should be stamped out. It goes against Wikipedia principles. MrBalham2 (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A "no-go" editing area like this edit, which was made and is still present on the page? Or are you just complaining because when you deleted half a paragraph of pertinent information it was reverted? There is absolutely nothing "no go" about editing on the article, as the evidence of one of your extant edits shows. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I was content with both edits. Including your reversion. My attempt was to transfer the information to its correct area and reduce a overlong para I accepted your revert. It was when I suggested a reasonable alternative is when the "team" swooped in with the tactics I mentioned earlier. I have now been made aware by other editors that this is common practice with you and your like-minded colleagues. The Administrators need to be aware that this happens. If there isn't a policy then there should be one to stamp the practice out. Wikipedia is for all (even the one's who make your editing life hell) and not and for a select few "gatekeepers". MrBalham2 (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC).

MrBalham2 wrote (emphasis added): "I have now been made aware by other editors that this is common practice with you and your like-minded colleagues." Sorry to "swoop in", but this page is on my watchlist, as indeed is "Peter Sellers", and I couldn't help picking up this discussion. So who has told you this "now", and where? Your claim about "common practice" does not seem at all evident to me in this discussion you've had with a third party, where you have been told quite clearly that "you need to be careful about editing featured articles since featured articles are the highest standard of quality there is"; and "The fact that the editors you are in conflict with are all quite experienced. You are free to request a FAR; however, you must be prepared to have a result that you are not quite happy with." Alfietucker (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That has also struck me, and I have asked MrBalham on his talk page about this. - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what the others were implying? The link to the third party discussion is a very good example on how you make new editors feel after such an experience of “being ganged up” on. Yes I am aware of FAR suggestion. Thanks for pointing it out. I was made “aware" by reading Light show’s exmaples further up this thread. I didn’t need need to be “told” by anyone.MrBalham2 (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, the beauty of private email! Cassianto^talk 15:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure MrBalham2 is aware that there are already policies related to tag teams. Luckily, he seems to understand the common sense policies of civility, which is one of the pillars supporting WP, and probably civilization itself. But, like me, is taken aback that that a basic pillar can be ignored and overturned so easily by so many. Hence, the original ANI against two boastfully uncivil editors, even to other editors on this page, is immediately hijacked into a proposal to ban the complainant, who no one has shown to have ever made uncivil comments.

Regarding accusations that I've created a "battlefield atmosphere" on the talk page, I can assure your the exact opposite is the case. A quick example can be seen here, where the alleged team, shortly after coming to the Sellers article begins to demolish it without discussion, attacks every editor commenting, and gains the immediate support of teammates: Local editor being SchroCat. It is he who has single handedly turned this article's fortunes around and made it a serious future contender for FAC for which he should be applauded not villified. Recall that those two editors began their editing blitz on Sellers shortly before, and 5 minutes apart. And of course a quick look at the Sellers talk page over the last few days proves that the battlefield mentality is created against any editors, and by only one group: the team. --Light show (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Light show. I don't entirely agree with you about the Peter Sellers article but SchroCat is a great editor...although too stubborn for me, Good luck to you both on the outcome. MrBalham2 (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I have no previous experience of the Peter Sellers or related articles. I was on this page because of an unrelated matter. But I think the responses to MrBalham2's politely phrased comment more than adequately illustrate the problems with these editors' attitude and behavior. "I'm sure that your ten-days of in-depth experience here has provided you with a vast amount of knowledge of how this all works, but you're just not taking on board what is being explained to you", "Reality check: Earth calling Balham", "Ah, the beauty of private email!" Whether or not these editors liked what the editor had to say, these are not reasoned or reasonable responses. Just looking at the current revision of the talk page, I see what I would consider intolerable rudeness to Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) by SchroCat, with Cassianto chipping in at the end with "I can't work out if your niceness is masking a patronising and flippant overtone, or if you are actually being pleasant. I will AGF and assume the latter." And the reader is expected to assume the assumption of good faith. SchroCat wrote above, "As to what is under scrutiny on this thread, it is not my approach, but a proposal as to whether Light show should be banned from editing on the Sellers page and talk page." Actually, no. The Light show ban is just a sub-section; the thread is about the behavior of SchroCat and Cassianto. (Note: all of this is without prejudice as to the outcome concerning Light show). Scolaire (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• That's all well and good if you ignore the fact that Norton was edit warring, breaking citations, introducing errors and cutting across cited material by trying to force a citation that didn't support the information he claimed it did. You can ignore the degradation of a quality article if you want, but I'm not sure it's the most sensible approach to article development, do you? – SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's clear that some people, including Scolaire, would rather read a shite article which is littered with POV, mistakes, bad prose and dodgy referencing just so long as everyone who contributes are lovely to one another. This, it seems, is more favourable than reading a featured article and having to - although not needing to - read a few "rude and disparaging" comments from those who are protecting the article from slipping into the gutter. In an ideal world everybody would get on famously on featured talk pages, but this is not an ideal world. If it was, I would be shacked up with Jennifer Lawrence! Cassianto^talk 20:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you both for illustrating my point so well. I needn't say more; it would be just gilding the lily. Scolaire (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• How odd: there is nothing illustrated here, except the fact you did not look into the reasons behind the interaction properly, or you would have seen that Norton was warring and ignoring all requests to use the talk page; while he was warring he introduced errors. You still have not answered the question of how you think this is a sensible way to approach article development. - SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Wouldn't this be an issue to take to WP:DRN? Anyway, it would be good if Light show, and Cassianto and SchroCat, avoid talking to each other in regards to the article anywhere, not just on the article talk page. It may be that Light may have some useful comments, given the above exchanges, and that Cass's and Schro's comments, while justifiably angry because they've worked so hard to get this to Featured status, come out as too harsh. So, I'm not voting either way, but I think a topic ban doesn't resolve many problems if there are some useful suggestions, at least. In fact, an interaction ban would be more appropriate if considered. Epicgenius (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've tried avoiding interacting with them as much as possible. My few recent comments on Sellers' talk were to other editors who had some suggestions. They were logical ones, so I naturally chimed in to help. I was speaking to the new editor, User:Wordreader, yet the team members came charging over the hill like a bolt of lightning, with swords out:

Troll elsewhere:your endless bitching and sniping is deep in the territory of tedium, and your toxic rumblings have done nothing positive to this article. . . .

Needless to say, that editor, who later wrote: I find the comments of SchroCat and Cassianto to be disparaging and rude, hasn't returned. And the following talk editor has also left for good. The team should simply be banned from ever interacting with me or discussing me, everything would go fine. I have no desire to talk with them again, ever since I realized I'd been conned:

Hi Wikiwatcher. I've finished my major overhaul of the "Personal life" section . . . I hope that you'll agree this is much more balanced than it was before, or I'll be starting shortly on updating various bits, but any thoughts or suggestions are always welcome! Cheers, or please let me know if you have any better ideas—this is just an initial suggestion! --Light show (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If anyone wants any more examples of why this proposal has been made, Light show's most recent edit should provide enough reason of what people have had to put up with over the last two years:

You can be 100% certain that Blofeld knows exactly what he/they are again doing. The same as they successfully did to Sellers, ie. make it "incomprehensible", by making it unreadable. He/they quickly moved in with chain-saws and earth-movers to demolished 2,000, well-written, fully descriptive words of clear prose about his personal life. They turned it into a pile of rubble, as anyone can read here. The writing quality is enough to embarrass a twelve-year old. And that's probably the idea, IMO. The primary editor of that article had thanked me for improving the personal life material, after months of research and using numerous key sources. Blofeld is now beginning to demolish it like his team did to Sellers. I wonder what Kubrick and Sellers had in common? --20:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Enough is enough of this obsession with the Sellers article, with the constant sniping and complaining, and with continuing to spread this nonsense onto the Chaplin and Kubrick talk pages. DRN? I think we're way beyond that with Light show's approach. – SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

So, no DRN then? Maybe an IBAN is better, as described above. Epicgenius (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat. Then maybe next time an editor goes to ANI about a general issue of uncivility, everywhere, you and your team don't hijack it into a proposal to ban that complainant from so much as talking on Peter Sellers. --Light show (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Most of what you say is wrong and a hinderance to the article, so maybe next time you will learn to think before you type. Cassianto^talk 21:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• For someone who claims never to be uncivil, you do an awful lot of uncivil accusations. There is no "team": there are individual editors who are making their own value judgements. As for something turning back on the complainant, it's called WP:PETARD, and it is the community that is discussing things here in an open forum! no "team" of anyone's. - SchroCat (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support It is not right or fair that editors who come here in good faith to work on this encyclopaedia should have to endure this sort of disruptive treatment, and for as long as as they have had to endure it. If individual editors cannot work on an article collegially then they should not be allowed to work on it at all. Jack1956 (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• I make 16 supports to 2 oppose a consensus to have Light show switched off on Sellers, Kubrick, Chaplin etc including talk pages. Are their any admins looking in who can close this pantomime now? Cassianto^talk 21:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You refer to having User:Light show "switched off on Sellers, Kubrick, Chaplin". Are you gloating? Bus stop (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If that makes you happy to call it that then yes. Cassianto^talk 04:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You are referring to having "Light show switched off". Are you trivializing another editor? Bus stop (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Question about speed editing: How does an editor, ie. SchroCat, manage to make 19 fairly complex edits to Sellers over a 1-minute period, which is 3 seconds per edit? When I use the term "blitz," I mean it literally. The three editors in question have somehow managed that feat a number of times. Here's some of SchroCats earliest edits. This is a compilation of those 1-minute changes That miraculous feat was immediately followed by DrBlofeld, who could do about the same number of (not-minor) edits in 1 minute. Not to be left out Cassianto was nearly as fast, doing 13 in 1 minute. Should Cassianto take a speed-typing class to help keep up? --Light show (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• They look like good edits. If made quickly all the better. Chillum 01:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not getting your point Light show? Cassianto^talk 04:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Much though I would like to be able to be that fast, the 17 (not 19) changes were over the course of an hour (16:11 to 17:11), not a minute. The same is true for Cassianto and Blofeld's edits. Whether a minute or an hour, I'm still not sure of either the problem, or the relevance here? - SchroCat (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. I've been used to looking at my clock up top with the seconds on the right. The relevance was that with such rapid-fire editing by three editors, there's less ability for anyone to check things or make corrections. Looking back, with up to hundreds of edits a day, the article was totally changed without little chance for previous editors to comment, proof, check facts, or edit the prose. Your're right, whether it's 19 a minute or 19 edits an hour, makes little difference. This happened on Kubrick recently. My understanding of the guidelines was that incremental editing for such major changes was recommended to allow other editors to review or comment. That opportunity was mostly eliminated. When established primary editors wake up and there's 100's of edits to review, the consensus-based editing system fails.--Light show (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it made featured article seems to indicate that the changes were good. It is good when an article is racially improved over a short period of time, we give out barnstars for that sort of thing. The history is always there so that you can take your time reviewing changes and always find old versions. And yes it makes a very big difference if it is hours or minutes. Chillum 07:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As explained in an essay on tag teams, "it's a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus." Had the team acted in accord with consensus guidelines, this whole issue would not exist. A good early example of what kind of blitz editing led to this dispute. All very avoidable. --Light show (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

When people gang up to improve the encyclopedia it is a good thing. Chillum 07:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that's an essay, rather than a guideline, let alone a policy, there is no tag team here. Try to WP:AGF and think that perhaps very active editors are working on an article to re-write an essay. That's not tag-teaming or meat-puppetry: that is how articles can be re-developed. They can, of course drift for a few years with no-one attempting to do much, which explains the parlous state in whch the Sellers article was before the re-write. - SchroCat (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I had to rub my eyes: Try to WP:AGF. Was that meant as a joke? I couldn't count the times you boldly interjected yourself into talk pages, where I'm talking to another editor, to make comments such as in Chaplin:

More bad faith silliness from LightShow? What a surprise! He's always in a state of shock if someone doesn't cast a celebrity in a glowing light and gloss over everything in a private life! - SchroCat.

I have never accused you and the others of BF. And like your other ABFs, they usually have almost nothing to do with the context of the discussion, but are made simply to PA a GF editor. I can find dozens of times you and the others, who edit and comment exactly alike, have started your responses, to me and others, with the BF label. I've come to ignore them long ago. Sadly, as this ANI implies, so have your 16 supporters. --Light show (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, no? Talk:Mike Todd ":No need to ABF by implying hidden agendas. My only agenda is to improve lead images that IMO need improving. That's why I didn't bother changing an image you chose for Red Skelton's lead, even though I also uploaded a different one last year. Yours was fine, even though it was much smaller. Lighten up." And the reply: Mike Todd talk page "If we're going to mix apples and oranges on Todd's talk page, let's set the facts straight re: your claim of not changing the infobox photo at Skelton: (add different image) (The original image is better in quality. Maybe a discussion should be started.) If the number of edits you've made to the Todd article and what they were are BF, then so be it." We hope (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW, as I once tried to show, the article before your blitz re-write, went from a reader rating of 3.5 (very good) for "Readability" to 1, (incomprehensibe). And went from "neutral and balanced," to "heavily biased," according to the first 39 people who, amazingly, managed to read through it, and kindly took the time to give their objective opinions. It took me hours to remove the mud and battle scars when I returned after making that simple observation. --Light show (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly Drmies looked at your comment, and then at the article, and wrote of your behaviour that "These allegations, besides ridiculously untrue, are disruptive and I believe they are made in bad faith, a result of sour grapes." Just thought I'd remind you of that further example of WP:PETARD. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Point being? You know that I asked him what "allegations" he was talking about, since I only noted reader's ratings, and neither they nor anyone responded. Although it was just another blatant, irrelevant, uncivil comment, so thanks for noting it. --Light show (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Errrmmm.... Drmies is an experienced and well-respected admin, so I'm not sure I would class their judgement on editor interaction as a "blatant, irrelevant, uncivil comment", to be honest! - SchroCat (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I assume you concur with Cassianto's latest expression of civility. De ja vu all over again. WP's pillars are being mocked. --Light show (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

...again, your point is? Your being your usual, disruptive best on the talk page. Like I say, as long as the edits are constructive, any editor can edit anywhere and at any time they like? It's how the encyclopaedia is built believe it or not. Cassianto^talk 20:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that Light Show has attacked Dr. Blofeld's changes that he has done over at Stanley Kubrick. (Here is Light Show's addition to the talk page today). He is calling Blofeld's 50-odd edits over a 4 month period (in brief bursts) as problematic rapid fire editing and a problem because Blofeld had never edited Kubrick's article before. Clearly part of this same battlefield mentality to try to get their way in the clear face of opposition, maintaining the battlefield mentality. --MASEM (t) 21:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a better link to the full discussion, as it shows who creates the battlefield and how the pillar of civility is mocked. --Light show (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering this discussion has been open for 2-3 days now and a clear consensus seems to have emerged it would be nice if an uninvolved admin could close this. Chillum 07:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• I agree. Are there any uninvolved admins? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I am no fan of Light show/Wikiwatcher's editing, particularly with regard to their very problematic uploads of nonfree images claimed as free. However, this free-fire zone fails basic tests. Blocks and similar sanctions are intended to be preventive, not punitive. A topic ban on an article the user has not edited for months should go nowhere, and the poorly defined/justified extension to other articles is procedurally incoherent. This is exactly the situation where a well-structured user RFC is called for, and would be useful; I would hope whichever admin closes this discussion would take no action here and direct the complainants to file such an RFC if they wish to proceed further. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• The ban should cover the talk page, which is where the main disruption occurs. Comments such as this on other pages (in this case the Kubrick talk page) are symptomatic of the approach of this editor to the Sellers article—and seemingly to article re-writes—not just on the Sellers talk page, but others too. Hopefully the closing admin will take this ongoing widespread disruption into account when closing. - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

c. 1,400 administrators, and never one around to close when you need them - even after a four day wait. I've dragged this out of the archive in the hope that one of 1,400 can bring this to a formal closure before it is archived again. – SchroCat (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

---

I guess I'll step in, as an uninvolved admin. The consensus here is pretty clear. The talk page seems to be the main issue, and pretty much everyone who has opposed has failed to get that. I have not separately examined the facts, I am simply looking at the consensus of the discussion above. User:Light show, from what I can tell, you've done some excellent work elsewhere, but you are seen as going way against consensus on Sellers; consider yourself banned from working on matters related to Sellers, but your contributions on other topics remain welcome. - Jmabel | Talk 15:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Understood. I noticed, BTW, that these comments were deleted from this discussion, with no reason, and was wondering if that's acceptable. Apparently, I'm the only one who just noticed. --Light show (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering the timestamps, and the fact that RGloucester was replying on another thread, it looks like it was an edit conflict. It is not uncommon for this to happen without flagging up a warning to either party. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I think it would be an injustice to ban @Light show: from the Peter Sellers Talk page. I think that describing another editor in demeaning language is what WP:CIVIL is all about: "Troll elsewhere:your endless bitching and sniping is deep in the territory of tedium, and your toxic rumblings have done nothing positive to this article. You are too bitter about your ownership being swamped by losing in nearly every single RfC you started to ever see anything positive here, and you make yourself look more and more ridiculous every time you post another of your pointless messages, so do yourself a favour and take this off your Watchlist and move on." The above is abrasive, nonconstructive, and not at all conducive to collaborative editing. I think @SchroCat: needs to be informed as to what is expected in respectful communication. Bus stop (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bus stop:, please feel free to start a separate complaint about User:SchroCat if you think his conduct rises to the level of an issue, but it does not change anything about User:Light show. The consensus here is pretty strong, and the sanction quite light. - Jmabel | Talk 02:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Antisemitism categories

We seem to have got into a bit of a mess here. The main article, Antisemitism, was recently renamed "Anti-Semitism", but following a Move Review was restored to the original name. Meanwhile, in a elated discussion at 3D Test of Antisemitism it was decided not to change the spelling in a further 43 articles by adding a hyphen. In the various discussions, by my count, five editors supported the hyphenated spelling, while 18 supported the unhyphenated spelling.

However, the category which includes all of these articles is itself spelt with a hyphen. I therefore requested that the category be renamed. This seems to have caused some confusion; the request was closed by Fayenatic London with the comment "The result of the discussion was: speedy revert. I listed this for processing this after it had been proposed for two days at wp:CFDS, but should not have done so if I had looked into it, because the speedy renaming criteria exclude controversial cases". I'm not sure what this means, but the upshot is that the page Category:Antisemitism now contains a box stating that "This category is being considered for renaming to Category:Antisemitism" (ie, to itself), while the page Category:Anti-Semitism, to which all of the articles still link, is marked as a redirect and contains a box stating "This category is located at Category:Antisemitism. Note: This category should be empty." Clicking on the "Anti-Semitism" category link at the bottom of the scores of articles and sub-categories takes you to Category:Anti-Semitism, even though that page is marked as a redirect, while the category talk page does redirect to Category talk:Antisemitism.

It looks as though the absence or presence of hyphens has led to some confusion, and possibly to the wrong changes. Whatever the cause, the result is very messy. Could someone help sort this out? RolandR (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I closed the discussion this morning and moved the page, but did not finish implementing the close. I have done so now, and clarified the explanation on the CFD page. Feel free to raise such problems directly with the responsible administrator in future. Anyway, thanks for the reminder. – Fayenatic London 13:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

SPA self-promotional account Mstoneham

Mstoneham (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account used entirely for the self-promotion of the account holder (Mark Stoneham) on the Game Genie article, even returning after a 7-year hiatus to insert himself into the article again. He does not seem to be particularly notable after doing a web search.

I reported him at WP:COI but it looks like most issues posted there are never responded to and the section went into archive without a response. I'm not sure if there's anywhere but ANI left to discuss the issue. Rather than edit warring with him, I'll just leave it to ANI.

Some guy (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) At the very least there seem to be a few 3RR-issues, the selfpromotion seems to be pretty obvious and the perseverance is impressive. The title 'Game Genie Guru' much less so. The affair does reek of WP:NOTHERE. Kleuske (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

3RR from 2006. Given the lack of edits in the last 5 days this is a bit stale. I would recommend a final warning at this point. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 14:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Eliasch

Requesting additional eyes on this article. See also prior ANI thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive853#Requesting Admin Assistance with a closed and reopened AfD

I just removed the speedy tags on Amanda Eliasch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as it had survived an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Eliasch (2nd nomination) less that two weeks ago. The speedy nomination was by Aromavic (talk · contribs)

When I reviewed the situation over there, I noticed that the user who nominated the article for speedy had also been the originator of the most recent AfD. This user account was created September 3rd, and their sole activity on Wikipedia has been to apply speedy tags on the article on the 3rd and again today, submit an AfD regarding the article, and a sockpuppet case related to several users that posted at AfD (that case is listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spikequeen).

The article at Amanda Eliasch has been deleted several times in the past, and has been the subject of sockpuppetry in the past. So there is certainly possibility of further abuse. I'm not sure what's going on; but between the SPIs and the SPAs on both the keep and the delete sides, I believe the article could benefit from additional eyes to help monitor. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Recommend a final warning that any speedy nominations will result in an indef, and that any AFD nominations without a new reason will probably result in a block, followed by closure of this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:AdamNeira making disruptive edits and threats

AdamNeira is making disruptive edits at the Tekhelet, Eduardo Campos and 2014 Cessna Citation 560 XLS+ crash articles and making threating comments to users who revert him.

Examples of disruptive editing:

At the Tekhelet article, he has been deleting sourced statements and adding material sourced to himself or referring to himself or his website and YouTube channel, such as here: [120], [121] [122]. He has also added his websites address to the heading of a section on the article Talk page here [123].

He is using the article as a platform for his personal views, sometimes adding shorter comments and sometimes long blocks such as here: [124], [125] and as above.

I have not continued to revert him after I both asked him to discuss his issues on the Talk page and warned him not to continue behaving in this vein, as I do not want to get into a slow edit war with him. He continues to revert back to his changes in the article without discussion of the issues, and without providing any reliable sources.

In addition, he has edited using his user name, then using his IP address User:87.91.50.226 to make the same edits that have been challenged by other users. This seems to be skirting, if not outright sock puppetry.

At the Eduardo Campos page, his edits were reverted as unsourced and ‘conspiracy theory’ [126] but he has reverted without discussion or providing any credible sources.

At the Cessna crash page, he has also been twice reverted for removing cited text and replacing it with his own speculations/unsourced opinion: [127].

Threatening other users:

His behavior in response to other editors is verging on harassment. He is misusing the “wikilove” barnstar to add messages such as: [128] and [129] that were separately noticed as inappropriate here [130] by User:Charles Matthews.

He has made direct or indirect threats such as "A warning to you...Be very careful who you cast aspersions on" as here: [131] and [132] and here [133] and on the article talk page: “Not sure who is paying you either. It would be fun to meet you face to face in a bar for a little chat” [134]. He demands “desist from editing my revisions to the "Tekhelet" page" and "Desist forthwith from removing my edits/updates" as if he owns the article [135].

Messages to his IP and user talk page have not met with success and he simply continues to revert to his last version. The display of harassment, demand to reveal identity ("Please tell me your real name and an email address..." [136])and apparent incomprehension of the purpose and functioning of Wikipedia here [137] seems to indicate that he is incapable of working within the Wikipedia framework and I would like to see this user and his IP address be permanently blocked. --Chefallen (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Take your pick from no legal threats or chilling effect but thats looks like some repeated attempts at coercion. Amortias (T)(C) 19:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the user has been well warned. Further disruption will most likely result in a block of some sort. Have there been any issues since your warning at 02:59? Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 20:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Almost immediately thereafter (3:03), he reverted to his version again at the Tekhelet article and added his long comments including more implicit threats on both my user page and the article talk page. --Chefallen (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This one might be worth a look its close to the mark but not sure if its designed to be chilling or just boastful[138].

As an aside you might want to be careful with the templates in future Chefallen, one is normally enough to advise someone of a problem but 5 single notice warningns in the space of 5 minutes is not likely to have a positive effect on their behaviour. Amortias (T)(C) 20:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I undertsand what you mean. Fortunately, I have not had to deal with this kind of thing before so I used a template for each type of issue, but in future, if I have to do this again, I'll keep this in mind. --Chefallen (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

22:20 Paris Time

As per the message "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. to do so."

I have sent a message to both "Chillum" and "Amortias" regarding the case. I suggest both of them read the messages I have sent. I am not in the habit of wasting time on trivial matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamNeira (talk • contribs) 20:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I've seen the message but am unclear as to what you expect me to do with it or undertake beacuse of it. If you could be clear in your expectations with regards to it it would be helpful. Amortias (T)(C) 20:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I got the same message and could not figure it out either. It looks like it is for someone else. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 22:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I just read the message, and I wish that I hadn't. He clearly doesn't have a clue about how Wikipedia works, aside from the apparent misposting. As Chefallen notes, it isn't clear whether the message is meant to be chilling or just boastful, probably the former. In any case, he is not here to contribute to Wikipedia, either to building the encyclopedia or to maintaining the encyclopedia. Recommend an indef. He can then explain on his talk page what he wants. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Robert McClenon. The lack of competence is staggering. The veiled threats, wanting to meet someone in a bar is an obvious insinuation that physical violence is likely to ensue, the attempt to use some sort of legal standing as a clumsy way to chill disagreement. Just revert, block and ignore. Blackmane (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Rpo.castro

It's not the first time that I clash with that user mainly because he never agrees with my contributions. Note that he is a F.C. Porto supporter and I am a S.L. Benfica supporter. He keeps adding an invalid source (DN is linked fo FC Porto and says FIFA said something without any reference) to List of football clubs in Portugal by major honours won to prevent its deletion. SLBedit (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Note also that there is a dispute in that article regarding the number of "official titles" since Toyota Cup was not "organised by FIFA". SLBedit (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute and should probably be resolved on the article talk page, If I am misunderstanding you, can you clarify? What administrator action would you like taken? CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that he wrote that I was harrassing him "This is harassment". Warn him about that? SLBedit (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

SLBedit forgot to mention that he is after my editions, reverting them, including my talk page (!). No discussion anywere, just reverting them. This harassment probably because he/she thinks I've some kind of clubistic suporting, wich is not of his own. Please review his/her condute on last 3/4 weeks and the conflicts he/she made.Rpo.castro (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk page has nothing to do with this. I reverted in your talk page because I thought specific content should be archived not blanked. Disputing content on Wikipedia is not a personal conflict. SLBedit (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Users can delete pretty much anything they want to from their talk pages. Whether they choose to archive it, or simply delete it, is none of your business. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I admitted it was a mistake. I don't like your tone ("none of your business"). SLBedit (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see that. In any case, I should have said "no one else's business." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Repeating copyright violations

StanTheMan87 (talk · contribs) was warned [139] but he keeps uploading images of Mullah Omar after they get deleted. [140] "Thousands of United States troops scouring Afghanistan for Mullah Mohammad Omar have been looking for the wrong man, according to an Afghan villager who says that it is his face on the CIA's wanted poster and not that of the fugitive Taliban leader." [141] This proves that U.S. government is posting images of people who are not Mullah Omar.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Krzyhorse22: Can you just link to the file (e.g. [[:File:File Name Here.jpg]]? No need to have an image with a caption on AN/I. Protonk (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
• It's labelled as a non-free file, so it's not okay to display it here. I have converted it to a wikilink. Also, you forgot to notify StanTheMan87 of this thread. I have done that step for you. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • ...didn't we just have this discussion? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks. The guy is determined to upload controversial images and is saying weird stuff on my talk page (i.e. You sound like you have been hired by the Taliban to quell any discussion of its members on the English Wikipedia. You seem to try and find any and every conceivable reason for not allowing anything to be be uploaded. I know you hold a POV on both Taliban and MO. Have you lost someone to Taliban?). [142] File:Mullah Mohammed Omar.png <-- This is obviously not the one-eyed Mullah Omar. It shows an unknown man with both eyes turning to the side so that is clear evidence it is not someone with artificial eye. A person with artificial eye (glass eye) is someone like Peter Falk (Columbo), the fake eye stays looking straight while the non-defective eye moves around. Mullah Omar's right eye is popped (like Popeye). How can I get his latest uploads deleted?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, User:The Bushranger, we did. The Krzyhorse22 account is a single-purpose disruptive account that appears to exist solely for the purpose of filing ANIs against StanTheMan87 (his first three edits after registering his account were ANI filings against StanTheMan87, among a wide variety of other things that have been exhaustively discussed previously). Expect to see this discussion again next week, and the next, and the next … DocumentError (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Firstly before any admins judge my conduct when it comes to uploading images onto Wikipedia, see Krzyhorse22 past reasons and explanations for having the images removed. He lied, claiming that he notified the director of the CIA to prove his point of view, see DocumentError on Krzyhorse22's behavior [143] "BTW, I just called the head of CIA and he said nobody is sure if that guy in the image is the real Mullah Omar." he dismissed claims that one of the images didn't portray who the source stated it portrayed, without providing any evidence, see [144] "The truth is that's not MO but someone else. There is clear evidence somewhere that proves it is another person. I don't have time to search it." and [145] "The guy shown from the side was interviewed a number of years ago and it was proven to be someone other than Omar." with no proof cited. But the most outrageous of them all was when he accused all Afghans of being too corrupt and called Khalid Hadi, an afghan photographer, a liar again without citing proof. see [146] "An Afghan guy claiming he took photo of Mullah Omar is not proof. Afghans in general are corrupt and they exaggerate too much." see [147] "Khalid Hadi was proven to be a liar". This is ridiculous, and now he is going after meager details in a fair use screenshot from a 1996 clandestinely took documentary clip stating "the men in the image appear to have both eyes." see [148] Note that you cannot see the eyes in the image, but merely two darkened eye sockets. When you loose an eye, you do not loose the socket which encompasses it. Furthermore, his badgering to have [149] removed as it doesn't portray the person it is intended to portray has already been added to the image description in the form of a disclaimer so as to not confuse those who use the article. A disclaimer reading "Photo allegedly portraying Mullah Omar according to the U.S State Department" see [150] has been used, and I have avoided using the image as the image used in the info-box of the article. I have tried to use a conciliatory stance with regards to these uploads, as I had forewarned my intentions of uploading them on his wall see [151], but to no avail it seems. StanTheMan87 (talk) 06:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not about User:StanTheMan87. User:Krzyhorse22 has engaged in an extremely bizarre pattern of behavior during his time on WP that has included, among other things, Talk page harassment of StanTheMan87, repeated nominating of this file for deletion and block-shopping against StanTheMan87 through repeated ANIs. I have previously brought up Krzyhorse's extremely unusual behavior (that was capped by a legal threat that he [KrzyHorse] had been consulting with the director of the CIA about StanTheMan87!) as a possible single-purpose disruptive account in ANI but the thread was archived before an admin commented. It is absolutely unreasonable that StanTheMan87 should be subject to this level of ongoing harassment which appears designed to do nothing more than exhaust him from editing these subjects in order to further a wild conspiracy theory KrzyHrse22 appears to be trying to promote on WP. What is occurring right now is the exact definition of WikiBullying. I'm pinging User:HJ Mitchell and User:Protonkbecause I'm afraid this is going to go unnoticed and archived again until the next ANI against StanTheMan87 that KH22 files. DocumentError (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You have accused others of being single purpose account but you were proven wrong. [152] What's more interesting is that you and StanTheMan87 behave very much the same. For example, in edit summary both of you write "added image". [153] [154] You both upload images the same way. [155] [156] The following two diffs [157] [158] and the fact that you sign the same way, edit once in a blue moon, showing up together in the same discussions, typing similar long text with the same POV (repeating the call to CIA head, and etc.) makes it too obvious that you are abusing multiple accounts. I guess you don't care because you'll just create another account. Tell us, are you abusing multiple accounts? Just say yes or no. If you answer no then I'll file SPI. As for me, I'm not single purpose account. I have no connection or anything to Taliban. I just don't like to see false information and false licenses. I feel the world will be better when there is more truth.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of off-kilter, bizarre behavior I'm talking about. Everyone who commented in your last tirade were subject to similarly wild accusations. Here [[159]] - in the last incident your orchestrated - you accused me of being one of the WP:BLP I'd written (after you said to Baseball Bugs "Bugs, you have no idea who I am, meaning I could be a CIA agent and nobody will ever know.")! Now it appears you've abandoned that and are going to throw a new accusation against the wall of me being StanTheMan87 to see if you can get that to stick. (If you think using the phrase "added image" is a smoking gun of sockpuppetry, I very much encourage you to file a SPI case. As I'm sure that's coming next, I recommend you provide the output of the editor interaction tool in your report [[160]], and also request our IPs be geolocated.) Your behavior during your time on WP has been so utterly bizarre that it is simply impossible to AGF your purpose here. DocumentError (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

But you do everything the same. "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck." I already knew you weren't going to answer yes or no. IP location is not important because everyone these days use proxies.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"IP location is not important because everyone these days use proxies" - your lack of clue is showing. "I feel the world will be better when there is more truth" - Wikipedia is not about truth. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. It's a long-established if sad fact that accounts that say things about how they are battling on behalf of The Truth are far more often than not WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"I feel the world will be better when there is more truth" is a general statement, it has nothing to do with Wikipedia rules. Nice try anyway.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Given you said it in a context where it can only mean with regards to Wikipedia, in a discussion about your editing on Wikipedia, trying to claim "it has nothing to do with Wikipedia rules" is extraordinarily disingenious. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Great. If you think the fact that we have both have used the phrase "image added" in edit summaries when we've added images indicates we're socks, then you should absolutely open a case against us at SPI. While you're at it, just open one against everyone who has called you out [[161]] on your extremely bizarre and disruptive behavior since you joined WP. DocumentError (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You used "added image" and then when StanTheMan87 was created this year he began using it also. Like I said you both do everything the same. I'll wait to see what others suggest.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Drats, you caught us! DocumentError (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Krzyhorse22 you're absolutely right, typing "added" image" when adding an image is downright vandalism and just morally outrageous, but typing something like "Afghans in general are corrupt and they exaggerate too much. The same goes for Pakistanis, Indians, Iranians" [162] to support your claim for an image being unfree is A-OK. I suggest a 12 month IP ban for myself effective immediately for being such an irresponsible and naughty editor. StanTheMan87 (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a reality, see Corruption Perceptions Index. Plus, I spent years in these countries.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That index is for corruption on a government level, hence "the misuse of public power for private benefit.". Your statement is unbelievably stupid, ignorant and generalized, as you have tarred multiple groups of people with the same brush, regardless if you "spent years in these countries". StanTheMan87 (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

More seriously, if that's the cornerstone of your 'they must be the same' campaign, you need to drop the stick immediately or it will turn into a bent one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. As a new editor you should welcome me instead of showing hostility. It would be a lot better if you treat everyone equally and with civility. This is the problem today, everyone acts better than others. I figured you don't like me but you don't have to abuse your admin power just to feel special. If you can't comprehend my simple English that's your personal problem. You're either confused or trying to confuse others. This particular discussion is about StanTheMan87 uploading problematic images and everyone should focus on that. Again, when I said "I feel the world will be better when there is more truth", it was intended as a general statement. There's no need to elaborate on what this meant to you, keep it to yourself. Notice that others didn't comment but only you did. "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." StanTheMan87 failed to show a reliable source that says this image is of the one-eyed Mullah Mohammed Omar. Both eyes are working and moved to the side, that's clear evidence that it's not him. The second issues is that, based on the facts I pointed out, DocumentError and StanTheMan87 are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Why should we be afraid to mention this? Why are you not commenting on that? Do you have proof that they are not the same person or meatpuppeting?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That's it, I move for Krzyhorse22 to file a SPI against me, he appears willing so I'll welcome it. My only condition is that when it turns out that I am in fact not the same person as DocumentError, that you Krzyhorse22, get permanently banned from Wikipedia for wasting every ones time, unable to spread your malicious nonsense. StanTheMan87 (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do you wish for me to be permanently banned? It's silly to speak for others when they don't even know who or what you are. You're unnecessarily replying to comments directed at others so you're wasting your own time with writing lengthy rants and nonsense. --Krzyhorse22 (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

How do you know this smh.com is telling the truth while the US government is either being deceptive or ignorant? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The smh.com story was posted in 2002 and after that US government removed this image from its websites, so we're not focusing on that image. The focus here is this image. There is simply no credible source to confirm it is the one-eyed Mullah Omar (spiritual leader of the Taliban). US government is no retard to claim it is him. Show me one US government site that says it is him. It's just speculation and anyone who knows about artificial eye will quickly tell you that the man in the image does not have artificial eye. Ask your self who took that photo when he is hiding and hates being photographed? The real MO could make a passport under a different name and travel anywhere around the world without being detected. In Western countries it may be difficult but in the Afghanistan region it can be done very easily, without even visiting the agency that issues it. That's one of the reasons we don't upload someone else's image and name it MO and then add it in his article. That's helping the real MO evade detection because law enforcement agencies around the world will believe that the image in Wikipedia is the real MO. This is what people these days believe.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Does the US government currently have any allegedly true photos of Mullah Omar on its website? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No. Nobody has any true photo of that guy. US government has no idea what he looks like other than him having a long beard and is blind in the right eye. All men in southern Afghanistan have long beards.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite what I asked. Does any US government website have a photo that they claim is Mullah Omar? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a festering, ongoing, and apparently permanent, issue and I don't understand why there has been no administrator attention to it, though, I suspect no one has come across it. I just left a note on User:Wouterstomp's page to call attention to it.DocumentError (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I really need to make this point crystal clear. I never advocate blocking users and I think we are usually way too quick to do it. I've never devolved into the popular hobby of criticizing admins either. However, it is absolutely flabbergasting to me that this Krzyhorse22 account is still active on WP. I simply can't think of any other occasion when a user is given carte blanche to file non-stop ANIs against another user that are so utterly aberrant that they cite - as evidence - "phone calls to the director of the CIA." How is Krzyhorse22's presence on WP even possible? Is it because StanTheMan87 is a new user and this is part of the new user hazing? I'm sorry to be so blunt on this but I'm really having trouble wrapping my mind around how this harassment is being permitted with nothing more than a few stern looks in Krzyhorse22's direction. DocumentError (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You have already admitted that you and StanTheMan87 are socking/meatpuppeting. [163] If I was an admin I would block you for WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:MTPPT.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The way things have been going around here lately, you may very well end up as an admin in the near future. Honestly, you'll probably be on the board before the end of the year. DocumentError (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RPP

There are currently 19 pending requests at WP:RPP. Thanks in advance to the volunteers on mop duty. VQuakr (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done down to 4. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism on Files For Upload

I think User:Gogo212121 is committing vandalism or spam on the FFU page. I keep trying to undo their edits, but it tells me the edit cannot be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits and must be done manually. Ashton 29 (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like whatever happened at FFU has been fixed (I don't think it was Gogo's fault). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Aye, seems like a mistake that was fixed - no big deal. @Ashton 29: Make sure you notify users you're discussing at ANI on their talk page. I've let Gogo know here, if they wish to provide any input :) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I blocked them two months ago for massive vandalism, so that I think the report should be taken seriously.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Returning sockpuppet

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

---

That user that likes to post walls of Arabic text is back as User:Naghmerty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), User:Naghmehdkj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and User:Naghmeasx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I'd file with SPI, but I can't remember the original name.--Auric talk 14:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. Easily passes the WP:DUCK test (or make that بطة). IronGargoyle (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

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

For future reference, these are usually tagged as socks of User:Naghmehetaati. Fram (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced material

An editor Victoryk is constantly adding unsourced material on Kailash Vijayvargiya page. Further, he/she has also indulged in the removal of sourced material. This issue was reported in the chat of community portal and 3 different editors at different time understood the issue and reverted the changes. The editor was notified on his/her Talk page as well as article's Talk page but has not responded. The tone and nature of the content shows that the editor in question may be working on the behalf of the subject. I request senior editors to take a look and help stop the nuisance. Katyaan (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hard to be sure while the editor remains unresponsive but on the face it this appears to be an attempt to sanitise the article by removing referenced material related that may be viewed as negative. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the editor is doing it again and again. What can be done? The editor again reverted your and mine edits this morning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katyaan (talk • contribs) 09:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Requesting protection of Celestial Seasonings article

Somebody keeps trying to remove legitimate criticism of Celestial Seasonings in the Controversies & Health concerns section despite them being sourced properly [164]. Since I dont wanna continue an edit war, I think the best solution is to protect the article until interest in it dies down. Thanks. 69.165.246.175 (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

And it is very right that they did remove it. Those sources are absolutely not reliable in any way, shape, or form. The Weebly reference is a blog with no editorial oversight; we should never be using such a reference for anything, let alone a controversial claim. I mean never. The thenfl.com source is a) a primary source at best, but more likely a promotional site, and b) an archive, which raises the very likely possibility that the "reference" was removed because it was inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate. --NellieBly (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Or discuss on the talk page first. Epicgenius (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we get Weebly added to the blacklist, please? It has no place whatsoever as a reference on Wikipedia. As for the actual subject here though: completely agree; if there is going to be a protection it'll be to keep people from re-adding them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Article has been semi-protected by User:CambridgeBayWeather. --NellieBly (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Weebly is an unreliable link. Meanwhile, no one has looked at the real issue here, which is that no one did any discussion; technically, both IP users should have been blocked for edit warring. Epicgenius (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Have I misunderstood what edit warring is all this time?

See Talk:Marsha Garces Williams#Children in infobox.

Winkelvi has told me that B R R is not edit warring (and to stay the fuck off their talk page):

It seems a bit unfair to me as this means the person who makes the first edit gets to do whatever they please (BRR) and anyone tries to stop them (BRRR) will be the only one guilty of edit warring.

Winkelvi is also uncivil to other editors, removing a good faith request from KahnJohn27 on their talk page with the edit summary "take out the trash". HelenOnline 15:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, an isolated instance of not following BRD is not edit warring. BRD is only an essay, though it's a practice followed by a lot of editors. I'm more concerned with the warning to keep off (in line with general concerns with such unilateral demands; see WP:KEEPOFF). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Uhm...no. BRD is..."intended to supplement the Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Be bold pages, to which editors should defer in case of inconsistency between that page and this one." It is actually more than just an essay. However...it is also not something that can be forced on editors and is intended for difficult cases were discussion has become bogged down.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I think BRD only really kicks in after the second revert (at which point it's obvious there's an edit war looming, and a second revert should usually include a request to respect BRD). The problem is that, as Mendaliv says, BRD is only a essay – unfortunately plenty of editors who should know better (including some admins) use its status as an excuse to continue reverting. Perhaps it's time to consider pushing it to be upgraded to guideline status. Number 57 15:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The above misquotes and takes my comments out of context. The first quote should read, "discuss like an adult or stay the fuck off my talk page"; the second quote was in reference to what KahnJohn wrote, not KahnJohn himself. Rather than coming to my talk page to discuss like the experienced editor she is, Helen left a warning tag. An inappropriately placed warning tag, I might add. Editors have a right to tell others to stay off their talk page. I exercised my right to do so. I guess I could have left a warning tag on her talk page, but that would have been inappropriate. Instead, I opted to make my request as strongly worded as possible to leave an impression. Her response was to further engage in childish behavior by coming here to tattle. This is all a non-issue much ado borne out of disagreement in a content dispute. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It was your suggestion: "See if an administrator thinks I'm edit warring." If I have misunderstood what edit warring is all this time (and disadvantaged myself a great deal in the process), I would like to rectify that and I will have this thread to support my reverts. HelenOnline 15:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Please confirm I am not edit warring if I now revert Winkelvi's revert of my revert of their edit (BRRR). HelenOnline 16:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I suggested it. After you continued to insist I was edit warring not just on my talk page but at the Marsha Garces Williams talk page and the Robin Williams talk page. Making such accusations against editors all across Wikipedia is hardly collegial and civil. My suggestion was along the lines of "shit or get off the pot". As experienced and long term an editor you are, I never thought you would actually come to a noticeboard. I guess long-term and many, many edits doesn't always equate wisdom. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

Ugh. That has to be the worst signature I've ever seen. Have you checked with WP:SIGAPP to make sure that it's compliant? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC) I'm pretty sure so long as the text-shadow style doesn't excessively offset surrounding text (i.e., work as a border or overlap other text), it should be okay. But the use of absolute pixel values for the shadow size rather than relative values (e.g., x-height) might make it a bit problematic in certain cases (e.g., extremely low screen resolutions). It doesn't cause problems for me, or affect the line height (as <sup> tags might). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC) It looks like Winkelvi has changed their signature since I posted. It now looks much better. Thank you, Winkelvi. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Nope, didn't change a thing. I've had the same sig for over a year. Probably longer. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC) The signature is fine, but an error or incompatibility on my web browser shows an orange box that replaces the text shadow. As horrid as the box is, its merely just a technical glitch. --Acetotyce (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Hmmmm....it could be a browser rendering issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Or an OS issue - I use the same browser (Google Chrome) over both Mac and Windows OS's, but the Mac version displays the shadow correctly, while the Windows version doesn't. Epicgenius (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I can justify that Winkelvi's behavior has been indeed rude. He removed my comment which was completely civil and called it trash. Not only that his behavior has been rude to other users too. Not only that he also made a false meaning out of my comment deliberately. Here [165] he blames my claim of not having a problem with consensus of including the name of Williams' children false. However in that comment when I said there never was no consensus I meant to say that unlike what Winkelvi claimed, a consensus was never reached on whether to include the name of Zelda Williams or not. I really wonder why he deliberately made a false meanings of my comment when the meaning of it can be understood easily by anyone. I have been polite and very patient with Winkelvi form the beginning. But he is completely breaching the limits of decency. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Is discussing someone's signature more important than answering my request for help? As Winkelvi gloats re this thread on my talk page, "See where it gets you (which will likely be where it's gotten Helen - nowhere)."

I take things literally, that is how my mind works. WP:EW says:

"The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what 'edit warring' means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so."

"Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts." (hence why I thought WP:BRD was relevant, and when one revert is overwritten by another revert I consider that "back-and-forth reverts")

The edit warring template says: "Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made."

If BRR is not edit warring, please can administrators confirm exactly when "edit warring" kicks in? e.g. BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. HelenOnline 05:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I have been accused of "spreading falsehoods" about Winkelvi in this regard. If that is true, I will apologise and refrain from doing it again. However, I don't see how I am supposed to interpret WP:EDITWARRING any other way as it stands, so I would ask you to clarify the policy and give a clearer definition of "edit warring" in the policy. HelenOnline 06:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Helen, an editor CAN be blocked after a single revert for edit-warring - it would depend on their history and the situation. NOBODY on the site is permitted to B-R-R...3RR is a "bright line" at which the block is inevitable, whereas WP:EW can be invoked at almost any revert, again, based on the individual situation. WP:BRD is not policy, but wise, intelligent, community-minded people follow it as a way to get to Consensus nicely, and yes, admis like me tell people to follow it to avoid EW blocks the panda ₯’ 09:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DangerousPanda. HelenOnline 14:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Badgering of contributors, accusations of racism, and canvassing in relation to an AfD discussion.

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

---

Could uninvolved contributors and admins please take a look at the actions of User:Zigzig20s concerning Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danièle Watts. ZigZag has been badgering contributors who !voted delete right from the start of the AfD - repeatedly asserting that the subject is notable while failing to provide the necessary evidence - and has made several posts intimating that delete !votes are motivated by racism. Note in particular the edit summary for this post (with the same accusation in the post) "Would her page really have been suggested for deletion if she were white?"[166]. Despite beimg challenged over this claim, ZigZag repeated it, again with an edit summary "Would this really be proposed for deletion if she were white?" [167] I asked ZigZag to redact these self-evidently inappropriate personal attacks on contributors, both on their talk page and in the AfD, but ZigZag has refused to do so, instead making mealy-mouthed assertions about what 'the media might think'. And meanwhile, ZigZag has also been engaging in canvassing concerning the AfD, posting clearly partisan notices on user and article talk pages. [168][169] Since it seems evident that ZigZag is unwilling to conform to appropriate behaviour during this AfD, and is going out of their way to antagonise contributors and otherwise disrupt the discussion, I suggest that they should be blocked from editing until such time as they agree to unconditionally redact the allegations of racism, cease badgering AfD participants, and let the discussion run its natural course without further attempts to subvert due process. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The accusations of racism are excessive, even if the actress' detention was race-based. However, why would anyone even know about this if the actress weren't already known? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked by the Panda. Good block. Bishonen | talk 23:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC).

Yes, and I RevDel'd the 2 above-linked purely disruptive edit-summaries the panda ₯’ 23:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Bill Daly and User:Lmwolman

Lmwolman (talk · contribs · count)

Lmwolman, who claims that he works for the NHL, has repeatedly replaced the Bill Daly page with a version that uses a biography copied and pasted mostly from here, despite having already received several warnings. Not only is it a COI and blatant copyright infringement, but it is an unreferenced biography of a living person that reads like a PR piece, and removes categorization/succession boxes too. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Lmwolman (talk · contribs · count) posted the same copyright-violating material to the Help Desk, from where I reverted it. I have given the user a further warning about copyright violation. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

He has had enough warnings. If he really works for the NHL, he could release the copyright, but it would still be an inadequately sourced BLP (sourced only to the NHL). Recommend a block for long enough to give him a stronger warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the repeated copyvios merit a block to get her attention, which the previous warnings do not seem to have achieved. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The user stopped adding the content after the personal note was placed on their talk page by David Biddulph at 15:40. While it's true that the Twinkle-placed templated notices failed to get their attention, the personal note got the desired result. Their only edit since then has been to remove the undesirable content from a user talk page where they had posted it. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ah well. I just blocked after reading the RFPP note. While Diannaa certainly points at what one might call a positive influence, actual words would have staved off the block--that is, had the editor actually used words on a talk page or elsewhere. However, if someone wants to unblock out of the kindness of their heart, I don't oppose. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies and Drmies: you blocked him after he'd stopped, by at least a day ? Wouldn't that be considered punative ? I mean, if he was still edit warrning and what not, then no problem, blocked earned, but he stopped after getting a more personalized message ? KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 16:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to consider it punitive, you can. I didn't intend it as punishment. If I had seen any kind of verbal response (short of removal of content) I wouldn't have blocked. But tell you what, I'll go ahead and unblock and leave a note. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Inexperienced editor needs advice

It all started when ChristineBushMV removed several threads from MV Wilhelm Gustloff amounting to 17,774 bytes as a violation of WP:FORUM. The threads were from 2012 and 2013. I disagreed with her action and reverted. ChristineBushMV then came to my talkpage to tell me to archive the material to my sandbox and to self-revert.

When I refused to do so, she opened a thread at the talkpage of the Gustloff article and after the discussion was a few days old and was contributed to by myself, Jack Upland and ChristineBushMV, she decided to unilaterally remove the whole thread at the same time complaining in her edit-summary that this is quote: (Another example of women's insights not being welcome on Wikipedia.)

I objected to such removal of my contributions and those of Jack Upland and I restored the thread, but as a compromise I collapsed it. ChristineBushMV would have none of this however and reverted again commenting in her edit-summary This topic is irrelevant to the subject of the page. I started the thread. I ended the thread. It never belonged here in the first place. If you wish to archive it, do so elsewhere. Many thanks., as if it is my responsibility to archive threads she opens on talkpages of articles. I find it rather difficult to communicate with this editor under these circumstances. Therefore, I would like someone, perhaps a possible mentor, to please explain to her the basic practices involving talkpage discussions, especially when they involve removal of other editors' comments. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"Basic practices involving talkpage discussions" include those laid out in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and specifically in the section entitled 'Discussion forums'. Accordingly, although it might be argued that ChristineBushMV might possibly have handled this better, I have to suggest that she is entirely correct in arguing that the material under discussion did not belong on the article talk page, since it clearly had nothing to do with improving article content. I would suggest that the appropriate course of action would be for someone to archive the material in the normal place (i.e. the archive for Talk:MV Wilhelm Gustloff) and for future contributors to the talk page to adhere to WP:NOTFORUM, rather than engaging in further off-topic debates. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Although I disagree with the statement that the removed comments had nothing to do with improving the article, I am not going to argue this point at this forum for brevity's sake. But I fully agree that the discussions should be archived as opposed to being deleted. But your reply does not address the secondary point which is her insistence for the removal of the thread she initiated at the talkpage of the article regarding the WP:FORUM discussion. Jack Upland and I had replied to her for a few days and then she abruptly decided to delete it and she reverted me when I collapsed it instead of deleting it. She then told me in her edit-summary to go archive it somewhere else. I think she still needs some advice about removing comments of other editors in threads she initiates soliciting these comments. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

In my experience, discussions like those do lead to article improvements. Arguments on "points of order" do not.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree and I have enunciated that much in the thread ChristineBushMV initiated and which she now wants deleted. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to propose a change to WP:NOTFORM policy, feel free to do so - but until then, long-winded discussions as to whether "Hitler diverted a lot of his war effort in order to fulfil his (fanatical) dream of the final solution rather than resupply his army or evecuate his people", contributors personal opinions as to what constitutes a war crime, on the "cynicism of military thinking" along with Solzhenitsyn "Gulag Archipelago", the rape of German women by Soviet soldiers, the bombing of Dresden and the actions of U.S. submarines in the war against Japan don't belong on the talk page of an article on a German ship sunk by the Soviet navy in the Baltic in 1945. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You still have not addressed my second point, the removal of a thread ChristineBushMV initiated and then abruptly decided to remove twice despite the fact that other editors had already contributed to it. Perhaps I was not clear enough in my introductory post. I think that ChristineBushMV does not have the right to remove threads she initiates which contain posts from good-faith editors and I think that she needs to be advised about that. Any other detailed WP:FORUM discussion is out of place at ANI because this report is not about clarifying WP:FORUM. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

At issue here are these two edits by ChristineBushMV: (Removed long, irrelevant thread about talk page guidelines being violated. (Another example of women's insights not being welcome on Wikipedia.), although the very same thread was initiated by her, and (This topic is irrelevant to the subject of the page. I started the thread. I ended the thread. It never belonged here in the first place. If you wish to archive it, do so elsewhere. Many thanks.), and her doing it the second time and telling me to archive it somewhere else. I find these actions misguided. She also insists on telling me to archive things, first in my sandbox when she came to my talkpage, and then If you wish to archive it, do so elsewhere. in the above edit-summary, referring to her own thread. She creates threads, people respond to them, and then she changes her mind and wants them erased. If editors object to her deletion, she tells people to archive them somewhere else. I think she needs advice about how to create threads and how to treat the contributions of others in the threads she creates. She also needs advice about her demands that other editors archive threads she no longer likes after she creates them. She also needs to be advised that threads do not end by decree, cf. (This topic is irrelevant to the subject of the page. I started the thread. I ended the thread., just above. And what about this: (Another example of women's insights not being welcome on Wikipedia.), Where did that highly politicised statement come from? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I have addressed the issue of the removal of the threads perfectly adequately. I stated that I think that ChristineBushMV could have handled it better, and that archiving them in the normal place would have been more appropriate. I very much doubt that there would be support for sanctions against her however, given that the material in question didn't belong on the talk page in the first place. And yes, the breach of WP:NOTFORUM is perfectly relevant to this discussion, whether you like it or not, since that was at the core of this dispute. If you start a discussion at ANI you should expect people to look into the background for themselves, and to make their own judgements. If your suggestion that 'threads do not end by decree' is valid, then neither can the person starting them determine what is or isn't relevant 'by decree'. Looking at the talk page history, it is evident that your initial response to ChristineBushMV removing the disputed threads was to restore them, with an edit summary asserting that the deletion was an "Invalid application of NOTFORUM" [170] Not only was the material off-topic, but one of the discussions were ongoing - the last post in any of them dated to July of last year. It would have been perfectly possible to have archived them at that point, but instead you chose to restore them - and to continue to argue for their retention on the talk page. If ChristineBushMV's understanding of what is appropriate behaviour on talk pages deserves scrutiny, then so does yours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I very much doubt that there would be support for sanctions against her however... I don't follow you. Please check the heading of this thread which does not call for sanctions but advice. Not only was the material off-topic, but one of the discussions were ongoing - the last post in any of them dated to July of last year. It would have been perfectly possible to have archived them at that point, but instead you chose to restore them - and to continue to argue for their retention on the talk page. I did not archive them because ChristineBushMV wanted them deleted, not archived. So my restoration was a temporary first step, pending a decision based on consensus on what to do with them. but instead you chose to restore them - and to continue to argue for their retention on the talk page. I chose to restore them because I believed they did not have to be deleted. That was the first step. The second step would have been to archive them. But I did not want to do that by myself before trying to see if that would meet with resistance from ChristineBushMV. And I did not "continue to argue on the talkpage" as you claim. ChristineBushMV started the thread, and I responded because she opened the thread. Subsequently she ended it abruptly and removed it without regard for the contributions of others. If you want to defend such action, it's your prerogative but I don't agree with you. And you have not addressed the purpose of the edit-summary regarding "women's insights not being welcome on Wikipedia.", a statement which is highly politicised and defies AGF. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the kind of shit that causes wingnuts to accuse people of always playing the minority card. --NE2 20:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why ChristineBushMV thanked me for this edit - I was referring to her edit summary about "Another example of women's insights not being welcome on Wikipedia". --NE2 21:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I'm not sure whether the user who has brought this issue to this forum is ignorant of my contributions, or simply wishes to patronize me. Regardless, I wish to relay that I do not self-identify as "inexperienced." I have received positive acknowledgment for my work from others. I have successfully completed WMF-endorsed courses about how WP is supposed to work. WP is not the only online encyclopedia in the world, and I am respected and engaged on other projects.

A review of my interactions with the article about the MV_Wilhelm_Gustloff will indicate that I have tried only to improve it. The story of what happened to Wilhelm Gustloff is an important subject which deserves an excellent article. I am trying to participate in creating that article. I would be delighted if the article's Talk page could serve as a place for relevant, constructive discussion of the merits of the article itself. Please forgive my naïve efforts to make it so. ChristineBushMV (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I'm not sure whether the user who has brought this issue to this forum is ignorant of my contributions, or simply wishes to patronize me. I don't check the backgrounds of editors I interact with. I only check their interactions with me. It would be better if you addressed the points I raised above, including your demands that I archive the thread you opened, and then deleted, "elsewhere", or that I archive the article talkpage threads you deleted in my sandbox. It would also help to explain how you can decree that: This topic is irrelevant to the subject of the page. I started the thread. I ended the thread. in a collaborative project such as this or if you think that's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Or address why you felt the need to include in your edit-summary that the thread was "Another example of women's insights not being welcome on Wikipedia." and why you felt you had to direct this toward your fellow-editors. Was WP:AGF part of the curriculum of the WMF-endorsed courses? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as "inexperience", I saw this edit at Talk:MV-Gustloff when your responses were interjected inbetween existing comments, without using any indentation and violating the chronological order, and this edit to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators asking for "Administrative Intervention" to close the thread you opened, as signs of inexperience. This was reinforced by the way you then closed the thread on your own. In turn. this led me to consider if you could possibly profit from some advice from someone external to this conflict. It was not meant in any way to patronise you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have read the (now removed) message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators, and I hope I have given the editor the appropriate administrative help. For the record, I disagree strongly with the claim that all those posts were forum posts. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you Drmies. I agree with your action and with your opinion regarding the contention that these posts fell under the forum policy. As far as I am concerned, your intervention has brought this thread to a successful close. I also thank everyone who has participated in it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

And I'm so happy that you two have found each other. Many happy returns. ChristineBushMV (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@ChristineBushMV: Please consult WP:AVOIDYOU and, if at all possible, please try to avoid trolling. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Merge against consensus and 1RR violation by User:Epeefleche

• The Beatles (terrorist cell) was created on September 12, 2014.
• One day later it was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles (terrorist cell).
• Yesterday 2601:7:6880:740:212:17ff:fe94:be5e merged the whole of Jihadi John into The Beatles (terrorist cell) without any discussion; see [171]
• This merge was undone by me earlier today making it clear I objected to the merge.
• I was then reverted by Epeefleche.
• I reverted Epeefleche making it very clear I objected to the merge, and asked him to gain a consensus for the merge.
• I further indicated I opposed the merge at Talk:The Beatles (terrorist cell).
• Epeefleche further reverted me again today.

I would like an admin to look into this, since I believe there have been a number of violations.

1. Wikipedia:Merging clearly states For uncontroversial mergers, no permission is needed to merge; just do it. If your merger is reverted, it's controversial and you need to discuss it. Since I reverted the IP editor, and then Epeefleche, and voiced my concerns on the talk page, it is clear I opposed the merge. It is clear this is a controversial merge (I believe it was mainly done to game the AfD). Epeefleche has twice reverted me now without following the protocols for controversial merges.
2. Secondly, as indicated on the talk page, "Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users". Epeefleche has twice reverted a registered user in a 24-hour period, violating the 1RR condition.
3. The merge also failed to incorporate any copyright attribution as detailed at WP:MERGETEXT, so the merge also constitutes a copyright violation.

I believe Epeefleche's actions are counter-productive to collaborative editing, disruptive, and also constitute a policy violation. This editor has a history of disruption (see his block log) and he clearly has not modified his behavior. Betty Logan (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• As is standard for these situations, I don't think anyone is behaving particularly well here; I don't have a pony in this race, don't really care whether or not a merge should happen. My solution would be 1) Return all articles to the status quo ante bellum 2) punish or sanction no one, so long as every talks it out and leaves it in that state before making any changes. Fair warning: I did vote in the AFD for one of these articles, but I still don't have any opinion one way or the other on the validity of the merge that is the source of the dispute. I only note that both sides seem to be acting in good faith; one side believes that there should be a merge, one side believes that there shouldn't. The solution is to put everything back where it was, and talk it out. --Jayron32 19:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue isn't really about whether it is "right" or "wrong" to merge, the issue is about how the decision to merge is established. The problem is with a single editor, since no-one else has contravened polices or the merge procedures: the IP undertook a bold merge and I reverted it; that is within accepted practice with Wikipedia. The problem is the conduct of a single editor who is clearly not acting in "good faith", since their behavior is completely inconsistent with how controversial merges are carried out i.e. the procedure is to propose the merge, discuss it and then carry it out if necessary. The other party knows this because I have explicitly linked to the Help page on the article talk page, where I give my reason for reverting the merge. This is an editor who has been indefinitely blocked three times already but is yet still permitted to continue disrupting Wikipedia by completely disregarding the standard Wikipedia practises which are there to encourage collegiate editing. Betty Logan (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Betty -- you made 3 reverts. Of 2 different editors. There was discussion. And there was editing post-merger by a number of other different editors, without protest to the merge. You arrived later as the lone editor complaining. As the lone protesting editor, you reverted multiple other editors. Three times. Within a short time period. If you do have (or create) consensus support -- in the face of the other editors you are reverting, and the additional editors who have happily edited the article post-merger without disagreeing with the merger (a number of editors actively edit that article) -- reflect that consensus for undoing what multiple other editors have done and others have been editing without any disagreement. Otherwise, please don't edit war with multiple other editors.

Plus -- let's understand what is going on. Material was added to an article about a group, from an article about one of it's members -- regarding that member's actions as part of that group. It's all clearly relevant to the article on the group. Yet that's what you keep on deleting. Epeefleche (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

1. "Betty -- you made 3 reverts" – LIE. I only edited the article twice, to revert the merge. The first time to revert the original merge by the IP editor, the second time to revert you.
2. "There was discussion." – LIE. Where is this "discussion"? Certainly not at Talk:The_Beatles_(terrorist_cell)#Another_fine_mess... or Talk:Jihadi John.

This editor is a pathological liar who has been indefinitely blocked three times already, but somehow keeps getting unblocked. Anyone who gets indefinitely blocked three times is a disruptive presence; I fully support someone being given a second chance if they demonstrate they have mended their ways, but this editor is on his fourth chance now after three indefinite blocks and is disrupting the encylopedia by not adhering to polices and practices he is clearly aware of. Betty Logan (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Not commenting on this report per say, but Epeefleche's last block was almost 3 years ago? You are going to have to do better than that it seems. --Malerooster (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Betty, I proposed a reasonable solution which avoided assigning blame. You've instead decided to call someone names and use inflammatory language. Your actions here do not act to work towards a solution which is best for the encyclopedia. Instead, your motivation, from your actions in your last two posts, seem to be more about defeating a person rather than working towards a solution. I highly suggest you reconsider how you approach situations like this. If you wish to be involved in the consensus building that leads to whatever final version we arrive at for these articles, it would be best if you actually behaved as though you were interested in article content, and not with defeating another person with whom you may disagree. --Jayron32 01:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected on 1 point. Betty made 2 reverts; she made precisely the number of reverts she is complaining about me making - her complaint reflected in both her title of this thread, and in the thread itself. In her case (in contrast) she reverted 2 different editors, and then opened this AN/I. As to the discussion, it took place in the AfD, and in edit summaries pointing to the Afd, for example. And nobody -- prior to Betty's revert (of another editor -- not me), had indicated a problem, at the point in time that Betty started her reversions. I've since in addition to that discussion now opened up discussion at the article page itself--since others only reverted, without opening up discussion on that talk page.

I must say, I'm not sure why an editor would incorrectly at a noticeboard call another editor a pathological liar, as Betty did above. But if it is intended to insult, and to discourage communication and participation I get it. I'll not post here on this again unless I see it as necessary, as I don't see why I should have to suffer such hostile and uncivil accusations. Epeefleche (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I did the merge, but only after three editors had a long discussion on the AFD for The Beatles (terrorist cell), and I assumed there was concensus. I certainly did not intend to cause ruffled feathers, but I have to say, Epeefleche has been very helpful and direct, kind, and understanding. There was no discussion on any talk page prior to the discussion on the AFD, but I am assuming a global AFD discussion is probably best combined with all the talk page dialouge. The problem was, there was no discussion on the talk pages about this. All the editors who actuall WROTE something in the article rather than paTROLL the article were talking about the merge in the AFD. I hope everyone can come away from this with a solution. Betty seems myopic and her arguments I have reviewed on the talk pages are not logical. Is there a way all of us can be civil and work towards a common goal? Calling people to an AN/I drumhead trial seems extreme when we in fact should be talking about what's best for the content. Thanks 2601:7:6880:740:212:17FF:FE94:BE5E (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

There has been no "long discussion" about merging the articles. As you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles (terrorist cell), a merge was only mooted by two editors prior to the bold merge: the IP who undertook it and Epeefleche who claimed a "consensus". There was no discussion of the merge. An AfD is not the appropriate place to discuss a merge because a merge involves two articles, not one. Those editors who edit Jihadi John had no recourse since the AfD concerned a different article. Secondly WP:MERGE lays out a "civil" framework to "work towards a common goal": the merge procedures are laid down very clearly i.e. when a potential merge requires discussion, what you should do if a bold merge is reverted etc, how a merge discussion should proceed. When editors refuse to observe standard procedures this is invariably where things end up. Epeefleche is a seasoned editor and should be well aware of what is required to merge an article, and even if he is not then a quick read of the link I provided on the talk page would have explained it to him. Instead he chose a disruptive course of action by gaming the system and then misrepresented his actions here. This doesn't really come as a surprise to me, since no-one gets indeffed three times without causing considerable disruption. Fair enough, his last block was three years ago, but all that means is that he hasn't done anything to warrant an indef in that time; it doesn't alter the fact that yet again he wilfully circumvented a procedure intended to build a consensus, not out of ignorance but simply because it didn't suit his own ends. Betty Logan (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

A consensus of one is not consensus. You, and you alone have objected and instead of going to his talk page or the article talk page (this is going off of no diffs for either) you have essentially stumbled directly into assumed OWNership of the article. Apparently the IP started a discussion so instead of trying to continue to incite a blind call for action, how about getting back to building an encyclopedia? 132.3.37.82 (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC) (Tivanir2 on public computer)

User:Natg 19 and non admin closures

The following discussion is closed. 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 stumbled across a questionable non admin closure for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Publicover by Natg 19 (talk · contribs) which I have now sent to deletion review an

but I noticed another questionable closure here d a questionable relisting here.

I would recommend Natg 19 be restricted from performing any admin like functions on AfDs. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Fixed the notification for ya. Ansh666 03:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this user needs to understand that non admin closures are only to be done in clear cut circumstances. I have been following this and responding to these closures and relistings. With the Liga Bet debate I came to the same conclusion but I don't consider it clear cut. The relisting at MASwings_Flight_3002 was unneeded as there was a clear outcome. The most recent closure of Ralph Publicover was just plain incorrect.

For these reasons I support a restriction on non admin closures for this user. I think this restriction should be removed only once the user demonstrates an understanding and willingness to follow the advice at WP:NAC. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 03:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Disclosure - I participated in two of those discussions, will likely now participate at DRV and I left one of the messages on the users talk page. Support but only for as long as it takes for the user to demonstrate they can get it right. They aren't "break the project" sort of mistakes and they are mistakes, not intentional disruption. No need for a topic-ban-style sanction. If they are will willingly take a month or so off from admin-style actions (WP:NACs, relisting, etc) to get up to speed then we should be right. I have no long-term concerns about this editor. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry for the incorrect non admin closures. I have been a Wikipedia user for some time, but only recently started contributing to AfD. I will take a month or so off from admin-style actions and review the advice at WP:NAC. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you. I think this settles the matter. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 16:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• As do I. An admin should feel free to close this without formal action. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Gtrbolivar

On the 26th August 2014, I edited the Ancient Macedon article, changing 'ancient Greek kingdom' to 'ancient kingdom'. The reason I made this edit is because there is reasonable doubt relating to the Ancient Macedonians alleged 'Greekness' and the term 'ancient kingdom' was reached by consensus in 2008 and changed to 'ancient Greek Kingdom' in 2012, without consulting or consensus. All I had done was restore the version of the consensus, and much to the horror of User:Gtrbolivar and others, I suddenly had 'pro-slav' intentions. I was investigated as being a sockpuppet, even though I, and the other user, Taivo, live in radically different timezones and edit different articles (view my contribs, predominately Australian articles)

Who knew that such an inconsequential edit could cause an edit/pov war for 3 weeks?

I recently made this edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)&oldid=625639162

Hoping to resolve the issue which has gone on for 3 weeks due to my edit, I invited all concerned editors, presented all possible sides, allowing users to cast their vote to which version they propose (even though consensus was reached between Taivo and Stevepeterson), with User:Gtrbolivar completely ignoring this, shown here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)&oldid=625117854 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)&oldid=625112264 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)&oldid=625101250 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)&oldid=625081744

In blantant violation of WP:3RR, and yet was not blocked.

Even before this, the pro-Macedonian stance editor Macedonia also reverted the edit by Stevepeterson on the consensus, which was reverted by Taivo. This editor did not edit the article again.

He then completely ignored my invitation for a civilised discussion and to obtain a consensus, and subsequently made this edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)&oldid=625751938

Starting his own 'new' section for consensus, inviting only editors supporting his cause, with noticeable users (Taivo) absent. I wonder why?

He does not assume good faith, insults me for my somehow POV editing. Quotes below

" Obviously I am not going to comment on Luxure. Everybody who participated in this "dispute" unsterstands his role, his "historical" perception and his agenda. Unfortunately me and many other users lost our time answering to ridiculous things like (quote): "there is reasonable doubt relating to the Ancient Macedonians alleged Greekness. Also, reading through the plethora of text on this page, the version of 'ancient kingdom' was reached by consensus in 2008 and sneakily changed to 'ancient Greek Kingdom' in 2012". Besides his historical ignorance ("Ancient Greece didn't have Kings") and his vehement attempt to sneak his pseudo-historic fairy tales and POV perceptions in wikipedia, he obviously doesn't understand what WP:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources are "

and

" I understand that some people here aren't only biased and historically ignorant, but they are in fact trying desperately to push a FYROM/Skopije pseudo-historic agenda that has no place in an encyclopedia like this "

and, in his response

" I'm not gonna dignify your crap with a response, you are an ignorant who doesn't know the first thing about history ("Ancient Greece didn't have kings"). My advice to you: Go back to the elementary school or try to read Herodotus or Arrian at least. This could work miracles on you, take my word for it. Finally as far as the WP:NPOV is concerned, my English is very good (unlike yours apparently: "it is contrary to the many authors/science which classify Macedonia...", "It seems that your a being biased") and I don't need a "Greek translate". Maybe you need a Slavic translation (or whatever)

Apparently his English is very good (I was born in and live in an English-speaking country) and I need a 'Slavic' translate.

This editor is obviously very biased, does not assume good faith, is very disruptive to Wikipedia and is trying to push his POV with NO compromises.

He is in violation of:

WP:3RR

WP:CON

WP:AGF

WP:COI

WP:VANDAL

and he also insults me and other editors He has also been reported many times in the past few days.

Cheers,

Luxure (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a thread above about the same topic. Epicgenius (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"I edited the Ancient Macedon article, changing 'ancient Greek kingdom' to 'ancient kingdom'. .... Who knew that such an inconsequential edit could cause an edit/pov war for 3 weeks?" - nobody can be that naive! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I have just realised! Still my report, what do you think? Luxure (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear admins, I've just read this, it's a complete falsehood. There is no personal insult. He is historically ignorant and tries to push a pseudo-historic agenda. I backed up my arguments with compelling evidence and my opinion still stands. Many other editors (the well-respected editors Cplakidas and Stevepeterson) commented on his historical incompetence and ignorance, as well as on his vandalistic behaviour (he removed sourced material and tried to impose his pseudo-historic perceptions without a shred of historical evidence or source) here: [172], [173]. He has violated WP:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and WP:VANDAL repeatedly. He is a vandal, and a 100% biased historically ignorant editor who wants to impose his pseudo-historic agenda in collaboration with some specific editors. I give you my word that within the next days I'll present a case to the admins with all the compelling evidence that prove beyond any doubt that Luxure is a sockpuppet who tries to forward a very specific agenda.

Right now I want to bring one thing and one thing only to your attention: If you take a look at his User page User:Luxure, you'll find out that he claims to be an Austalian and a native speaker of Australian English. Now take a look here: [174], [175] and also at the beginning of his very report here (quote): "he unbiased statement stands as it being an ancient kingdom on the NW Aegean Sea. I don't know where you are getting this 'FYROM' crap from. It seems that your a being biased to push your nationalistic views.", "All I had did was restore the version of the consensus, and much to the horror of User:Gtrbolivar and others, I was suddenly had 'pro-slav' intentions.", "it is contrary to the many authors/science which classify Macedonia" I respectfully ask you gentlemen (not being a native speaker of English myself): Is it possible for a native speaker of the english language to make such monstrous grammmatical mistakes? My opinion is that it's absolutely impossible. There is no doubt that he is not a native speaker of Australian English, nor is he an Australian for that matter. I believe that he is a FYROM Slav pseudo-nationalist who possibly lives in Australia and is deliberately hiding his true identity in order to pass himself off as neutral and as an outsider (a neutral Australian guy who suddenly starts a crusade to remove the word Greek from the article, removing countless reliable sources). I will initate a sockpuppet investigation in short notice. Gtrbolivar (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

PS: The only thing that was out of line was the use of the word "crap" which I respectfully retract. Please note that Luxure was the first to use the word "crap" here: [176]. I reciprocated with the usage of the same word. Gtrbolivar (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

So you are actually ignorant of what a WP:SOCKPUPPET is (as is User:Stevepeterson apparently). A sockpuppet is a user account that I create and control for the purpose of getting two voices in any dispute. User:Luxure's account was created on 28 July 2013 and has edited Australian articles since then. You are actually claiming that I created an account a year ago and edited on Australia for a year just so that I would have a puppet to control now. I won't avoid using the word "crap" because that is precisely what that charge amounts to. --Taivo (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have some kind of problem with your eyes? Did I say that he was YOUR sockpuppet? Maybe the "crap" you mentioned blocked your eyesight. Gtrbolivar (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

101.171.85.70, this is my ip. Geolocate it and you will see it is located in Australia, specifically Sydney (or for you Gtrbolivar Συδνευ) I did not bother to proof read my statement on your slanderous comments. I will make the grammatical fixes under this ip to prove to you. And to admins: his ignorance is the reason he should be blocked Luxure (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

See? User:Gtrbolivar please don't make faux claims for you pseudo-history. Don't be jealous just because I am trying to make an article neutral and that I live in Australia, compared to whatever country you live in. My country has no financial issues (unlike some), much to the ire of PhonyTony 101.171.85.70 (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Reading Gtrbolivar's response to Luxure's complaint has verified Luxure's complaint to be valid! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Recommend a (short) block for continuing the personal attacks and the disruptive accusations of sockpuppetry. Suggest that other parties go to Arbitration Enforcement to request a topic-ban from all Macedonia-related articles under WP:ARBMAC. User has been alerted to discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I will copy my response to the related incident above. I believe that Gtrbolivar has indeed misbehaved in several occasions (as I did) but it is unfair that he is accused by Luxure, as Gtrbolivar was just defending a wikipedia article from a vandalising behaviour by Luxure and Macedoniarulez (supported/led by user Taivo) who performed an edit war full of personal attacks, constant revesrions (they all received warnings) racist anti-hellenism attacks, refabricating of user comments and expressing radical ultranationalist ideas.

Also I still regret that I failed to assume good faith and I explained the reasons above: because the anti-hellenism camp was aggressively removing reliable sources proving that an Ancient Kingdom located in today's Northern Greece was once part of the Ancient Greek world. Majority of participants in the editwar under the anti-hellenism camp are openly supporters of the concept that Today's inhabitants of Northern Greece are ethnically unrelated to the region's ancient inhabitants and hence their land should be reclaimed by a country on the North which (according to them) is ethnically more closer related to. Users like User:Macedoniarulez and User: Luxure have openly supported such a "reclamation/unification"; they have expressed racist attitude against the Macedonians (Greeks) (even denying their right of self-determination) and we should not be supportive to them. Examples: 1) Luxure has indeed refabricated my commend in the past: ([[177]]) 2) Luxure, Taivo and Macedoniarulez have in several occasions personally attacked Gtrbolivar and they even do it here in this page, attacking his capacity to understand what sockpupetry is. Luxure has been an restless and enthusiastic member of this radical camp with dozens of reverts and attacks Stevepeterson (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC

Stevepeterson still fails to assume good faith. Never have I, nor Taivo openly supported 're-unification' nor are we racist to the Greek Macedonians. I would like to know how I vandalised the Ancient Macedon article. Stop fabricating falsities. The ancient Kingdom of Macedon is now located in NW Greece, but several sources, historians, scientists and geneticists consider the Ancient Macedonians different to the Greeks.

You and Gtrbolivar cannot get your story(s) straight. First User:Macedonia was my puppet/I was his puppet and now he is User:Taivos puppet. Slanderous behaviour.

And you are wrong with me being a 'restless and enthusiastic member' of the anti-hellenic camp. I changed it to a more neutral wording , fought for that neutral wording for 3 or so days, and then ignored it for 3 weeks, and upon returning, saw that the argument was still going on. I attempted to post a new thread on resolving the issue, inviting all concerned users (including Stevepeterson, Gtrbolivar and Macedonia) and to my utter disbelief, I was accused of being biased and as such Gtrbolivar created a new thread, completely ignoring what I had previously posted, attacking me and others for our intelligence. I also apologised for changing Stevepeterson's comment (Alas, he is still living in the past)

It's September 19, not August 26 anymore.

Both users (Stevepeterson and Gtrbolivar) should be blocked.

Stevepeterson should be blocked for 1 week-1 month (violations of 3RR repeatedly)

Gtrbolivar should be blocked for 1 month-indefinitely (see above) (also investigate his sock, User:AkiiraGhioni, who mysteriously became active again, just to agree with these 2 users)

I am sick of their blatant ignorance and childish behaviour. Even look through my contribs to see how long I took a break from the Ancient Macedon article. Luxure (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You say that you are just trying to make the site neutral, not to remove sources proving the Hellenic nature of Ancient Macedonia in order to make a link to the modern inhabitants of the Republic of Macedonia (Macedonian Nationalism and United Macedonia concepts). But you expose yourself when you mention that genetists proved Ancient Macedonians are not Greeks, obviously refering to a anti-hellenic, racist and highly critised by the scientific community study [[178]] that finds DNA links between Ancient Macedonia only related to modern Residents of the Republic of Macedonia and Greeks not belomging to Mediterenan substratum but to SubSaharian. If you dont refer to this study that Slav-Macedonian ultranationalists use as a proof for their anti-greek racismn and Slav-Macedonian Nationalism then please tell us which genetists you are refering to. Even the fact that you refer to genes in this discussion should be a proof of nationalism and racism. Also your racism against the Greek Macedonians and bias towards the Slav Macedonians (unrelated in an article refering to an Ancient Kingdom located in Northern Greece is proven in your refabricating act of my talk ([[179]]) where you changed my wording Greek Macedonian into simply Greek (not recognising their self-determination right to be called Macedonians as if they are outsider settlers in the Macedonia region) and Slav Macedonians into simply Macedonians referring to the residents of Republic of Macedonia , as if they are the original and only people in the region with exclusive right to the term Macedonia. On the other hand I am trying to keep neutral position and recognise that all ethnic groups in Macedonia have the right to the term Macedonian unlike what Greek and Slavic Macedonian Nationalists (including people who have participated in the edit-war) say. Stevepeterson (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not say prove, I said consider. Please check the definitions of these words before you go accusing me of a 'pan-Slavic agenda'. Again I have have apologised for refactoring your comment MULTIPLE times, which you seem to still seem to be harping on about. If you don't accept the apologies, which I am now starting to doubt you do, I will retract them. You don't seem to understand English very well, which I believe may be contributing to your ignorance. Again, you are failing to assume good faith.

I'd like to add that not "practically adopting" the Greek position does not mean the same thing as' "practically adopting" the ethnic Macedonian position Luxure (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You still havcent responded to my inquiry about the reliable geneticists study you refereed to (is it [180]?) although you kept on attacking me. Stevepeterson (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Echoing User:Taivo, WP:POT, User:Stevepeterson Luxure (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Adamstom.97

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

---

User:Adamstom.97 has reverted my edit three times in two articles X-Men (film series) and List of X-Men films cast members to his version which consists of questionable contributions such as

-Putting unnecessary BR codes -Changing the text to small size when it comes to movie titles and character name -Stating that X-Men: First Class and The Wolverine were met with positive by highlighting their dark and realistic tones aren't backed up a source.

He also reverted my edit which included an updated box-office gross and removing multiple sources which aren't needed since there was already 1 legit source.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how this process works, but I do know that you are supposed to notify me on my talk page when you begin a discussion about me, another example of you trying to sneak around behind my back to get what you want. Now, concerning your claims, you reverted my edit three times first, which in and of itself is not enough of an issue to raise here, seeing as how the 3R rule allows three reverts, but considering you are trying to pin this on me, I thought I might mention that. now, to your bullet points about my "questionable contributions", please refer to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors, List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series, Spider-Man in film, and Terminator (franchise), for some examples of whythis format is used, and how much better it works/looks than the version you proclaim to be best. As for the reception info you highlighted, if you think a sentence in the lead needs to be changed in order to not represent original research, then just re-write it, don't revert the entire page. If you make one really big, negative change to the page, with one really small positive change hidden in it, then it is hardly my fault if I didn't realise that the positive change had been reverted as well. It would have been a simple copy and paste to restore that edit, without having to once again revert the entire page and then make a big fuss out of it.

Having written all of that, I now see that you have again gone and reverted my edits. Even though you have tried to make it out as if you haven't by not using the undo button, by directly undoing the exact edits I made manually, you are still consciously reverting my edits. This is in serious violation of the 3R rule, so I am going to report your actions, something I very much do not want to do, as to me it doesn't seem in the spirit of what Wikipedia is about, however your consistent, disruptive behaviour unfortunately warrants it. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The place for you both to discuss the matter is on the article's talk page, not at WP:ANI. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Problems with an incomprehensible user

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

---

I (as well as at least two other users) am having a problem with User:68.100.172.139. The user is filling articles with an insane number of images,[181] most of which are not directly (or at all) related to the subject of the article,[182] completely disregarding WP:MOSIM.[183][184] She or he also changes spellings of names and titles to unrecognizable forms for no given reason.[185] I had to manually clean up articles after this user several times, each time leaving an edit summary explaining what I did and why I did it, yet each time my edits are reverted with no comprehensible explanation at all. Today, the user reverted my edits on several completely unrelated articles - she or he reverted them simply because I made them.[186][187] It appears that the user does not speak English well and, on top of that, does not intend to cooperate at all. How should I proceed? Surtsicna (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I have run into the user that Surtsicna noted above only in a few places; but I note that the behavior is exactly what Surtsicna describes. It's not that the user in question makes additions to articles that is the problem, it's that when Surtsicna tries to clean up after them, fix the mistakes they make, the user reverts Surtsicna without comment. I endorse Surtsicna's report above completely. Something needs to be done. --Jayron32 11:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, from the look of it, the image additions aren't all that bad (though certainly meriting pruning back and perhaps replacement with {{commonscat}} towards the bottom of the pages); it's the reverting without discussion by the IP, and of calling good faith contributions vandalism. I'll also note that this is one prolific IP editor: over 1000 edits since April. A stern warning or block may be necessary to get his or her attention. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The user severely lacks clue. Doesn't understand WP:AGF, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:VANDAL#NOT, etc. I think a temporary block is appropriate to prevent disruption and as a way to open some needed dialogue. Has the user shown any kind of promise with more constructive edits? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 14:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

We also have an editor who has been repeatedly filing frivolous ANIs against another editor because, he claims, he's been in consultations with "the head of the CIA" [[188]] and he hasn't received as much as a 24-hour block over his many disruptive actions. If we were to take enforcement actions based on precedent and equal treament, not only should we not block User:68.100.172.139, he should probably be promoted to adminship. So, while I support Jprg1966's suggestion in practice, I have trouble theoretically reconciling it with our increasingly "laissez les bon temps rouler!" standards vis a vis "clueless" editors. DocumentError (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

User blocked. Please go to User talk:68.100.172.139 and try to chat with him; I've encouraged him to participate in any discussion that may hapepn at his talk page. Nyttend (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

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