Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822

User:Sepsis II and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography

Sepsis II (talk · contribs)

User:Sepsis II has a history of POV-pushing regarding the Israeli-Palestinean conflict, POV pushing that has amounted to two blocks, and sanctions as well.

Anyway, earlier today, he went to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography and moved Palestine from unrecognized states to recognized ones, his first edits to anything VA/E related. VA/E has rules, namely that you don't make controversial moves, adds, or drops without discussing them at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded, so I reverted him on that basis. He then posted on my talk page, where I told him he needed to discuss the edit. Recently, he reverted me back to move Palestine back to recognized states, accusing me of ownership of the page. This revert seems to be in violation of his sanctions. Could something be done about this, starting with undoing his actions and reminding him of his sanctions? I don't really have the stomach for getting in an edit war with this, and I take no position on the recognition of Palestine, merely that such a clearly controversial edit should have been discussed first pbp 15:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Question: Wasn't Palestine officially recognized by the UN last year? - (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/29/us-palestinians-statehood-idUSBRE8AR0EG20121129)
We also have an article about it. - ^theWOLFchild 16:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I still say it should have been discussed before the move was made. VA/E has rules. Discussing things before you do them is one of them. Again, I take no position as to whether Palestine is or isn't recognized. pbp 16:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, but the fact is, he is correct. So, instead of helping him to add info we know to be correct (and supported by RS), you are fighting to keep it out on a technicality? Meanwhile, now the article still has incorrect info and you are seeking to drag him here to ANI? Have you tried discussing this on his talk page? Have you considered any other means of dispute resolution? What admin intervention are you seeking here? - ^theWOLFchild 16:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Further note; I don't see how the initial edit was "controversial", and therefore required you to revert it. But that said, once you did, he should have discussed it with you, per WP:BRD. But I see he has instead reverted you again. You guys should be careful, you don't want to end up in an edit-war. - ^theWOLFchild 16:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

a) It's not an article, and b) He has the last edit pbp 16:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

a) Whatever. Let's not get hyper-technical. b) I noted his last edit with my previous comment above, (it was caught up in an edit conflict). - ^theWOLFchild 16:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sepsis's only current sanction appears to be a 'civility' one. From the Palestine-Israel log of blocks and bans for 2013: Sepsis II (talk · contribs) officially restricted to 1RR/week and put on a shorter leash for personal attacks.[225] Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC) curtailed to a civility restriction only [226] Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)     ←   ZScarpia   16:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It's gotten messier since I withdrew it

User:Thewolfchild, FWIW, a new editor undid Sepsis II's edit in his very first revision. This is well on its way to becoming the next Arab-Israeli conflict battleground. User:Sepsis II needs to start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography, and avoid edit-warring further. This may even need to be added to the ever-growing list of articles under sanctions regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict (at least the portions of the article related to Palestine and Israel). pbp 22:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I agree with you that these areas are very sensitive and prone to conflict. You may have felt I opposed your ANI, but if you noticed my last edit (I'm not sure, first it was tied up in edit conflict, then the thread was closed), I pointed out that once an edit was reverted, that should have activated the WP:BRD cycle, which means should guys should have had a discussion. I know you tried, and I was saying he should have tried discussing as well. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 22:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, Sepsis undid that guy's edit. I guess I'm going to have to start the discussion myself... pbp 23:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I get followed by banned editors a lot, sorry for bringing them along with me. I was unaware the list was a special article under different editing rules, i only noticed it due to a bot edit - [1]. I hope everything is well now. Sepsis II (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who began the discussion. Sepsis II (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The editor who followed me is probably the same racist as [2]. Sepsis II (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

a) VA/E isn't an article per se, b) The discussion should go on at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded. As it plays out, you may consider reporting those users as socks or SPAs, but you gotta stop edit warring! pbp 23:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• @Sepsis II:, with very few exceptions, there is basically no edit that "has to be reverted! right away!!". If you are not familiar with WP:BRD, please read up on it. You should try engaging others in discussion when you want to make contentious edits or edits to controversial subjects. Or, when other editors want to discuss an issue with you, and... always before making that 2^nd revert. (unless it fall under those few exceptions I mentioned). This will help you avoid edit-warring and being brought to ANI. FYI/Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 23:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I did try to discuss PBP's revert before my second edit; I mistook the VA cabal as a violation of wp:own. As I am constantly followed by new accounts reverting my edits I have discussed the issue with admins who state that when it is clear they are banned editors their edits may be reverted freely. Sepsis II (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, well, here's an opportunity for the two of you to resolve any outstanding issues. If the two of you can pick a talk page to chat on, then PBP can close this up (withdraw it) again with no further action required. That way, you don't have to deal with any admins... - ^theWOLFchild 23:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thewolfchild (talk · contribs) is not new, just sporadic - actually started over 3 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

And... ? - ^theWOLFchild 18:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

To me Sepsis II (talk · contribs) looks like another reincarnation of Cryptonio (talk · contribs), which was blocked indefinitely for nationalistic behavior, specifically Personal attacks or harassment: General persistent disruption and attacks. I've opened a SPI report, based on behavior and technical evidence, which was not seriously reviewed. Oh well. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd prod a little harder on that, User:AgadaUrbanit. The main thing that concerns me now is that editors will be showing up to change the status of Palestine away from what we decide to call it at VA/E, and we end up with a (slow-moving, perhaps) edit war. I don't want VA/E to turn into another Arab-Israeli battleground. What can be done to avoid that, User:Baseball Bugs? pbp

The same way you keep a wave upon the sand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It's possible this thread might end with an offer by User:Sepsis II to wait for consensus before reverting again. If he does so, that's good. If he does not do so, one option would be to raise the issue at WP:Arbitration enforcement for consideration under WP:ARBPIA. Longer term, there is a question as to which states ought to go in the section 'Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states' in WP:VA/E/G. We already have an article at List of states with limited recognition. It might be reasonable to use inclusion in this list as the criterion for the 'Unrecognized' section of WP:VA/E/G. It would be even better to change that header to 'States with limited recognition.' That way our terminology would be consistent across articles. This is up to consensus, but it would save having to conduct the same dispute in more than one place. At present the State of Palestine is included in List of states with limited recognition. EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Nathan Johnson

Note: This section was originally titled User:Nathan Johnson refusing to stay off my talk page, edit warring over a longstanding practice, inappropriately templating a regular, and demanding a retraction. It was changed here. Flyer22 (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

After disagreement about the use of the WP:Dummy edit feature, Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs) predictably took it upon himself to alter the WP:Dummy edit page by removing a sentence that the feature may be used to briefly communicate with other editors...despite many Wikipedia editors having used this feature for brief communication with other editors in a variety of ways for years, and despite objections to its removal, as noted at Help talk:Dummy edit#Don't message thru edit summaries. Nathan Johnson decided to WP:Edit war with me to remove the material. He then templated me with an edit warring notice when he was also edit warring (this is typical behavior of him). He did all of this while refusing to stay off my talk page. He is still refusing to stay off my talk page, even though I made it clear that I no longer want him posting there. And he is demanding that I retract my statement that he has committed vandalism to prove a point, even though I pointed to a previous discussion that clearly shows he did indeed commit vandalism to prove a point. See here for backstory. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) FYI - you hadn't notified him of the ANI. I have done it for you. - ^theWOLFchild 20:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

As shown in the aforementioned post on my talk page and this post on his talk page, he already knew that I was going to start this WP:ANI. He was well-notified. Flyer22 (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Having read through the links you provided and looked at the diffs when you mentioned vandalism, I don't see vandalism, I see an edit war between you two which is not vandalism. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Moe Epsilon, I'm talking about a different matter with regard to the vandalism; that's why I pointed out a discussion that talks about this and this. He vandalized that article and an editor noted that it was vandalism. Nathan Johnson responded in a rambling, mocking manner. His vandalism to that article is what I called vandalism and is why he will not be getting a retraction and/or apology from me for having stated that he committed that vandalism. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've just protected Help:Dummy edit for three days due to the edit warring. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a good move Mark, it needed that. It seems that Nathan has suddenly taken exception to it, and wants to arbitrarily change it, despite established consensus. Along with that, he did template an experienced editor, warning of a potential edit war - that he was on the other side of ^(wtf?). Also, Flyer did clearly, and repeatedly ask him to not edit her talk page, which he ignored, and continually posted there anyway. She definitely has valid complaints here. - ^theWOLFchild 23:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Without commenting on the other allegations, WP:Don't template the regulars may be good form and good manners, but in the end is only an essay and not an actionable offense. Also, I suspect this would hardly be the first time an involved editor gave another editor an edit-warring warning; it wouldn't surprise me if that was the norm. DonIago (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

@Doniago: - This is not so much about "templating a regular" as it is misusing or abusing a warning template, which is not permitted (just ask twinkle). - ^theWOLFchild 04:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that's not the point that was originally made as I read it. If that's the thrust of the argument then whether Flyer's an experienced editor or not is irrelevant. Anyway, I wasn't trying to nit-pick or anything...editors not infrequently confuse essays with policies or guidelines, so I try to point it out to be helpful when I see it happen. DonIago (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well the thrust of my comment, was that he abused a template, edit-warred and harassed another editor, which are all policy violations ^{sort of}. Let's face it, no one cares about an "essay violation". Unfortunately, the talk of unrelated (and alleged) vandalism and a needless focus on the OP's seniority have served to be a distraction. - ^theWOLFchild 08:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Like I pointed out below (in my "01:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)" post), there was no "[confusion of] essays with policies or guidelines" on my part. Never has been. Many at this site are aware that I thoroughly know Wikipedia policies and guidelines and am sometimes quick to point out what is an essay; my talk page is one example of that. Either way, just like WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is a well-followed essay, so much so that it might as well be a guideline, similar can be stated of WP:Don't template the regulars. And now I think I'm done with this whole thread, since it is clear that Nathan Johnson, who often acts like an administrator, is an exception to administrators when it comes to repeatedly posting on someone's talk page against their wishes and clearly has free rein to continue doing so. Flyer22 (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and haven't fully reviewed the allegations raised, so I should hope that my personal opinions on a minor subsection of this aren't being categorized as any part of consensus on the part of admins.

The point I was trying to make is that ANI cases are touchy enough without raising points that are tangential to items that are actionable. Whether or not you received a templated warning isn't relevant from the perspective of whether or not you're a regular editor since templating a regular isn't a policy violation, and bringing it up, regardless of who is doing so, only clouds this case and, as evidenced, is a distraction from pertinent matters.

I don't agree with the notion that any essay, no matter how well-followed, "might as well be a guideline". Any Wikipedia editor could post an essay expressing an opinion that, coincidentally, is shared by multiple editors; I don't believe it's appropriate or even a good idea to say that that escalates the essay by default.

For what it's worth, while I may be coming across as a voice of opposition, I do hope your issues are worked out and that the harrassment stops. Based on your Talk page discussion I feel you may have antagonized and consequently encouraged Nathan's negative behaviors (a better solution may have been to stop feeding the troll), but that would by no means excuse said behaviors. I hope the admins will take a more assertive stance regarding this filing. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I know that you are not an administrator. As for the rest of what you stated, I disagree, with the exception of wanting Nathan Johnson to stay off my talk page and that I am not to blame for his ridiculousness; this is clear by my responses in this section already. Even though Nathan Johnson has several or more administrator friends and is seemingly thought of as an administrator by more than that, and I therefore feel that this is why not one administrator has yet warned him to stay off my talk page, to me, your initial comment is what distracted from the more serious matters at hand in this discussion. And now it's a further distraction. I don't think that anyone who has participated in this thread needed a reminder that WP:Don't template the regulars is an essay. Thewolfchild, as shown above, clearly understands why I brought up the ridiculous templating matter (and I obviously explained below why I brought it up). I will always bring up such ridiculousness.

I responded to Nathan Johnson how I felt he should have been responded to. It was not to antagonize him; it was to let him know how I felt about him/his editing and that I would not put up with his disruptive behavior. That I don't put up with such behavior (in fact, generally have zero tolerance for it) is not a surprise to a lot of people at this site, especially those who watch my talk page (which you were doing before you excused yourself from it due to my interaction with Nathan Johnson). You have a different way of dealing with such matters. Okay then. That is your way. Obviously not my way. I cannot take the blame for Nathan Johnson's behavior whatsoever. And as others can attest to, and as touched on below by others, he is ill-tempered and has very questionable editing. I generally will not take it easy on someone just because that person has a problem with self-control, and I'm beyond tired of certain editors coddling such people at this site...essentially stating, "Oh, it's expected of him. The opposing editor should not have tempered matters." There is no tempering matters which such editors; the situation is always tempered, just to lesser or higher degrees, because that's how that person is. If I want someone off my talk page, I will state it instead of ignoring that person; that person should then stay off my talk page...unless they have a very valid reason to still be posting there (such as my being blocked and that person being the blocking administrator who is validly explaining matters). I see nothing more to debate with you on this. Flyer22 (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

And there is WP:TTR, also. I should probably push that back into project space someday soon. DES ^(talk) 19:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Mark Arsten, is there a way that the page could protected so that only this user's edits are rejected? Epicgenius (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a technical feature that would work that way, no. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Since editors have decided to focus on WP:Don't template the regulars instead of the serious matters at hand here in this discussion, such as an editor refusing to stay off my talk page and therefore attempting to force me to read what he has to state and to retract a valid accusation, let me state this: I brought up WP:Don't template the regulars because I see no valid and/or good-faith reason for Nathan Johnson to have templated me; I see Nathan Johnson as having used it to intimidate me and make it seem like his efforts to remove the wording were correct while my efforts to retain it were wrong. He templated me to make it seem like the WP:Edit war was on my head alone. I am familiar with his editing, have had past conflict with him before, and I know how he operates when it comes to editing. Every very experienced Wikipedia editor knows that WP:Don't template the regulars is an essay, but it is an essay that very experienced Wikipedia editors generally follow. It's not the norm at all for a regular to template a regular, unless the regular being templated is an editor who has been registered with this site for years but is significantly inexperienced with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, unless both regulars are not very experienced Wikipedia editors...or unless it's an administrator issuing a block on a regular Wikipedia editor. Yes, I'm also well aware of DESiegel (DES)'s less-followed essay arguing why it's good to template the regular; I generally don't agree with that essay, as should be clear. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• As someone who has yet to have a single pleasant interaction with Nathan Johnson, I understand Flyer22's concerns. Nathan's approach is frequently crass and when he thinks he's right about a guideline or policy, he doesn't hesitate to edit war. I've also seen some questionable editing such as adding a blatant BLP violation to the Dan Savage article. Then there was this unfortunate tirade. The bottom line is, if Flyer22 wants him off her page, he should honor it except for required templates (noticeboard notifications, final edit warring notices, etc.). If he can't exercise that minor level of self-restraint, then blocks are always an option. - MrX 02:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• My impression of Nathan Johnson is that he has a bit of a temper and tends to shoot from the hip. (See this archived thread from my talk page for an example or two. In that case, he quickly apologized and everything turned out fine.) If he'd choose his words more carefully, he'd be likelier to avoid this sort of conflict in the first place. Sometimes it would be better just not to say anything at all; earlier this year, Newyorkbrad gave him some good advice about avoiding stressful discussions. Having failed to avoid this one, he turned stubborn and declined to honor a fellow Wikipedian's request to stay off her talk page. That is disruptive behavior. Edit warring to remove relevant content from a help page he's citing when criticizing that editor . . . well, that's disruptive, too, to put it mildly. One would hope this could all be resolved with an assurance that the disruptiveness will stop. Rivertorch (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing all that out, Rivertorch. It seems to me that an editor who disregards Newyorkbrad's helpful advice is skating on thin ice. On the other hand, vandalism has a very narrow meaning here, Flyer22. Please use that charge with great care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Cullen328, I always respect your input. However, did you not review the exact situation that I and another editor referred to as vandalism with regard to Nathan Johnson? Look at what Nathan Johnson did there, and, if willing, explain to me why you do not consider that WP:POINT edit to be WP:Vandalism or rather why you consider it a narrow interpretation of it if you mean that I have interpreted WP:Vandalism narrowly? Being very familiar with WP:Vandalism, it seems to me that you are stating that it's that policy that defines vandalism narrowly and you mean "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." However, keep in mind the first line of WP:Vandalism; it states, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Who is to say that Nathan Johnson was not doing exactly that? Flyer22 (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think there is a serious WP:COMPETENCE issue with regards to Nathan. Having looked at the talkpage discussion with regards to the BLP violation, it's clear that he has a very limited, if any, grasp of policy. For someone who has been editing for over five years to have a totally improper interpretation of WP:BLP is utterly unacceptable, and I wonder how long it'll be before he falls through the trap door that is an indefinite block. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Without at all suggesting that Nathan is in any manner in the right, it would certainly be nice to hear from him here. That said, he hasn't edited for the past couple of days either. DonIago (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

While he does have the option of commenting here, it certainly is not requirement that he does, for an admin to take action. As I said above, the OP has a valid complaint - Nathan did harass her on her talk page, did abuse a warning template and edit warred. She has every reason to expect that an admin will act on these issues. - ^theWOLFchild 18:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Without meaning to snark at you, you're not really telling me anything I don't already know; I'd simply like Nathan's perspective on the matter. DonIago (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No 'snarky-ness' received. I understand your point, but just the same, a lack of comment on his part should not prevent an admin from acting. And by this point, an admin, any admin, should do... something, even if it's just as warning and/or some guidance. Perhaps Flyer was looking for more (I don't know), but there's obviously enough here that there should be some kind of response. - ^theWOLFchild 11:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC) (but for me, I've lost interest, this is my last comment)

• Without delving into specifics here, I'd like to make a few comments:

1. editors have fairly wide leeway on the management of their talkpage. This can include requesting that someone "stay away"
2. as long as that person has been reasonably-well advised of that request, then future posts there can be considered to be harassment - and blocks may occur accordingly
3. the only time such a limitation should be broken is when advising them of AN, ANI, or other admin noticeboard filings - templates, etc should be placed by someone else, if valid
4. if you have "banned them" from your talkpage, then you should consider it to be a 2-way ban ... you cannot presume to provoke them on their talkpage and not permit a response
5. except where limited above, in ALL cases, templates CAN be used on ANY and ALL editors ... but ONLY if that template is appropriately used - that said, if you template someone, be aware that they're going to respond
6. tit-for-tat templates (try saying that 3 times fast) is fricking ridiculously silly behaviour
7. if you know based on previous behaviour that someone has a short fuse, think twice

Take these comments as you will ES&L 11:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

User: 78.156.109.166 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.

---

See User talk:78.156.109.166. Blocked user is using talk page to continue trolling. Suggest revocation of talk page access. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff? - ^theWOLFchild 23:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

[3] — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 00:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That's hardly "trolling". It's just a simple question (which I have since answered). If that's all this is about, then this ANI is a waste of time. - ^theWOLFchild 01:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

When an editor is blocked, they should be engaged in discussion about the block and how to behave better once the block is over - not posting junk about "end of the world November 2014" or whatever.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. That's trolling. I think that post resolves the question of whether the user merely has competency issues or is a troll. The user is a troll. In any case, the user is not here to build the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 23:06, December 10, 2013

It takes two to "troll" @Robert McClenon:. I suggest removing the page from your watchlist. John Reaves 04:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Why would anyone care about what a blocked ip user posts on his page? If it was something that needed to be removed, that's one thing. But this is just harmless nonsense. It's between him and any admin who might unblock him at... some point. If he wants to waste space there, so what? But why waste space here complaining about it? - ^theWOLFchild 06:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do you care so much? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't, and neither should anyone else, which is my point. I didn't create this ANI, I'm just questioning the need for it. What admin action is the OP seeking, and based on what? Blocked or not, users are allowed to post on their own talk pages. As long as his posts don't violate a policy, who cares? - ^theWOLFchild 14:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that IP question is on the very mild side of trolling. Some people should go back to writing an encyclopedia. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

He's been blocked twice within a week. His current block will be up on the 15th, so we'll see if the IP in question is interested in "writing an encyclopedia". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This is hardly trolling, though the IP is using the talk page for requests other than unblock. That's the only thing that is of concern right now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It is a tempest in a teapot. The user is not going to be an asset to the project. Extend for 12 months, ignore the user's talk page (unless it is an unblock request because of a changed or shared IP), and move on. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Rivatphil's multiple BLP's and Copyvios.

The following discussion is closed. 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 had this up at AIV, but was told to report it here. User:Rivatphil has created numerous BLP articles either unsourced or direct copyright violations from other sites. I noticed this after the New Pages utility was flooded with numerous BLPs, which were all then speedily deleted, so please check the deleted contribs of this user. Also came upon this while notifying user of discussion. 『Woona』_{Dear Celestia...} 05:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This user is also non-communicative, with exactly one user talk edit in seven years. Given the copyvios, an indefinite block is in order. MER-C 07:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Vandalism

User:Tobby72 is vandalising this article: [5], [6], [7].It is not political site but i added short info about current human rights issue, and this user started to vandalise the article.He is trying to prove that the Mongols are bad people but Russians and Chinese are innocent people.It is impossible to justify such serious human rights violation: 4, 5, 6, 7. Khereid (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• (NA) Vandalism should be posted over at Wikipedia:AIV 『Woona』_{Dear Celestia...} 08:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• This isn't obvious vandalism so would be referred here from AIV. Khereid you need to engage User:Tobby72 in discussion, because at the moment I can't find anywhere where anyone has told them that there is a possible problem with their edits. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I added short info about the human rights issues (9), because human rights violation is continuing in China and Russia.But this user is adding irrelevant materials on the article.The article is about only one ethnicity, not about whole world.Khereid (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I responded with a comment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mongols#POV-pushing -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Khereid, I don't see what the point is of your giving wikilinks to articles with Roman numerals. Now, there is no vandalism here or in the other diffs you gave. On the other hand, your edits could do with a bit of explaining (like an edit summary, for starters), and the charges you make here are not proven by any evidence. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hyper-aggressive editor, Roccodrift

The following discussion is closed. 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 dealing with an editor, User:Roccodrift, who is edit-warring, making false statements about sources, making false accusations, refusing to discuss article content and repeatedly templating my talk page even though he is banned from it.

These are big accusations, so allow me to back them up with diffs.

I simplified the language of Ted Cruz to use the summary from the source instead of quoting Cruz. Roccodrift immediately reverted, with an edit comment claiming I'm not sticking to the source. He also templated my talk page, accusing me of vandalism. Both of these accusations are unquestionably false.

I politely explained on the talk page, quoting the part of the article that directly supports the change, then reverted exactly once. He edit-warred back, falsely claiming a BLP violation. At this point, I stopped at 1RR to avoid even the appearance of edit-warring.

(There's more -- he's edit-warring against a few people on Economic inequality andtemplating User:EllenCT. A visit to his talk page shows that he's edit-warred over this page before and said some non-factual things about BRD.)

At this point, Roccodrift has violated a number of key policies and is extremely guilty of WP:TE. I am requesting that he be blocked for a suitable period of time, taking into account that this is not his first offense. MilesMoney (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

About being banned from your talk page. You recently gave a general amnesty to all who had been banned from your talk page. Has Roccodrift received a clear note of being re-banned from your talk after that? Iselilja (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have. You don't seem to have excused yourself from their talk page, though. Iselilja (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Dropping a notification on a user's talk page when an ANI has been posted about them is required as per the big orange header at the top of the edit page. Roccoshdrift hasn't banished MilesMoney from their talk page so dropping a notice was the right thing to do. It would be a courtesy if MilesMoney had refrained from posting to Roccoshdrift's page but in this case it's not really relevant. Blackmane (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, ANI notifications are required. But what I noticed was that at the same time (10 Dec) that MM notified Roccoshift about being banned from MM's talk page ban, he made himself two other independent edits to Roccoshift's page. 1 2. Iselilja (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I take your point, but like I said, banishing someone from your page does not have to be reciprocated. It's a courtesy to not post on the banished editor's page but no policy requires it. Also, apologies to Roccodrift for misspelling his name and have corrected my previous posting. Blackmane (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Miles should probably be trouted.

• At Ted Cruz, he made a bold edit [8] and his edit got reverted[9]. It's all well and good that he started a discussion, but then he reverted again [10]. That's edit-warring, any way you slice it.
• Immediately after this, Miles felt it necessary to revert my next-most recent edit. At Economic inequality, Miles re-inserted unsourced material (right along with 3 "citation needed" tags, no less), completely ignoring several edit summaries and messages on the Talk page that make the problem clear. Apart from anything else one might say about it, this is disruptive editing.
• I've recently tried to explain BRD to Miles [11], but I think what just happened at Ted Cruz shows that he still doesn't get it.
• We have UW templates for a reason: they help us communicate. Collaboration is impossible if there is no communication.
• I'm not going to have a fit about it, but I will just mention that this accusation of TE follows close on the heels of another accusation gratuitously made in an AfD nomination [12]. Miles was cautioned by an uninvolved editor [13], but apparently he doesn't think there's a problem with this sort of thing.
• Miles' complaint about "aggressive editing" appears to be projection. Truly aggressive editing looks like this [14], or this [15], or perhaps like this [16], or maybe this [17].

It seems to me that Miles' angling for a block is an attempt at gaming the system. Roccodrift (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The edit that started this by MilesMoney was correct, Roccodrift should have taken the time to read the source before reverting (twice) Nonetheless MilesMoney should have waited for editors to engage in the discussion he started in the talk page before reinstating his edit, that's how WP:BRD works. The original edit has been re-instated by another editor so I say everybody drop this.

A minor comment: I've recently had a similar issue with Roccodrift regarding his use of templates. I pointed him to WP:DTR and I'll once again repeat my recommendation: instead of impersonal templates that can be taken as somewhat aggressive, a polite message in the editor's talk page will always be better received. Roccodrift should perhaps ease up on the templates a bit. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

A minor point WP:TTR. If you feel that the templates can be taken as aggressive then they should be done away with. If regular editors find them aggressive, what do you think new editors think of them? 155.178.6.19 (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

My complaint isn't about content, it's about behavior. If my initial change could be considered Bold, then his Revert should be followed up by Discussion. He did not discuss; he just communicated with comments that are factually incorrect. He violated BRD, among other things.

For my part, I did follow BRD by opening up a discussion, but there was no reason to wait for others because the stated reason for the revert ("source does not support") was demonstrably false. There was nothing further to discuss. Now, if Rocco had stated some more general basis for disagreement -- for example, if he admitted that it was sourced but thought the ambiguous direct quote was somehow an improvement -- then I would have discussed it with him before my single revert. Of course, he communicated only through vulgar gestures: reverts, false edit comments, and templates modified with false accusations. In simple terms, he lied and bullied.

Rocco:

1. Aggressively reverted without discussion.
2. Left edit comments that were false.
3. Made false accusations of vandalism.
4. Repeatedly templated a talk page that he was banned from.

I don't see how these issues have been resolved by someone else reverting Rocco's changes away. Do you? MilesMoney (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"Lied" is pretty strong language. Most view it as a personal attack because it is an intentional deception. As for your talk page, why don't you just delete it? You seem to have banned just about everyone from it anyway. Arzel (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to use some other term for saying something that you know is false. He knew that the source supported the edit. He knew that changing the article to match the source isn't any sort of vandalism. If he didn't know, then he's guilty of reckless disregard for the truth, which is no better than lying.

Do you also support the rest of his behavior, including the edit-warring, the templating where he's not allowed, the refusal to discuss the content? MilesMoney (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney there's no point in opening a discussion if you're not going to wait until other editors comments. Was the matter so urgent that you needed to revert again before anyone commented? No it wasn't, so you should have waited at least a little while before reverting again.

As for the rest of the issues you mention: I don't particularly agree with the way Roccodrift handled the issue (specially the vandalism template which was completely out of place, hence my request to Roccodrift to ease up on the templates) but there's no real reason for blocking here as far as I can see. I understand you are upset but you'd be wise to follow Arzel's advise and tone down your comments. As much as I could agree with you, WP usually regards comments on how another editor "lied" as a WP:PA. Both of you should continue editing as usual and if something like this happens again, well then perhaps some sanctions will be necessary. Not right now though. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree about whether it was ok for me to revert exactly once after I completely refuted the stated objection, but this doesn't in any way offer Rocco a defense.

As far as I can figure it, there are exactly three explanations for Rocco claiming the source didn't support the edit (and therefore claiming BLP violations, vandalism, etc.). They are:

1. Rocco read the source, saw that it supported the edit, but intentionally lied.
2. Rocco did not bother looking at the source, but pretended he knew what it said, which is a different lie.
3. Rocco read the source but failed to understand the direct statement, which is gross incompetence.

No matter which horn of the trilemma you grab, Rocco should not be editing Wikipedia. MilesMoney (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't either.--MONGO 20:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed. MilesMoney (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand your frustration Miles. Just try to ignore Roccodrift if the opportunity presents itself. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no particular interest in dealing with Rocco, but he's made a point of accusing me of violating BLP and of being a vandal. That's hard to ignore. He's also edit-warred to remove cited material while falsely stating that it's not cited, which is very, very bad.

My hope is that Rocco takes a hint and dials down his aggression. I think that a suitable block would prevent further article damage during the block and perhaps even motivate him to dial down afterwards. After all, even Rocco's most ardent supporters here can't deny that his actions are beyond the pale. MilesMoney (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, if you have such a severe problem that you have to ban people from your talk page, maybe it's time to go on a short wikibreak. Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed. The only editor who is banned from my talk page is Rocco, and this is motivated by the fact that he has made a habit of leaving false templates on my talk page. Sounds like my only "severe problem" is that Rocco keeps misbehaving. As such, it is not so much my problem as his; he controls his own behavior and is responsible for it. Don't you agree? MilesMoney (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Request for a section move (It was posted in the wrong place)

Can an admin move THIS discussion from the WP:AN to the WP:ANI? The reason for the request is that WP:AN states "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators", while WP:ANI states "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." But, since neither User:Ahnoneemoos (the affected user) nor User:Caribbean H.Q. (the posting user) are administrators, the posting at WP:AN couldn't possibly be affecting any administrator as intended by the directive and, as such, it has not followed the requirement for posting there. On the other hand, the posting made by user User:Caribbean H.Q. is asking for the intervention of administrators and experienced editors, which is what this page --WP:ANI-- is for. Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It was posted here due to the SilkTork/Ahnoneemoos ArbCom issue, but I don't really have any objection against moving it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Um moving that very, very long section to here will achieve nothing other than the section being closed very fast. If there is still something that remains to be addressed, may be someone could open a new brief discussion (preferably taking in to account anything learned from that thread) explaining what that is with appropriate evidence. And Caribbean~H.Q., Ahnoneemoos, you Mercy11 and the IP could refrain from discussing the issue amongst each other, at most perhaps including one response to the original request and further followups to be limited to responding to other participants. Alternatively, may be accept no action is forthcoming and let it drop. You could always negotiate with each other in an appropriate place over whatever the problem is. You seem either very very good at it (or very very bad but I'm hoping it's the former) after all. Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. While topic bans (or site bans) can be discussed at either desk, AFAIK it's preferred to discss them at AN. Particularly when they are the intention of the thread and primarily arise from a long history of problems rather than in response to a recent incident (even though you will usually also take in to account the history). AN does mention this: "Issues appropriate for this page could include: ....ban proposals ...". P.P.S. I've been wondering whether to mention this and have decided I should particularly since Blackmane said the same thing. Before opening anything further on AN//I, you should consider whether or not it's likely to be rejected due the absence of a WP:RFC/U. Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I figure that if a RFC/U is going to be open, then the civility concerns presented by Mercy are more serious and should take precedence. The idea of the thread was not to "punish" Ahnoneemoos (and as such I did not want to enter into the whole "desired outcome" debate), but rather to stop an issue that has been spreading through several of the articles within scope. If a RFC/U is opened, I have no problem in participating in it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Caribbean HQ, have you heard of the WP:Wall of text disruption tactic? Notice the comments by User:Blackmane at this place HERE. You know my position regarding User:Ahnoneemoos, and I am not after "punishment" either, but neither banning nor blocking are punishments but instead means to avoid further disruption (as well as opportunities, hopefully, for soul-searching and/or rehab). Unfortunately for him, Ahnoneemoos is playing the going-in-circles game HERE. You are better qualified than me at summarizing and submitting petitions to forums. Perhaps you could open up a petition for review WP:RFC/U, I could then contribute. Hopefully an uninvolved admin via community consensus of whatever, can then help this matter to a fair closure for all. Mercy11 (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You can't lay the blame solely on Ahnoneemoos. It takes two to tango, and if Ahnoneemoos had been the only one causing the massive wall of text in the AN discussion (in other words, replying to nothing), people would likely have more easily seen the problem with Ahnoneemoos's contributions. It's perhaps fair to say that Ahnoneemoos contributed the most text (although they were the one who's behaviour was most at issue and for which there was a topic ban request) or perhaps the IP. And you Mercy11 contributed the least amount of text of the four primary participants. But ultimately that discussion only got the messy way it was because despite the fact it was supposed to be a request for outside intervention, existing parties to the dispute namely those four I've already named seemed held extensive back and forth with each other. Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Nil Einne, you seem to be assuming that having a topic "closed very fast" is somehow not beneficial. What's not beneficial about that? Is closing "very fast" somehow inherently better or worse than having an item sitting endlessly without closure? I am sorry, friend, but your "very fast" comments above are not objective at all and, thus, quite elusive, and as such not beneficial to reaching any understanding. You don't seem to have squarely provided any resolution or alternative to my section move question above. Perhaps you could be more precise? Mercy11 (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing beneficial to having a discussion closed very fast because no one can be bothered reading the extensive back and forth between existing participant parties (from before the discussion was brought to AN or ANI).

The topic in AN will be archived when people stop replying. If you want, someone can close the discussion at AN without the pointless moving, but I don't get the reason why you need someone to close the discussion nor why you would have to bring such a request here rather than at WP:AN, when the discussion could be simply to left to die a natural death.

And I have provided four alternatives before you replied. Either open a new concise request probably at WP:AN; open an RFC; continue the discussion among yourselves (which is more or less what is going on in the existing discussion) in an appropriate place (perhaps one of your talk pages) and try to reach some sort of accord; or finally, just drop it.

I don't get what you mean by 'not objective at all' or 'elusive'. I feel I have been fairly clear. And I have no connection to any of the key participants I'm aware of so whether or not my comment was right or wrong, helpful or not, I don't see why I would not be objective.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Since the discussion seemed to be heading in a bad direction, I did close the AN discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Mercy, I will not be baited into continuing a circular argument. The fact of the matter is that Ahnoneemoos is not interested in pursuing an accord. Not only that, but when one points out that he can't continue to victimize himself after a user posted to his page in a dickish manner, because he did the same before, then the drama sets in (this coming from the same user that likes to throw "fuckings" all over the place when involved in conflicts and even questioned my mental health in a thinly veiled attack). I am not going to get drawn into a maelstrom of drama, that plays to his advantage.

That being said, I have reconsidered my original position and determined that a simple topic ban may not be enough, notably because the user refuses to see that there is a problem. Hence, I am not really interested in pursuing a partial ban on a RFC/U. Of note is that of the few third parties involved in that conversation that favored him, none justified his actions in the politics/economics articles, they only defended him from a complete ban that wasn't even being discussed there. Even in a stalemate, the fact that even those that favored his position admitted that he "gets carried away" is notable. If the MO continues, then it should be considered regular disruption and then a RFC/U requesting an actual block could be argued. The ball is on his court. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. And I think we accomplished several things: (1) We proved that Ahnoneemoos has issues with various editors, not just you; (2) We memorialized HERE (and later archived HERE!) a historical record of Ahnoneemoos's violations into a single location and useful for future action (hopefully won't be needed); (3) We put User:Ahnoneemoos on notice that his (a)WP:Disruptive editing, (b)Non-WP:Civil behavior, and (c)WP:OWN tendency have not gone unnoticed, won't be tolerated next time, and that anyone of them is reason for a RFC/U. Hopefully there won't be a next time. For the record, let me add the following quote by Ahnoneemoos to your "otherwise pointing to his "years editing Wikipedia" comment as well, for it now appears that it is not only about his tendency to own articles but his tendency to claim ownership of editors as well:

"If you have an issue with someone from WP:PUR feel free to channel your inquiries through me."

[18]

With Ahnoneemoos's recent Declined history of his ArbCom request in the periscope as well, if User:Ahnoneemoos is smart I think he now knows he needs to play his next moves in a fashion more aggreable to the community. BTW, the 2 editors that came to his defense were never any bit of a concern to me. Experienced closing admins would have been able to read thru them in no time. Their comments were WP:OTHERSTUFF and pointing to unrelated ocassions when Ahnoneemoos did the right thing does not absolve him from cases when the did the wrong: doing the right ALWAYS is what you are expected to do to contribute here. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Dolovis back again

I'm sorry folks, but he's back again. You know who: Dolovis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Background: in April 2012, Dolovis was blocked for six months after some serious and repeated gaming of the system, and general failure to abide by consensus, specifically when diacritics were involved. He volontarily (?) prolonged his absense until this spring. I noticed that, as his name started showing on pages I have on my watchlist, but I didn't follow his edits around as I assumed he had learned his lesson. There were also no new controversies (at least none that I noticed).

Now, however, after I have moved a handful (recently), or several (over time), articles on various Russian sportspeople to follow WP:RUS, at least one of them apparently created by him, he is going back in my move log, and is reverting them all, as it appears – I'm getting plenty of notifications (the count is now double-digit).

That's all good and well per WP:BRD, but obviously, I did ask him (politely) on his talkpage why he did that. His response was this: "Hi HandsomeFella. Please stop moving biographical articles to names not supported by English-language sources as you did at Dmitri Akimov, Andrei Akimov (footballer), Sergei Akimov (ice hockey), and others. Wikipedia is not for testing or experimenting with your skills as a translator from Russian to English. Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:Naming conventions (Russia), please follow the general WP rule WP:UE policy when naming articles. That is, when possible, we use the conventional English name (as used in verifiable sources) instead of the WP:Romanization of Russian rules."

That's the worst assumption of bad faith I've seen in a long time. I have around 29000 edits under my belt. I'm not "testing or experimenting with [my] skills as a translator", and I can read the Russian alphabet. I'm no newbie, and Dolovis knows that very well. (Besides, names are not "translated", they're transliterated.)

As if that weren't enough, he then went on to place the same inflammatory text as a "warning" on my talkpage, adding as clarification to his previous response: "I will also place the above message on your talk page as notice to others that you have been warned about your page moves. Cheers."

Those with a good memory recall that Dolovis has had frequent run-ins with several editors here, and (disclaimer) I was one of them. Without being too paranoid, it's hard to avoid the thought that this might be an attempt to get even, when given the opportunity. It would appear that he is trying to frustrate and/or infuriate me with his formal, but inflammatory, choice of words – but I'm not taking the bait. Be that as it may, this is highly uncollegial behavior, it assumes bad faith, and I think he at least deserves a slap on the wrist for it.

The issue at hand – the notion of WP:RUS generally being in conflict with other guidelines (mentioned above) – I intend to start a discussion on with an RM. (It's not pointy, "D" comes after "BR" in WP:BRD.)

HandsomeFella (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Dolovis notified. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply by Dolovis: I replied to HandsomeFella's concerns on my talk page here, but rather than engage in further discussion with me to resolve this issue, he has brought it to this ANI. HandsomeFella accuses me of not acting in good faith, but it appears that the exact opposite is true. I only became aware of HandsomeFella improperly moving articles to new names apparently based on nothing more than original research (i.e. no verifiable sources) because one of his article moves showed up on my watch list. It was only then that I realized that he had recently improperly moved several biographical articles, including Sergei Akimov, Andrei Akimenko, Sergei Akimov (footballer), Andrei Akimov (footballer), Dmitri Akimov, and Sergei Akimov (ice hockey). It is proper procedure to warn someone, even an experienced editor, if they appear to be running afoul of Wikipedia policies, which is the case with the above listed moves. Dolovis (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely not proper to "warn" somebody as a first step, if one is really assuming good faith, and not just pretending. The proper thing is to take contact and start a discussion on the other editor's talkpage – which happens to be exactly what I did. If the editor then fails to listen, then it's proper to issue a warning. First making a lot of reverts, then, after being contacted politely by the reverted editor, issuing a "warning" - and placing it on my talkpage! – is anything but assuming good faith. There was absolutely no ground for assuming that I would continue moving pages after realizing that they were contested. Still you assumed exactly that – i.e. you were assuming bad faith. The sequence of events exposes you.

Your claim "but rather than engage in further discussion with me to resolve this issue" falls flat on its face, considering I was the one contacting you – politely. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

As further explained at WP:UW, talk page warnings also serve to notify other editors that you have already been notified about the disruptive editing. Given that you had recently moved several articles contrary to WP:COMMONNAME, I thought it proper to place a warning on your talk page so other concerned editors could see that this issue had already been addressed. Dolovis (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You're only providing more evidence that you're acting in bad faith, the latest example being the accusation of "disruptive editing" above. There was nothing disruptive in my page moves, that were all done in good faith (if that concept is familiar), following a guideline that I may (or may not) have misunderstood.

It's not that I don't understand what user warnings are about, as you pretend to believe. You're assuming bad faith and using inflammatory wording, obvious for anyone to see. I suggest you retract it.

HandsomeFella (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Has it ever been considered that Dolovis may be is under a topic ban? "'For obvious and repeated gaming of the system, User:Dolovis is indefinitely banned from "moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles", broadly construed.'" This may not be a violation of the ban, but the user is already on a very short leash. Epicgenius (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue of this ANI does not concern diacritics, and even HandsomeFella admits that contesting his article moves is “all good and well per WP:BRD”.[19] The issue brought here by HandsomeFella is that he is upset that I placed a warning on his talk page about his improper article moves. If he didn't like the warning, he should have removed it from his talk page and moved along. Instead HandsomeFella has chosen to create a lot of drama and is making a mountain out of a molehill. Dolovis (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It is true that I didn't like the warning. It is also true that I didn't like the bad faith assumption that was its very foundation, and was even more emphasized by the totally baseless accusation of "disruptive editing" above. When one approaches an editor in good faith, as I did, such a response is totally unacceptable, and such behaviour should be strongly discouraged. That is what I reported you for. Had you just responded in kind – with an emphasis on kind – you wouldn't be in trouble again. You need to learn quicker from your experiences. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is really a matter for ANI, but I randomly clicked on one of the articles listed (Sergei Akimov (footballer)) and there aren't even any sources in it. So Dolovis's rationale isn't sufficient for undoing ALL of the moves. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 17:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

self admitted sock

• Formal Appointee Number 6 (talk · contribs)

From their first comment they admit that they have communicated with the user before. Blatant sock. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom:, AIV then, rather than here? Just looking at the guy's edit pattern I could tell he was a sock without even reading the edits pbp 00:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

will do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This is obviously an alternate account, but unless you can point to an actual violation of WP:SOCK (which posting talk page comments normally is not, unless it is to appear as multiple voices in a discussion) or unless there is good reason to think this is al already blocked or banned editor, I see no reason for a block. DES ^(talk) 00:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Behaviorally, there is very strong evidence that the account is being used by Arnhem 96 (talk · contribs) for block evasion. I've just blocked him indef for that reason. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

And why was Arnhem 96 blocked? And their talk page access withdrawn? No-one has pointed to an editor (blocked or not) of whom they are a sock. Their only crime seems to have been embarrassing Werieth, in the SPI of Betacommand where Werieth had just admitted to 9,000 edits under another identity. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy Dingley the edits where not under a different identity, Please review Wikipedia:Unified login Werieth (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

And its not like I was hiding them, commons:Special:Contributions/Werieth and see the link on my user page. Werieth (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Just like Betacommand, you still haven't learned the grammatical use of "where" vs. "were" (although per both of your usual practice, you'll now edit your grammatical error to hide it). Andy Dingley (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, Andy. This is a previously checkuser identified blocked editor ([20]). Regardless of the result of the other SPI, this is a block-on-sight issue. Black Kite (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Has a CU been run on Formal Appointee Number 6? Or on Arnhem 96? Because if they haven't, then that's a pretty serious accusation for you, a heavily involved admin, to be making on zero evidence. We have much better behavioural evidence than Werieth is another of Betacommand's accounts than we do to link Arnhem 96 to another randomly picked account. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

...apart from the fact that this account admits it ... I give up on this one and won't comment further. You're obviously not a stupid person, but if you want to continue to ridiculously defend an obvious sock of a blocked/banned user seemingly on the basis that they agree with you, well knock yourself out. Black Kite (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Well its nice to meet you too! i always enjoy meeting socks impersonating other editors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that this Formal Appointee person has been blocked, but would any admin consider revoking his/her talk page access too? S/he is using it to trade insults (and judging from the list of names at the top of his/her talk page, I doubt his/her behavior will cease. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, they'll find a way through their local library or whatnot. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Won't we need a checkuser to verify that? It may just be some teenager that created an account and tried to act stupid. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Safer Wholesale

Resolved

 – TheDailyFlows blocked by User:Mark Arsten. 28bytes (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The templates at the top of Safer Wholesale are the subject of an edit war between myself and TheDailyFlows. Both of us are on the edge of WP:3RR and I have no wish to see either of us sanctioned for our edits. I am requesting a neutral administrator to "take charge" of the AFD and cleanup templates for the duration of the AFD. Once an administrator or even a neutral non-admin indicates what the templates should be, I will not edit the templates except to restore them to that state for the duration of the AFD. I would politely ask that TheDailyFlows agree to do the same. Because this is at AFD and because the AFD template is one of the templates involved, I am posting here rather than in a non-admin dispute-resolution area. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I started to take a look but it looks like User:TheDailyFlows has already been blocked for edit warring (8 or 9RR is a bit much), so I think this can be marked resolved. 28bytes (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This may be a moot point, the other editor managed to trip 3RR, so we'll have to wait 24 hours to see if this request is still necessary. If the issue re-appears I will re-file as a fresh request. In any case, if at least one administrator can watchlist the page and the corresponding AFD that might help avoid a return trip here. I am truly sorry that this new editor managed to get off on the wrong foot here, he's had a frustrating last day or two. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The rule is clear, AfD templates should not be removed while the AfD discussion is open, doing so is a form of disruption even if 3RR is not breached, and can lead to blocks all by itself. Article issue tags such as {{tl|notability} and {{refimprove}} should be removed only if the editor also edits to fix the issue, or if the editor thinks the tag does not properly apply, then before or just after removing the editor should start or participate in a discussion on the article talk page, and should not persist in removing if the removal is reverted, pending a consensus on the talk page. multiple removals without discussion can be considered to be disruption also. As to whether the tags belong, that should be discussed on the article talk page if anyone disagrees with them. DES ^(talk) 21:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the tags are moot until the AFD concludes anyway. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree: In my dream world (which doesn't exist) every article that is at AFD for notability would be about a topic that actually is notable, and during that week the article would be improved with quality references that clearly demonstrate that the topic is notable and at that time - even before the AFD concludes - all editors would sing Kumbaya and agree that the notability and reference-related tags should be deleted. As I said, that's my dream world it does occasionally happen (minus the musical interlude). In this case, the cleanup templates will probably become moot as soon as the AFD concludes, as it looks like the article will be deleted in about a week barring someone adding references that others have been unable to find. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright claim on Pyramid (card game)

Can someone familiar with how copyright law deals with describing card game rules deal with [21] and Gkrsoft's edits. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have notified the user on their talk page that they can simply remove any copyrighted information. After all, nothing on this page is sourced... For this reason adding copyright notices "copyright (c) Ckrsoft" etc is not appropriate as such material should not exist in the article to begin with. It is unclear which content on the page the user is referring to. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe the editor is objecting to the detailed description of the game rules rather than a straight copy of text. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that would not warrant removal in itself... I'd say WP:ORTS would have been the right course of action, as Pharoah suggested. At any rate as you've probably noticed he's since been blocked... I had reported him to WP:UAA already as it was clear his intentions were only on behalf of the organization. However to his benefit I'd argue the article should probably be nominated for deletion per WP:GNG. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

As I replied on the help desk, no one can claim a copyright on the general concept of how a game is played, at least not under US law. The version of the rules linked to from the help desk did not look to me as if it were close enough to the version in the article to warrant any removals or deletion on copyright grounds. All that said, I feat thsi probably foes not have enough general notability to survive an AfD, if anyone cared to nominate it. It was PRODed as non-notable in 2010, and restored as a disputed prod earlier this year, it seems. DES ^(talk) 22:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Pipes_of_Pan_song_by_Elgar_1900_cover.jpg

Resolved

 – You're quite welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please check if a larger version of this file exists in the history? It was mistakenly tagged as non-free, and, as such, may have been scaled down. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done, restored. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Gabriella~four.3-6, part II

Gabriella~four.3-6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user was blocked a few days ago for 24 hours for disruptive editing. And guess what? She's back at it, and has created many very short pages, and it is apparent from both these pages themselves and the fact that she has repeatedly blanked sections of her talk page [22] that she still doesn't understand how to create redirects, and our efforts to teach her have been unsuccessful.

1. She was requested to respond in a previous ANI thread. She did not.
2. She was asked to create redirects correctly in the future. She did not.

I would like it if something be done about this user once and for all, though I don't know what should be done, which is why I am coming here. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 23:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reblocked for a week and asked her again to listen to us and create articles and redirects in accord with policy. If she cooperates and indicates she will stop the problem behavior any admin may unblock without notifying or asking me first, based on your own judgement etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be advisable to look at the all the pages that she created, and delete all of the ones that look like wrongly created redirects.Epicgenius (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Gabriella~four.3-6

Could an Admin please look at the editing behaviour of User:Gabriella~four.3-6 please. They are creating many unhelpful articles and modifying existing, plain disruptive. I believe they have been blocked before for similar. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see the post above. Problem sorted :) Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Good. She also marks all her edits as minor. We really should get rid of that function. I don't see any purpose to it. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Indefinite block warranted?

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

---

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

Per WP:INVOLVED, I'd rather let the community decide if this is a case of WP:ROPE. [User response after second block for a month https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARetoru&diff=585988675&oldid=585963057]. It is also worth noting the gems in his [deleted contributions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions/Retoru]. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Jamie - can you be more specific about whats going on so I don't have to guess? You cite involved but are you involved as an editor or involved as the blocking admin? What led up to the block? Do you believe the response is what warrants an indef? What's going on?--v/r - TP 01:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the user's talk page would be self-explanatory. My involvement began when Retoru repeatedly reposted the dumb verbose rap song synopses and was given a final warning to stop. They did so again recently and I blocked for a month (previous block, for creating an attack page, was originally indef but reduced to a week because Retoru had made a small number of somewhat constructive edits. I also posted some additional info intended for a block-reviewing admin. Retoru's response to the block and additional info is what I'm suggesting merits an indef, but wanted to get additional consensus before extending the block to indef. (I try to err on the side of caution regarding WP:INVOLVED. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Just trying to see if there is any other reason you think you're involved. My opinion: At the very least, he needs to be topic banned from religion topics if he cant control his opinion. As far as an indef, not sure we've risen to that level yet. Just ignore his little rant about you, none of us are going to read it and suddenly say "Oh Lord, everything I knew about Jamie is a lie based on this newb's clear and well thought out perspective."  :)--v/r - TP 02:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The crux of my reason for suggesting an indef (other than the tantrum) was WP:NOTHERE, given that most of the edits were attempts to be subversive (i.e., listing someone's occupation was a "pedophile," while arguing "but it's true! They are a pedophile) and other similar gaming behavior. Either way, I'm fine with whatever folks suggest here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Reblocks are cheap. He's one day into a month block, and the only new behavior is incivility (which isn't really new anyway). Judging from the tone of his post-block comments, this user isn't likely to return anyway. An indef would only give him something to brag about off-wiki. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Google News Archive

I want to write a article. But Google news is shut down. What do I do? Tommieddd (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you have secondary and tertiary sources enough to create an article? Is the subject notable? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It is Kirk Everist. There may be sources but where are the archive? Tommieddd (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tommie. That's a good question, but this particular board isn't set up to answer it. The editors at the wikipedia teahouse will be happy to give you a hand, though. Good luck! Garamond Lethet
c 04:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Google News is running for me[23], as is the newspaper archive.[24] Doc talk 04:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@Tommieddd:

See this discussion on the miscellaneous village pump. Graham87 07:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Englishfootballfan block evading

Hello, Englishfootballfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a sockpuppet of User:Newestcastleman - blocked yesterday by SPI has begun to edit again, could an Admin please block too? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

@Callanecc: Thank you JMHamo (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Noting that I've also filed an SPI with a request for a CU to take a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

User Alexandharrison

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

User Alexandharrison has been editing Wikipedia since 25 October 2013,[25] and has created a variety of new pages that have been deleted.[26] I went over his/her last fifty edits outside Alexandharrison's user page and found most of them reverted/undone. None of them were productive and I reverted/undid the remainder and posted a warning on Alexandharrison's talk page. He has under 200 edits that have not been deleted[27] If you have time, please go through each of Alexandharrison's edits from October 25th to the 21:12, 25 November 2013 edit. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

User:BieberLover23

Resolved

 – Blocked for 72 hours

Six months ago, the user received a warning about their edits, to which they responded with: "Hey, Darkwarriorblake, suck my dick." (as shown here). The edit was reverted on 13 December, but BieberLover23 reinstated it several hours later (see here). User has also been instigating an edit war on Fast & Furious 7, as seen in edits 1, 2, and 3. - Areaseven (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I blocked for 72 hours. There's adequate warning here and really nothing to discuss as far as whether the edits were in conflict with policy or not. Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Technoquat sock

Block please? [28] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 17:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion outside of policy by involved admin

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

---

I would like to bring your attention to admin BD2412 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The admin speedily deleted Marina Rodina with the reason "redirect to disambiguation page with no apparent solution" despite the redirect being an established alias of the subject as discussed previously here and here.

• User:BD2412 is not only the creator the article it redirects to, but also it's top editor. I challenged the deletion on this admins talk page, and their reason was Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#R3._Implausible_typos, despite the redirect being created in 2010, not "Recently created". And "WP:BLP".

Why has this admin just ignored previous discussions and speedily deleted the page? For the above reasons, I believe the page was speedily deleted outside of policy, and the admin has violated bullets points 1 and 2 of WP:TOOLMISUSE, and even after being challenged, has refused to accept responsibility and amend their mistake.--Sinistrial (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just to clarify one point, before this redirect was deleted, it was pointing to Marina Orlova, a disambiguation page that was not created by me, but by User:Den1980-. There is no reason for the title Marina Rodina to point to the disambiguation page, Marina Orlova. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • So then why didn't you just fix the redirect instead of deleting it? And you did create the page it was originally redirecting to for 3 years. See end history of Marina Orlova (Internet celebrity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Sinistrial (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
    • At the time that I noticed the redirect, the page had been moved; nothing on either Marina Orlova (Internet celebrity) or on Marina Orlova (actress) indicated that either page should be the target of such a redirect. I am certainly not obligated to retarget a bad redirect to an article for which it is still a bad redirect. bd2412 T 22:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
      • BD2412 if you thought there was a valid plac for the redirect to point to, you should have directed it there. If not you should have listed it on RFD. A redirect present for years is not "recently created" and so this was not a valid speedy deletion. Who created the redir or any of the pages it might have pointed to at any time is not relevant. Speedy deletions are for narrow, bright-line situations that have clear consensus in advance. Outside of these criteria, or even inside them when an admin knows the action will be contentious, XfD should be used instead. DES ^(talk) 00:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
        • As it happens, I did not think that there was a valid place for the redirect to point to; there is none within the context of Wikipedia's policies. Since there is no reliable source for a notable person named "Marina Rodina", a redirect to a disambiguation page not including that name fails WP:DABMENTION, and is basically a WP:CSD#A7. Furthermore, retargeting it to an existing BLP article for which no reliable source supports having this as an alternative name for the subject is a very clear WP:BLP violation. bd2412 T 00:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at Deletion review? JodyB _talk 00:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I agree. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppetry, more conspiracy-mongering, personal attacks etc at Ruggero Santilli and Hubble's law

Apparently, there is a conspiracy amongst Wikipedians (Jewish naturally) to denigrate the scientific theories of Ruggero Santilli: or at least, there is according to the contributions of User:Aabrucadubraa [29] and User:ClenserBlastAaa [30]. Obvious socks of the blocked User:ScientificEthics and his sockfarm. See here [31] for the last ANI thread. I've filed a SPI, but I think further intervention may be necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked them. If the SPI turns up anything, we'll go ahead and tag them appropriately. John Reaves 22:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, I've just created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aabrucadubraa. What timing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah - I'd added them to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zkurko. Dougweller (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

And before any of the above, there was another SPI, now closed and at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScientificEthics/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Multiple issues concerning User:Tom Fearer

This incident involves Vandalism, possible sockpuppetry and threats of violence. I'm not sure where to put this specifically, so I came here.

Within the past few hours, User:Tom Fearer began blatantly editing other editors' talk page comments on Talk:Retail loss prevention. I then noticed that Tom Fearer's userpage redirects to User:Camaro82, his apparent new username. Tom insistently undid my rollbacks, claiming he wanted his name removed from the page - no exceptions.

This continued on and after my WP:3RR was up, he posted on my talk page, claiming he's been receiving threats of violence from other users. However, I cannot find anything of the sort from either accounts' talk page history or on the current version of Talk:Retail loss prevention. He then went so far as to completely blank the article's talk page. He does not care if his account gets blocked/deleted, only wishing to have his name completely expunged from Wikipedia.

Again, I'm not sure where to put this and I personally have no idea where to go from here. I do not know whether or not this is an SPI/vandalism case with some threats of violence smoke-and-mirrors being made. Antoshi ☏ ★ 01:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The person who last sent me a threatening message is an unknown individual with the IP of 209.222.50.200. Go to my User Page and click on the October 2nd 2013 revision. In addition to this message I have received several threats in the past from fired co-workers since my account originally cited my email. I have had not had an incident that was sourced from this website since 2008/2009 when I was last and active user. I attempted to delete my name off the (retail Loss Prevention) talk page due to it showing up on Yahoo and Google searches with my name. I have also submitted a request for a name change to Camaro82 which I believe might resolve the issue for me and with the users on this site. I just want my name removed somehow, I set my Wikipedia account up when I was my early 20s and had I had the foresight back then would have not used my name. Forgive me for the signature jargon, I don't even recall how to do that properly on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Fearer (talk • contribs) 01:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a link to the edit I spoke of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Camaro82&oldid=575373310

I don't even know what this is referencing at all. But what gets me concerned is the KILL part, to me that is a clear cut threat as any. I have received emails from former employees who have been terminated by me and have had a similar vein of tone in the message. I take these threats completely seriously and as I stated before I would like my name reference removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Fearer (talk • contribs) 01:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That seems more like a vandal's way to frame a suicide threat on your user page, than an actual death threat. Would you like your username changed? Epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• I did respond to Tom Fearer's request for advice here, directing him to WP:REDACT and WP:TPO. Josh3580_talk/hist 01:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@Epicgenius, yes I would like to change my user name to Camaro82 if possible. I fairly certain that I submitted the request correctly on the Change User submission page. So long as my current name is removed for an alias I would feel a lot better about messages like that. I wasn't even aware of it until I did a chance Google search on my name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Fearer (talk • contribs) 01:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Tom Fearer: just a side note, since you mentioned you don't know how to write out your signature.. at the end of your text simply type ~~~~ (those four tildes) and your signature will be automatically added in at the end of your message. I'd have left this on your talk page but as noted, it's redirected to a different account. Gloss • talk 01:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Announcing your username change here, in front of the known universe, is not necessarily the best strategy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@Tom Fearer: The "Camaro82" username is not registered yet (despite the fact that the user page has existed for more than eight years), but you can register it now. You just have to request a change in username. It's at WP:CHU/S. Epicgenius (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The username request was submitted - and as soon as a 'crat gets around to it, there shouldn't be a problem with it being taken care of. Gloss • talk 02:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That's just what I was about to ask, thank you. Tom Fearer (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hore55

Hore55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created four articles with lists of airports in Southern, Northern, Eastern and Western Norway. I tagged those articles for speedy deletion, because they are redundant as we have List of airports in Norway. User removed speedy deletion templates from some of the articles, and I notifies him on his talk page not to do that ([32]). All four articles were later speedily deleted. But, Hore55 recreated all four articles in the same form. I tagged articles for deletion again, but once again he removed speedy deletion tags from articles ([33] and [34]). I reverted those edits and warned him again on his talk page not to do that ([35]). He then posted a message on my talk page to "get lost" ([36]). He than tagged articles I created years ago with speedy deletion templates ([37], [38]) including my own user pages ([39] and [40]). Please, try to stop this User's disruptive behavior. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Peridon has warned them regarding the "revenge" speedy deletion tags and I've redirected the articles they created to List of airports in Norway. So let's see what happens now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

DrEdna

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

---

DrEdna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly using sarcasm and attacks against users, even after a final warning. See discussions at User talk:DrEdna#Talk page revert, User talk:DrEdna#December 2013 and User talk:George8211#Your posting on my page.. ^{[deliberate double full stops]} Also attacking in edit summaries. George8211 // Give a trout a home! 15:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I fully support this action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 15:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Uh, what action do you suppport? George8211, DrEdna attacked another editor in July. You posted a warning in November, even though, except for a couple of edits in early August, DrEdna had not contributed to Wikipedia in the intervening time. I can see that DrEdna is a piece of work, but why did you bother? It just gave her a chance to renew her nasty comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That was one of my flubs. I warned DrEdna about the remark, but forgot to check the timestamp. George8211 // Give a trout a home! 16:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that was my assumption as she did not sign her comment in the usual way.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds GREAT proceed with account deletion and/or blocking. Greatest conversation ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 16:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• The timing isn't great, but it seems that DrEdna is not here to build an encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) I agree, especially after this. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 20:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Greatest hot air conversation ever. DO IT ALREADY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 21:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you know who you are dealing with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 22:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Aside for the fact that threats are seriously frowned upon here...whom are you even talking to? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 23:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the user indefinitely for disruptive editing. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Masu7

User:Masu7 was blocked indefinitely for persistent sock puppetry but he/she continues to create sock accounts. The latest is User:MOttaCossaOb. Could somenone block this account and also delete the articles/categories created by this account: Royal College Panadura', Royal vs St. John's, Category:Royal College Panadura'? You will also need to protect these articles/categories otherwise Masu7 will recreate them using another sock.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Minphie and Drug Free Australia's call "WIKIPEDIA EDITORS URGENTLY NEEDED"

Minphie (talk · contribs) is an editor affiliated with "Drug Free Australia". A participant of several content disputes with several other users, including me, he have now resorted to canvassing. Or rather more accurately, they have called out for fellow drug warriors to chime in and sway Wikipedia in their direction. This document with instructions on what to do flies in the face of most policies and guidelines. If not in words, so in spirit. I found it very troublesome and don't know what to do. So I leave it for you. Thanks. Steinberger (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Notified. Leaky Caldron 21:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not see that it is necessary to try to associate the WP editor with a real name, and I redacted it, But the call for meat-puppettry here is unmistakable. I think it warrants an indefinite block. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. Pretty much WP:NOTHERE. Resolute 21:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The target list of articles given in the how-to guide linked appears to be as follows:

• Arguments for and against drug legalization (perhaps this refers to Arguments for and against drug prohibition?)
• Cannabis (and all its derivative pages
• Drug policy of Portugal
• Drug policy of Sweden
• Drug policy of the Netherlands
• Harm reduction
• Insite
• Medical cannabis
• Methadone
• Needle exchange program
• Prohibition
• Recreational use of drugs (presumably this means the article Recreational drug use)
• Rhetoric of Drugs (presumably this means the article The Rhetoric of Drugs)
• Supervised injection sites
• War on Drugs
• Zero tolerance

-- The Anome (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. --Rschen7754 21:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)

• Support indefinite block for meat-puppetry. I would also like to note that they denied any WP:COI here and here, specifically in response to a question about Drug Free Australia. That is shown to be false by the PDF, above. Based on that, I would also propose an indefinite topic ban on any articles involving drug treatment, drug programs, or the like, broadly construed. GregJackP Boomer! 22:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Point of order - Minphie would only have a COI with regards to Drug Free Australia if they work for or with them, not if they were contacted by DFA as a local Wikipedian who was in support of the same cause(s). Even if Minphie does work for DFA, the COI would be restricted to a hypothetical article on DFA, not on drug policy writ large. People who are involved in a policy debate do not become conflicted in editing here. They risk WP:BATTLEGROUND violations (or WP:SOAP). As the editor was indeffed already, one could make a guess as to at least one admins' opinion on that point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The block notification says "it is clear that you are here to push a certain point of view rather than to contribute to building a neutral encyclopedia." I'm not disputing that (although there is an emphasis in the call for editors on citing sources) but I wonder whether this is any different to the Storming Wikipedia project. Why would one be allowed (even encouraged) and the other result in an indefinite block? StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Because one broadly encourages expanding the encyclopedia and reducing systemic bias, while the other is a coordinated attempt to impose a specific point of view on a narrow range of related articles? Acroterion (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

While the "Storming Wikipedia" project should have the effect of encouraging more women to edit, some of the quotes in the article referenced above do indicate possible POV problems, and I'm sure that editors are watching for any bias that may appear. For the most part the group is trying to encourage women to edit, assuming that since they are women they will add material of interest to women. (I, for example, am into bluegrass music, computer programming and science fiction, and you all know how men neglect these topics.) This is a far cry, though, from providing a specific list of articles and explaining exactly how to gang up on other editors to shift the focus of the articles to reflect a certain POV. IF the Storming ladies did this, it would be equally unacceptable. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: It might be a good idea for uninvolved admins to add the above articles to their watchlists, in case the promised meatpuppet army materializes. -- The Anome (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Just reading the document, it gives a good grounding on Wikipedia participation. Hopefully we'll get some more editors out of it. We encourage all participants, and so long as we keep an eye on what's going on, where's the problem? Surely we are not running around in circles because - gasp - there might be editors with different views to our own? Mind you, I wouldn't put too much faith in the advice for slow-moving edit wars. Three reverts in a day is merely the "bright line". Reverting twice a day for a week is still going to get a block. --Pete (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

  Well, besides "teaching" from a very biased perspective ("[the other side] are very good at simply deleting [your addition] and putting some bogus explanation.", etc), the document also gives wrong information. It instructs recruited editors to use template:cite journal for every ref. It tells them they need to create an account to be able to contribute. It says that if you feel your text's provenance might be challenged, you support it by commenting on the talk page, rather than saying that you should support it in-text with a citation. It says that you only need to discuss after someone reverts you if you think the other person has a "reasonable rationale", and that otherwise you're "entitled to unilaterally revert" their revert. It implies that anyone reverting your edits is "the other side" who's operating "bogus"ly. It even gives instructions for how to game 3RR (in a way that's almost sure to get you blocked if you try it).

  It's possible to write a document that teaches a potentially-POV group of people the basics of editing Wikipedia well...but this isn't that document. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, sure, it's not perfect, but we have a truckload of resources that are very good and aimed precisely at new editors. There's a bunch of people happy to steer any newcomers straight. A bunch of new editors - if we should be so lucky to get a bunch - are either going to conform to Wikipedia policy or find their time here very difficult. We've been given a headsup on what to look out for, we can do that. I'll add those pages to my watchlist and see how any newbies behave. Without biting. --Pete (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It looks like a fake to me. Its unlikely a pro-drug activist would be that blatant about violating wikipedia guidelines. Plus if you look carefully, theres a call for emails to be sent to him/her - possibly to entrap possible wrongdoers. Just a thought. Pass a Method talk 00:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I know some of these outfits--this one and the ones listed on their "Affiliates" document. I wouldn't put it past them. Or, why would you think such organizations would not want to try Wikipedia, just as they try to influence the media and various governmental and non-governmental organizations? It's the MO of any organization that wants to accomplish change, and these cats are quite passionate about it. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • (EC) I don't see any reason to think it's fake. It's linked from [41] for example. And the website appears to be the correct website for the organisation known as Drug Free Australia [42]. I'm also in minor agreement with Pete that it's not really clear they're trying to violate wikipeda guidelines. Yes they've made numerous mistakes, but if you look at the document, it's clear they're telling people to properly respect the "rules" and to only communicate via wikipedia pages (the email bit appears to be to let them know rather than for offsite collusion, I suspect so they can disclose it if it ever comes up like it has now) etc. I also agree with StAnselm that whether or not something is inappropriate POV meatpuppetry or trying to correct systemic bias by recruiting a greater diverstiy of editors isn't always very clear. (Feminism may be wider ranging, but if you're recruiting editors to better represent the feminist POV, you're ultimately still recruiting editors with a specific POV with the belief that their POV is underrepresented which results in systemic bias and that by recruiting more editors with that POV, you will ensure it is fairly represented in discussions and articles will improve because of it.) Or to put it a different way, I can certainly see why from their POV they're being entirely proper and open about trying to correct systemic bias and help achieve NPOV by ensuring all viewpoints are fairly represented in any discussion by openly recruiting editors who's viewpoints they feel are underrepresented. It's not like this is the first time this has happened, e.g. as mentioned in Wikimania 2011. Nil Einne (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The metadata also supports it being genuine, realizing of course that this can be faked too. GregJackP Boomer! 01:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - User 'Pass a Method' has a point, it could be fake. I can think of some editors here I would love to see blocked. If all it takes is for me to create a pro-meat puppetry flyer, stick their name on it and pass it around via pdf to have that accomplished...
  Anyway, (@Rschen7754:) why the rush to block? (blocked exactly 20 minutes after this ANI was created) The user has not even had an opportunity to comment here in their defence. It's not as if they were actively disrupting in the main or user space and a block was needed to protect the project. - ^theWOLFchild 04:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, in the (very unlikely) event that they can say something to effectively rebut the evidence, they can still do so on their talk page. Meanwhile, they are semi-active, and we don't want this issue to float away. --Rschen7754 05:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Suggestion - How about we pool our eyes and make a list of any new editors showing up on the pages listed above. We can keep a gentle watch over them, raise any concerns here, make sure all is good. Minimise disruption for all parties. --Pete (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It isn't only new editors who have POVs that should be monitored. The Medical cannabis page (and all cannabis pages) has just undergone massive changes in the past week, and has essentially been uglified (compare this with this) and apparently is closed to editing by anyone but the Project Medicine team. This same team, in the name of MEDRS, is using a rat study and a study confounded by cocaine use to prop up Cannabis in pregnancy, an article started by someone using sources from this Australian anti-drug group. Who's watching the watchers? petrarchan47tc 19:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a most curious statement, Petra. This discussion has just come to my attention; you seem to be implying something about anyone editing (to improve) an article started by this person/group/whatever they are in Australia. What is it that you are implying, because I came to the {{cannabis}} suite of articles via the merge of a now-deleted student essay on cannabis and epilepsy, and found a walled garden of poorly sourced text, cited mostly to old primary sources. Cannabis in pregnancy is now cleanly sourced to secondary reviews, compliant with our medical sourcing guidelines. Your allegations of a "team" at Medical cannabis have been raised with you, in the appropriate forum, on your talk (where they were archived generally with no response), and you have failed to adequately engage discussion on article talk, yet you continue battleground allegations here in another forum.

Yes, I do encourage more admin eyes here, and not only because of what some Australian group might be up to; a review of Talk:Medical cannabis and archived discussions at User talk:Petrarchan47 is instructive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, I've never encountered Mikael Häggström before, but I think he should be notified that you are mentioning him here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - (Not sure that as a non-admin I am ok to comment here, nevertheless) Can I ask what is different about the behaviour being investigated here and that of User:sgerbic - aside from the POV differences of the two? It doesn't feel evenhanded to me that this guy is being vilified for behaviour that on the surface simply reproduces SGerbic's. What am I missing? I'd love to know. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Any editor is able to comment here, this is just a noticeboard to get admin attention. As to your question, the difference is that no one has brought Sgerbic's alleged actions to ANI. Admin's don't have the ability (read superpower) to know what goes on everywhere. If you find issue with Sgerbic's editing, you'd have to provide evidence of this rather than just a vague statement. Blackmane (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• The difference is that Sgerbic and the "guerilla skeptics" have specified that they are interested in producing a balanced encyclopedia, that they don't want to push a POV and they want to improve coverage of skepticism. If Sgerbic and the guerilla skeptics were trying to slant articles in a more skeptical direction, I'd be very concerned. They seem more interested in building up coverage of the skeptical movement though. Still I think we should definitely keep an eye on groups like them to ensure they are being neutral and fair. If they can contribute material that's fair, NPOV and productive, we should welcome their contribution even if they have silly, overdramatic names like "guerilla" or market themselves as "storming Wikipedia". —Tom Morris (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Interesting discussion, thanks for mentioning me so that I can learn more about this process. I read through the letter. It is similar to what we do with GSoW, we try to teach and we encourage improvement of something we are interested in. They seem to be really concerned that what they put in the articles will be reverted which worries me a bit as we all want to stay as far away from edit wars as possible. But just because some of us do not share their POV does not mean they don't have every right to look for others to edit these pages. They state they want to stay on the right side of the rules, and we need to assume good faith that that is what they will do. If and when they do start violating the rules, then take action in an appropriate way. And trust me, the amount of responses these people are going to get is going to be tiny. The amount of people who actually end up editing more than a couple months is even tinier. Writing a blog asking for editors is one thing, getting volunteers is a totally different thing. I know after running GSoW for 2+ years that it takes tons of encouragement, training and mentoring to get people to stay involved and editing. I really really doubt that this group will ever cause any of these pages any issues. Thank you DGG for bringing it to our attention, great discussion. Also I didn't see the statement by Roxy the dog as a a challenge, but as a good question.Sgerbic (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you care to comment on my comment below regarding the actual policies at work here? I can't really see the fact that they may not be succesful in the canvassing for meatpupppets as being any kind of excuse. As you may notice from the quotes I highlighted below, the case is quite clear. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Observation – the section of the linked document authored by Minphie starts near the bottom of the second page, the part with the request for email notification and the biased editorialising etc appears to be writted by someone else at Drug Free Australia. Minphie's advice is poor in parts, no question, but alone it does not appear (to me) to be sufficient for a WP:NOTHERE indefinite block. EdChem (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block. I think this has been done too hastily, and with insufficient evidence of meatpuppetry on Minphie's part. It appears that he was asked to give a brief introduction to editing on Wikipedia. Any of us might be asked to do the same. Certainly, we would avoid some of the things that Minphie said, but there is nothing here in what Minphie said about telling people what to write, or what biases to introduce. As mentioned above, that is a separate part of the document, written by persons unknown. This block is unjustified - if the editor is showing that he is not here to build an encyclopedia, he can be blocked on the basis of on-wiki edits; blocking him on the basis of this document is grossly unfair. StAnselm (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

FWIW while I stick by most of what I said above which was more intended to apply generally to what was going on, I think Minphie more or less screwed themselves.

In particular, while the general idea behind the document may be understandable and some may even consider it acceptable, the documument itself does make out the other side to be the enemy. I don't think this is uncommon in this sort of thing, IIRC it did happen a bit in the outside wikipedia responses to gender identity issues raised by the Chelsea Manning case, and I'm sure some of the response in many other cases e.g. the feminism one, ultimately when you're associated with calling others the enemy lefties, you can't expect things to end well for you. And even if we don't accept the author of the PDF and Minphie as the same person, Minphie was clearly involved in a lot of it.

And just as important, and again without having to accept whether or not Minphie is the same person as the author of the PDF (who is strongly associated with DFA), it's difficult to see how you can logically claim you don't have a COI according to our COI policies if you were involved in that document. Precisely what is a COI and how our COI policies interact with our privacy policies may be contentious but in a case like that your options really are to either declare your COI or refuse to comment because of privacy reasons. Saying 'I don't have a COI' when you helped write a document posted on an advocacy's organisations website calling for more wikipedia editors, an advocacy organisation which is heavily involved in a lot of what you're writing about, well that just dumb.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• I do not think we were too hasty--we simply have blocked, as any other attempt at sockpuppettry, and there is no necessity to discuss whether the sockpuppettry was for the purpose of making trouble. It was a request to an interested community of people to edit WP to express a particular POV, and this is never correct. What makes it all the more striking to me is that it was an attempt by someone who clearly understand the guidelines at WP for how to evade the intent of our policies, by trying to edit under the radar. It was not an appeal to follow the guidelines, but how to stretch them beyond their proper meaning and hope not to be noticed. Our jurisdiction does not extend beyond WP, but when a WPedian uses his WP name in such an attempt, they must be blocked, as editing in this manner is destructive of the purpose of a NPOV encyclopedia. If someone makes such appeal without giving their WP identity, it is usually not right for us to try to detect it--all we need do is call the attempt to attention here or at COIN or wherever most appropriate, so people can be on the watch for it. We can obviously not eliminate POV editing on controversial topics, but we can at least publicize the more obvious and organized attempts at it. That the people involved have the intention of bringing their article to what they think is the neutral POV which is their own view is the very essence of POV editing. Their honesty of intentions on the topic are not the question, but their attempt to do coordinated group editing on WP. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Coordinated group editing? <gasp> Ummm... that phrase sounds waaaay overboard.  :-)   WikiProject Military History... those evildoers! Or any wikiproject. Heck, I attempted coordinated group editing just yesterday. (please do not indef me!) As for bringing in new editors, I am 110% in favor of that, and am in fact writing my own "survival manual" to help beginners navigate wikipedia.

  The real *meat* of the problem here is simple. "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side..." Emphasis added. That was the mistake that Minphie made, and that was precisely where pillar two was violated.

  While I would not say 'hasty' exactly, indef right now is perhaps the wrong approach, since it is clearly not a proportional response -- such a drastic step might create a bitter wiki-martyr. Did they actually *succeed* in causing any disruption, or in any visible-in-mainspace injury to pillar two? If not, then perma-banhammering them seems kinda like a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Maybe somebody should talk to them about the blatant issues like using 'journal' in all refs, and mandating registration, and other such foolishness? HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You are missing this very important part of the sentence "... of a debate."Sgerbic (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Other information These discussions have happened with this user for some time. See
  • ANI complaint in 2010, alleged editing warring over Safe injection site
  • ANI complaint in 2011, alleged edit warring over this same article Insite
  • complaint on the RS noticeboard in 2012 discussing Drug Free Australia
  • and again in 2012 on the RS board discussing Lancet papers for this same purpose.

It is unfortunate that we failed to find a way agreeable for this editor to contribute to the mutual satisfaction of all involved. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This is what I meant by "hasty". If there is evidence of disruptive editing over a long period of time, then that should be brought before the community. But I notice that neither of the two edit warring reports were deemed worthy of a block. StAnselm (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Minphie has edited for four years without a single block. It seems strange to block him indefinitely with the rationale "Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia". StAnselm (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps if he had confined his disruption to his own editing, it would make sense to try a shorter block before escalating to indefinite. However, in this case, the user himself has already invoked the "nuclear option" by recruiting meatpuppets off-wiki. The severity of the response is not surprising. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

@DavidLeighEllis: - Riiight, so we should just indef him/her, with "torches and pitchforks", before he/she has even had an opportunity to respond to the issue? There is no evidence that what they might have done off-wiki, has led to any disruption on-wiki. This block is unnecessary and waaay over the top, It should be lifted until there is an actual reason to block. - ^theWOLFchild 05:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Minphie haven't been blocked before, but there have been no shortage of reasons. Just the other week at Talk:Insite he wrote: "Do you not want Wikipedia to reflect absolutely founded fact? /.../ If my text tells the truth on Wikipedia, why do you think that you should sanitise it according to your own private sympathies?" This way of arguing is typical of Minphie. He wants the "truth" to be told. When people - of other "truths" - try to explain that Wikipedia is not about "truth", but of giving a picture of what the most reliable sources say, he call the reasoning bogus and reverts. Would this be the only problem, an escalation of sanctions from short to more severe until he understands the basic principles of Wikipedia would be the right thing to do. But I share opinion of DavidLeighEllis and other. It is to much now. It has gone to far. Steinberger (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Per comments by Sgerbic, whose group I am not a member of, who I would not know unless woolly thinkers hadn't complained about the good work they do, and make up stories about work that they haven't done ;) --Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

  It seems to me you are solely voicing your opinion based on the fact that you sympathise with their cause, and completely fails to adress the matter of off-site canvassing. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

May I ask Saddhiyama on what basis you make your silly conclusions about how I think regarding the cause of the subject of this discussion? What part of my contribution here leads you to make such a statement - please do tell me?. For the record, you are quite wrong in this regard, and I assume equally wrong in your comments below. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

My comment was based on the fact that you failed to adress the actual issue of canvassing, but managed to mention that "woolly thinkers" complained about "the good work they do" as a defence. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Your comprehension of simple English leaves a lot to be desired. Nevermind, I'm sure most here understood what I said. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yet you still did not address the issue at hand. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Please allow me to second Saddhiyama in apparently failing to comprehend your "simple English," in that my understanding of what you said (and didn't say) is identical to his. Also, silly comments like "your silly conclusions" and "your comprehension of simple English leaves a lot to be desired" are silly indeed. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support block. From the document: "What those fighting for a drug free world need at present is a group of around ten committed Wikipedia contributors who are willing to take the time on a daily or weekly basis to put our perspectives onto Wikipedia while keeping within its rules, and also ensure that the weight of numbers in conflict resolution forums on Wikipedia are not always on the drug-liberal side". While they do take care to state that meatpuppets should be "keeping within its rules", the rest of that sentence is a very clear breach of WP:MEAT: "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate", thus making their disclaimer void, since the recruitment document is in itself a breach of policy. This obvious breach of policy seems not to have been noticed by a lot of the commenters above. This is not comparable to Wikipedia projects and the fact that they may have problems recruiting willing editors does not change the fact that it is a violation of policy. And regarding the comments about the document being fake: you are clearly grasping at straws here, since the link is from the official website of the group in question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that quote comes from the part added as a preamble to what Minphie wrote? If so, we have no evidence that Minphie was aware of the preamble apparently added by someone from DFA. Looking at the part actually attributed to Minphie, I see some poor advice but I don't see a call for meatpuppetry and tag-team editing. I think an indef on Minphie on the sole evidence of the last two and a bit pages of the PDF is unwarrented. Other editing of Minphie's may justify it, I don't know, and I disagree both with what DFA seem to want to do and with the "truth" they wish to stuff into WP, but the evidence to date is not being evaluated in a balanced way, in my opinion. EdChem (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it an extreme stretch to suggest that the user was not intimately involved with the production of the notice. Preamble or not, this is the user's document. I do think that Minphie was trying to stay within the lines of policy but probably stepped out. A block is fine but I am not convinced it should be an indef block. JodyB _talk 12:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. It is as unlikely as the claims about the document being a fake. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support block This is a blatant breach of WP:MEAT. Do we know with absolute certainty which portions of that document Minphie did or did not write him/herself? Of course not. We also don't know with absolute certainty whether two different registered user accounts, voting the same way at an AfD, and sharing an IP address, are actually sockpuppets of the same person, and yet admins still aggressively intervene in these scenarios because they're all ducks. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Minphie posted an unblock request on his talk page, which has now been declined. StAnselm (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support block with Comment - He has confirmed the flyer is his, and therefore has admitted to meat puppetry. He has less than 500 edits, has come here with a very narrow pov focus and has a talk page full of warnings and past incidents. A block is required. But with that said, it should not be indef. He should clearly acknowledge wrong doing, give a clear indication that he understands the goals and objectives of the project, and should promise to abide by the rules. I would suggest 72 hours, followed by a topic-ban on all related articles. He should be given another chance to prove himself... if he wants one. - ^theWOLFchild 22:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose block of Minphie (or of Petrarchan47 on the flip side). One canvassing sentence that may or may not have been by him/her offsite does not justify any kind of block. No evidence has been presented of disruption on Wikipedia. On the other hand, the articles in question do seem to suffer from non-compliance with WP:MEDRS, as discussed below. However per the recent AE consensus we can't do anything about biased editors, so there, pound sand. (By the way, simply by coincidence I have been recently working on an unrelated article that was the product of the recently AE-enshrineed wikitheory that all it takes to get a NPOV article is enough POV pushers with opposing views. The practical results of this that I've see are more like oodles of contradictory and unreferenced statements in articles. Of course, in the drug case discussed here, it's a bit more refined than that as in "my sources are (of course) reliable/appropriate and yours (of course) aren't". I'm not saying anything new here, I've read this in a wiki essay, although I can't remember the link. Can anyone help?) Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

  I refer you to the policy on meatpuppetry (I have quoted it in my post above as well), which has no clause about there having had to be "disruption on Wikipedia". Offsite canvassing is the sanctionable offence, so yes there is indeed plenty of justification for a block. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Would an uninvolved admin be able to close this discussion? StAnselm (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Update on cannabis suite

Adding to my previous concerns about WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:MEAT with frequent references to "our team" and "your team" (that is, distinguished by those using WP:MEDRS and those not), see Petrarchan47 comments including but not limited to: "...I have a biochemist friend who studies cannabinoids, and who has agreed to join us in working on these articles ... " and "I am also calling in some scientists/researchers in the field, and as your team also has a doctor, I don't see how this could be viewed as a problem, or as anything but a great benefit to our readers." There is more of same. Of course new editors will be helpful if they follow policy and guideline, but I point out that the off-Wiki recruiting is not limited to this Australia group.

I continue plugging through this suite of articles, attempting to replace the numerous outdated primary sources with recent MEDRS-compliant secondary reviews,[43] but the task is monumental as the suite of articles at {{cannabis}} is chock full of outdated and cherry-picked primary sources, when there are numerous recent secondary reviews available. For my work, Petrarchan47 has continued to label my edits as POV (see above in this section), and continues to fail to engage on either article or user talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated to Petra's activity on these articles, I also noticed today a new editor, MarkyRamone92. [44] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Strangest removal, considering the thread above: [45] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Australians have so far been a no-show, but we have Petrarchan47 gearing up to train her recruits. [46] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat and repeated blanking at Raúl Cuero

Greetings -

I frequently patrol WP:SPER, and one of the recent edit requests is a bit over my head. Raúl Cuero was semi-protected earlier today following repeated content removal and blanking by IPs. A few hours later, User:200.114.28.224 posted this edit request to the article talk page. Since it involves a legal threat and potential BLP issues I wanted to bring it to the attention of someone a bit more experienced than myself.

Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 22:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that's a legal threat simply because I can't exactly tell what the IP is trying to say; it's clear that s/he does not speak English as a first language. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitely a legal threat: "the person who write this article can be exposed to criminal complaint by lie" is a threat to prosecute the article writer, not just to sue like most legal threats here. Dark Sun (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It'd be nice of someone that spoke Spanish checked out those sources. Anyone? John Reaves 15:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I can read Spanish well enough to understand articles such as this one cited in Raúl Cuero. The Wikipedia article accurately reflects what the cited article said, which is not necessarily to say that the cited article was accurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hm. It might not necessarily be a legal threat, insofar as it could also be a complaint that the language of the article might be defamatory (even if that belief is wrong). See WP:DOLT. It's my understanding that there's a bit of a grey area between WP:NLT and WP:DOLT since, while NLT clearly prohibits the statement "I will sue if you don't change this article," the statement "The article's subject has threatened the publisher of one of the references with a defamation suit because of the same material we quote here," is probably different. Oblique references to legal liability can be tricky. I've always felt that where they're used to end a debate by chilling participation, there ought to be some recourse... but my long understanding has been that this is different than NLT. Anyway, I think in this case there's reason to think it might be the latter situation. But since the block's already out there, probably no reason to unblock without reassurances that it's not the IP personally threatening legal action. I do wonder whether an indef on what's probably a dynamic IP is the correct choice, though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it was templated as indef, but the block itself is only for one month. --ElHef (Meep?) 14:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That'll teach me not to check the log. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

User Iryna Harpy — report of WP:NPA and WP:TALKNO

Iryna Harpy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dear admins, please check if bellow posts of said editor violate «no personal attacks» and if talk page of articles used as forum for discussing other editors and POV, but not discussing the ways to improve the wiki-articles, as it should be according WP:TPG: 06:04, 3 September 2013, 00:36, 3 December 2013, 04:41, 10 December 2013, 09:55, 10 December 2013, 04:04, 14 December 2013. As you may see, such behavior is lasting for quite long time. If it really breaks WP:CIVIL rule, please do something with it. HOBOPOCC (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Iryna Harpy's comments have seemingly become more and more heated. While this doesn't really make any sense (and the idea that Wikipedia has "developed a zero-tolerance attitude towards politically sensitive areas such as Central and Eastern European issues" isn't even close to accurate), this is pretty out-of-line. I would suggest Harpy learn a lesson in civility. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 00:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I would be grateful if the investigating administrators read the entire Holodomor talk page in order to establish the context in which any comments and missives were made, paying particular attention to this section; an RfC called by HOBOPOCCC as soon as his 24 hour block had been lifted; his assertion of 'proof' by recycling the rejected RS's once it had become evident that his RfC had been unambiguously rejected; simultaneous appeal to EdJohnston over content dispute where Ed's position on HOBOPOCC's approach are self-evident.

The very contributor who has accused me of "personal attacks" has violated a multitude of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I would be happy to provide a comprehensive list of these violations if I am required to do so. I have also added proposals to the Holodomor talk page that the RfC and that HOBOPOCC's continuous additions of spurious 'proof' be closed off: the majority of the salient points as to the plethora of objections to both his content proposals and incriminating POV push are outlined there.

To be frank, HOBOPOCC has demanded an inordinate amount of time from myself and other editors who do not have single purpose accounts and have, as a consequence, are drowning in a backlog on articles in serious need of fact checking, copyediting and demanding serious work on talk page consensus over the content itself. Thank you for your time and consideration. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Should the article talk page for Holodomor include the {{sanctions}} tag? My reading of Wikipedia:General sanctions is that it was superseded by discretionary sanctions through motion.[47] Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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

User:HOBOPOCC has previously been blocked for edit warring on Holodomor. After that happened he was warned about the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. Here he insists that a Ukrainian political figure should be re-identified and that 'First of all he was Russian.' His editing seems to be influenced by nationalist feelings. At Talk:Holodomor he insists that the deadly Ukrainian famine of the 1930s was just the local occurrence of a general Soviet famine, seeming to be unaware that there's a large nationalist brouhaha on that very question. His POV is so strong that it seems he can't read the sources correctly; any discussions that involve him seem to run on to thousands of words. His inability to work within policy at Talk:Holodomor suggests he is heading toward a ban from that page under the sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case, I apologize if I had you completely wrong, Harpy, but...that still doesn't excuse some of your comments. (Maybe you should have come here first.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend everybody who is discussing this case not to mix up charges (btw - absolutely ungrounded) on me and definite violations of definite rules of wikipedia of editor Iryna Harpy. Referring to my POV as reason to ban me from some topics - is nonsense! Editors shouldn't be banned just because he/she has some POV. Everybody of us has POV. Editor should break some rules of wikipedia, to be banned. And this is not the case about me — as for edit warring I was involved I was blocked already and I haven't committed any other violation of rules of wikipedia. Also I would like to remind everybody that content of the articles should be discussed on their talk pages, but not here. If everybody would like to discuss Holodomor issues - you are very welcome to appropriate place, your productive input, based on RS, would be highly appreciated.HOBOPOCC (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone here should read the Holodomor talk page and its archives to see the extent of the problem with HOBO ... he appears to hold a visible strong POV extending to even translating Russian sources :(. Irina is not at fault in this. Collect (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Another Incidient - I am an uninvolved party in the Holodomor article, but I have seen a similar level of personal attacks by Iryna Harpy against other editors (Poeticbent and myself) on other articles such as Białowieża Forest, where a simple request to follow the NPOV UNESCO naming conventions for the infobox name and an NPOV attempt to improve an article based on prior cross-border conventions garners a personal attack like this. It's not even a "heat-of-the-moment" edit, but a willful re-edit of her prior-posted comment. I firmly believe that over-the-top comments from Iryna Harpy such as ... I had been under the impression that you are an intelligent and FAIR man. Trying to disguise intentional manipulation of Wikipedia policy as a rational method of resolving 'disputed'/'controversial' subject matter because 'you' are unable to be neutral is an embarrassment to your status in the Wikipedia community.... Comments such as that are beyond the pale. Poeticbent is an upstanding and fair editor and does not deserve such abuse. I bring this up, fully expecting the wrath of Iryna's comments, but so be it. I warned her I would bring her reprehensible behavior up to ANI. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC) EDITED Ajh1492 (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Wow, that's cold. Maybe neither one of them should be editing the article (btw, I am also uninvolved). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 20:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Before more of these "attacks" on my behalf are levelled at me, could I suggest that the entire talk page dialogue regarding Bialowieza forest be examined, please. In the first instance, I did apologise to Poeticbent and, to my understanding, neither he nor I have anything less than a good rapport both before and after this heated debate. Again, I would ask that the talk page be the reference point, rather than selected instances of behaviour being used to discredit me. The entire article has been split into a Belarusian and Polish 'version' of a single instance world heritage area. Splits may be warranted in some instances, but this was undoubtedly a POV fork issue. Perhaps I should have made a formal complaint against Ajh1492's POV content dislike of the use of Cyrillic on the page (stating, "I have been saying since the beginning that the alt names field in the infobox should be only stated as the name is inscribed in the UNESCO WHS list (Belovezhskaya Pushcha / Białowieża Forest), nothing more, nothing less no cyrillic. I don't personally care if Belovezhskaya Pushcha is transliterated belarussian or russian.") Ultimately, there was nothing that would suggest that there was anything even resembling an attempt to reach consensus. The article was split into Belovezhskaya Pushcha National Park, leaving only just enough to prevent it from being qualifying as a stub, the majority of the work on the article over the years having been wrested and turned into the predominant Wikipedia article as Polish Białowieża Forest. If you were to read through the talk page, I have no doubt that you would also find Ajh1492's finger-pointing at me as being seriously ingenuous. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Erpert, as you are not an administrator, rather than make comments like, "Wow, that's cold.", could I suggest that you actually examine the relevant talk pages, the talk pages of those who are making accusations, etc. in order to get a broader picture of the dynamics at work before making judgements? None of the issues being raised occurred in a vacuum, and judging any alleged violations by me in such a serious venue requires more that looking at a single quote. It is befitting to examine the calibre and agendas of those levelling accusations. Looking at their user talk pages, contributions, et al may also assist in informing you as to their motivation and any agenda/s they may have. I'm not saying this in order to be rude to you as I take your criticisms of my behaviour as being in good faith. I do, however, think that it is essential that it be understood that there are contributors who hide behind policies and guidelines as a method of gaming the system. Thank you for your patience. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    • FYI: you don't have to be an admin to make comments on this board. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 23:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I am well aware of that and was not suggesting that you don't have a right to voice your opinion as a neutral party: I did note that I accept your appraisals as being in good faith and that I was certainly not deriding your input. I was merely suggesting that you check into a little of the backgrounds of those who are tabling complaints and those who are being accused of unacceptable behaviour. I am unable to defend myself without context being understood to be of primary concern. I edit in areas (including Middle Eastern politics), Eastern European history (hence politics), ex-Soviet satellite nation-states and other volatile areas of Wikipedia which are extremely demanding. Making best attempts at working on consensus building and intervening in order to create balanced articles tends to make me a prime candidate for a plethora of accusations being levelled at me. My objective is to keep Wikipedia a credible, encyclopaedic source. If that makes me unpopular and the target of disgruntled, biased contributors, so be it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ajh1492, you are aware that the comment left on Erpert's user talk page can be construed as being borderline inappropriate canvassing. Your bringing Poeticbent's attention to the matter was reasonable (although he would already have been aware of it as you had mentioned him), but alerting Erpert, who was already following this AN/I entry, was redundant. Expressing that, "I expect to get her wrath, but cyber-bullies need to be stood up to." on Poeticbent's user talk page is a little OTT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You have a track record of cyber-bullying that continues even here on the ANI. Anyone who disagrees with you is to be ridiculed and their opinion minimized. You are doing it to Erpert here just as you did on Białowieża Forest. As I wrote in early November, The splitting of the article was first brought up by AntonBryl, plus if you notice that I was originally opposed to splitting the National Park-related information from the Forest-information, but after researching PoeticBent's comments and looking at the foreign-language entries for Białowieża_Forest (especially pl:Białowieża_Forest, it became real clear to me that the Forest article needs to concentrate on the forest and two National Park articles need to be created. So the consensus at the time from the 3 editors was to split, so a bold edit later we have three articles (the NP articles were already redirects, Belovezhskaya Pushcha National Park since 9 April 2004 and Białowieża National Park since 21 September 2006). I wouldn't call Belovezhskaya Pushcha National Park a straggly piece of undeveloped nothing (left) behind[48], it is not a stub, it is over 4000 characters with a well-developed infobox - it would have qualified for a DKY if the time was taken to cite the information. Plus you claimed you were involved in the discussion to split the article occurred that in late October (the actual split occurring on 30 October 2013), yet your first comment on the article talk page isn't until 9 November 2013 and your first comment about the split wasn't until 10 November 2013. To this date I still wonder how can you claim you were involved in the October decision to populate the two national park articles when the edit trail clearly shows you weren't? Basically a lie to cover up for your uninformed rudeness. Ajh1492 (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• You keep bringing up some purported claim on my behalf that I'd been involved in the consensus. Where, exactly, did I state this? That is your misinterpretation of what I said, and there was no point disputing anything with you as you have a track record for not understanding relevant comments (as the talk page itself will attest to). What I did express was my dismay at the lack of an attempt to gain consensus and the haste with which the split took place. You were still in the process of moving sections of the original article while I was querying how 3 editors (2 of whom had hardly been involved in the article and the proposer, AntonBryl, having never been involved with the content or the talk page prior his proposal) could make such a bold split on shabby pretexts. The only motivation appears to be a POV fork in order to not have to collaborate with editors who were suggesting that the alt_name box did not preclude Cyrillic (particularly Russian). Any short outbreak of edit warring on this matter could easily have been resolved by asking relevant parties in admin to make a decision as to the correct nomenclature for the info box. Whatever their decision, I would have abided by it and it would have documented on the talk page should anyone try to change it in the future. I still believe that, as the heritage site is a single entity, there is no justifiable reason for splitting it and it should be merged again. The Belarusian presence on Wikipedia is seriously under-represented and most of the original article had been developed by non-Polish editors. Who is supposed to develop it without replicating the Polish entry? Now the "Belarusian entry" only links to the corresponding article in Macedonian, Hungarian, Estonian and Belarusian and finishes on an uncited statement, "The park's headquarters are at Kamyanyuki (Kamenyuki). There are also a small museum, restaurant, snack bar and hotel facilities (built during the Soviet era and currently in a state of disrepair). Due to the lack of facilities and little tourism in the country, few foreign tourists visit the Belarusian part." Meanwhile, the "Polish entry" reads like a glowing tourist guide and is the primary article for English Wikipedia (take a look at the sidebar). The whole thing smacks of flying under the radar by flouting naming conventions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

As for any apology to Poeticbent, it's up to him to respond, but you only issued your snide attempt after you were warned [49]. I still haven't heard an apology after your brusque, uncivil and uninformed comments on the consensus-baed and justified article split such as a straggly piece of undeveloped nothing (left) behind[50] and similar. As far as I'm concerned you're nothing more than a bully. Ajh1492 (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• My sole point with my comments on this ANI is that Holodomor is just one example in a clear track record of personal attacks by Iryna Harpy on any editor that dares to disagree with her. I don't believe that HOBOPOCC is pure as the wind-driven snow, nor is this discussion about me nor about any other editor, but THIS ANI is about Iryna and her persistent in-civil attitude toward editorial disagreements. Ajh1492 (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  +1. I can put my signature to above statement. HOBOPOCC (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  No, it seems to be about editors in the Eastern Europe topic area who have not been properly sanctioned for their behavior. There seem to be quite a lot of personal attacks in this thread, with few from Iryna. I can understand Iryna's frustration at having to deal with this kind of disruption on a daily basis and I sympathize with her brusque responses. There seems to be an attempt to distract us from the underlying problem by focusing on Iryna. This topic area is supposed to be under general sanctions and it is not being enforced. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

So you, Viriditas, sympathize with her brusque responses? How about her treatment of Poeticbent on Białowieża Forest mentioned above? What about her ridiculing of Erpert's comment here in this very ANI? Seems that you think Iryna Harpy is above reproach and the rules? So in your mind some editors are more equal than others, eh? This ANI is about only one editor, not editors in the Eastern Europe topic area. Ajh1492 (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Your superlative track record for civility is showing again, Ajh1492. According to you, browbeating anyone who disagrees with you is not bullying. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You're making my point for me. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Viriditas can shed some light on this issue for you. Poeticbent talk 23:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

A link to an WP:EEML coordinated RFC. Very interesting. Are you implying that the Eastern Europe topic area is once again being manipulated behind the scenes? This calls for implementation and enforcement of the already existing sanctions against the editors in this thread. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Although we get along, I can see how some editors would think that Iryna Harpy's remarks are sharp and barbed. But considering the editors who have been brought up on AN/I for civility issues and given a pass, I recommend everyone take a wikibreak and back away from each other. Not a real solution, I understand, but this community doesn't seem to want to police politeness. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it my imagination, or is this turning into an outright brawl? This is precisely why I was reticent about bringing the issue of the splitting of the Białowieża Forest/Belovezhskaya Pushcha article and was prepared to let it go for the sake of a little harmony. Personally, I can live with a few articles split on the grounds of POV forks. Wikipedia has more than enough interest group pushes to contend with without using this as a forum for retribution. Sadly, old grudges don't seem to want to go away.

What I can't abide by is allowing HOBOPOCC to continue with his disruptive editing and levelling charges against me in order to cover his own tracks. Even now, today, he's still warring away on the Holodomor talk page despite having initiated an uncalled for RfC (which was rejected); repackaged his RfC 'submissions' and continuing to push his pseudo-content on other editors who have asked him to desist; sought third party opinion (in the form of EdJohnston) who didn't give him the answers he wanted. I agree with Liz that I can appear sharp, but there is a very, very distinct line between being a little sharp and being accused of being uncivil and a bully/cyberbully. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Like the way you treated Poeticbent? That WAS being a bully and absolutely uncalled for. I strongly suggest you think first and pause before immediately jumping on an established editor trying to follow existing cross-border national parks conventions. Poeticbent tried to explain the convention, but you jumped on him also. It is better to try the velvet glove first than going right to the stick. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that you've been a bit bitey but only in the face of an editor who has been extremely frustrating to work with. IMO, this warrants nothing more than a verbal warning to be mindful of how we conduct ourselves. To veer into 'cyber bullying' is silly. This notice being made against Iryna appears to be nothing more than trying to get her out of the Holodomor talk page discussion on a technicality.--Львівське (говорити) 05:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

She was a bit bitey right from the start on Białowieża Forest towards two editors. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If anyone believes that the behavior of one or more editors on the Holodomor article repeatedly or seriously violates Wikipedia policy they can make a complaint at WP:Arbitration enforcement. The criterion is "..that the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The topic of the Holodomor article is covered under WP:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe which provides for discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Governors added to incumbents at Year X in US history

I'm more interested in eyes than in direct action, though I could argue that administrative intervention is an option--at least mass rollback is. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Yesterday Fundingmoney (talk · contribs), a relatively new editor, started adding long lists of US governors to the "Year X in US history" articles (not yet the names of those governors)--this one is representative. I asked them about it, reverted one, I asked them to stop, and then I posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, where predictably there has been no response yet. At any rate, my argument is that since governors are hardly as important as other listed entities (Congress, prez) this is a waste of server space (to the tune of 1000 bytes per article).

Well, since then they started filling in the blanks. So here's the thing. They haven't responded to my questions, and without such an answer, and without any discussion at the US Project, I am in something of a bind. Their continuing those edits is, in my opinion, disruptive, and I think these lists are worse than useless, but I can't really start hitting mass rollback all by my lonesome. So this thread is, I suppose, an attempt at a. getting more editors to look at this; b. getting Fundingmoney to start talking; and c. figuring out what needs to be done. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

My take is that since we're talking about Governors, which are state elected officials, that the material doesn't belong. It would make more sense if they were adding the names of all the U.S. Representatives and Senators but even that seems unnecessary.--MONGO 15:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I've warned the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Now blocked for 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Do all of these edits need to be rolled back? Epicgenius (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I rolled back the 1865 example and agree that these particular governor lists are unhelpful and inappropriate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Following from your example, I have reverted all their edits up to the 1875 example up to the beginning of the 20th century examples Drmies reverted all of them. Epicgenius (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

i have changed the title of this section to a more appropriate one--68.231.15.56 (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Are the swarms of "Year X in ..." articles intended to serve readers in some way, or are they just a place for editors to spend their time making thousands of edits? bobrayner (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• The editor initially in question has been blocked as a sockpuppet. I'm not closing this thread, in case broader discussion of the "Year in country" articles leads somewhere. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • So the chickens have come home to roost. Salvidrim, I hope that some of the US project editors will take this suggestion, but so far there's only one taker on the project talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

i removed all sec of state additions = bloat since not elected official (just as useless - name everyone in cabinet) - i disagree on govs thou - i think that thru 1860 but not after is ok--68.231.15.56 (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

persistent nasty incivility

I confess to being increasingly annoyed at the escalating incivility toward me shown by User:Katydidit at Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt in the last few days. (examples: "Would you at least do that and turn honest on that point, or do you want to continue lying with your repeated falsehood that has been proven untrue? If not, I can only surmise you don't want to honestly discuss this topic, and only want to smear and make-up stories because that is all you have to go on."; " You are mad, thoroughly, completely mad to make-up such outrageous, amateurish gibberish in vainly trying to support your unverified assertion, and that you refuse to add one cite as I have repeatedly asked. Blind, and mind completely shut tight, not just incredibly biased to the facts of consumer shortages, but blind and mindshut." "When will you finally wake-up to the truth and stop believing the government's propaganda that an increasing number of people are realizing are just a pack of lies?") He just gets worse and worse. Rjensen (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You are losing the debate, and continually refusing to acknowledge other authors that I cited--that was the reason for my reply to you, so you resort to doing this, and you still refuse to provide a source link as WP:Cite requires for unverified assertions. You are now smearing me unfairly, and I'm done trying to discuss this topic with you. I finally lost my patience with you, and that is why I said the things I said, in trying to get you to stop saying things that were proven false. Maybe I did go a little too far, but you weren't discussing fairly or cared about my links in citing others, and that is why I said those things I wouldn't have normally said to others in a discussion. --Katydidit (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Katydidit, I don't see your attacks as being justified. What I see is disruptive editing on the article (5 days ago) and contentious remarks - to say nothing of walls of text - on the talk page (the present). This board is hardly the place for bringing civility issues, but your comments are personal attacks, not just incivility. If you can't control your frustration and your tongue, go do something else. Based on your history, you mostly edit articles (as opposed to talking); as long as you can avoid your recent edit warring, perhaps you should stick with that.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I know I lost my patience with that other editor, but he was an exceptional case. It won't happen with him or anyone else again, because I haven't met anyone else as stubborn as he was in refusing to acknowledge the other authors and links I posted for his edification. --Katydidit (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You said that it won't happen again, which was fine...but what you said after that wasn't the best thing to say. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 20:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute that got personal. Katydidit's personal remarks are pretty bad here... but I don't think the situation is quite ripe enough to merit administrator intervention. I think working through other steps of the dispute resolution process, especially focused on clearing up the content dispute, might be a better first step. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:80.195.139.78

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

---

80.195.139.78 (talk · contribs)

Hi. This IP editor keeps adding unsourced dates-of-deaths to lots of BLP articles. I've warned them on their talkpage, but they continue to edit articles without sourcing them. Can and Admin step in and help? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruptions by Evildoer187

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

---

Evildoer187 is apparently on a WP:TRUTH-mission on Wikipedia, causing disruptions everywhere. As is evident from the user's talk page (even though many blocks, warnings and topic-bans have been removed by the user (eg [51], [52], [53] many others remain), the user is on Wikipedia with the sole purpose of pushing his POV concerning topics related to Jews and Judaism. The user has already been topic-banned from editing areas related to the Israeli-Arab conflict. My first interaction with the user was today, though I see many others have encountered the same behavior previously. On Ashkenazi Jews, several users had discussed the intro. To give a very brief background, it is a fact that good, serious peer-reviewed scientific DNA studies have arrived at different views on the origins of Ashkenazi Jews. In keeping with NPOV, Wikipedia should not to take sides between these, but report the fact that science differs. According to Evildoer187's POV, Ashkenazi Jews are of Levantine origin. This view is contradicted by a recent and very extensive DNA study by 18 researchers, published in Nature. As far as sources go, an extensive study published in Nature is pretty much the gold standard of WP:RS. This study, which has been widely reported in leading media, shows that the origins of Ashkenazi Jews are mainly European. This, however, does not fit Evildoer187's POV, so he repeatedly deletes and rewrites, removing any reference to a possible European origin [54], [55], [56] As seen in the diffs, the user has deleted it both from the introduction and from the infobox, while gladly keeping references to smaller studies in less known journals which are in line with his POV.
In short It's apparent from Evildoer187's history that this is a single-purpose account for the WP:TRUTH, it's apparent from the user's talk page that this is done in a way which has led to countless warnings, blocks and topic bans. The fact that the user still continues in the same way despite all these warnings is indicative. Given this user's history on Wikipedia, and the apparent inflaming behavior and unwillingness to hear, I feel a topic ban for [User:Evildoer187|Evildoer187]] on any article related to Judaism or the Jewish people would be in order. It is evident that this user is here to push a certain POV, not to build a neutral encyclopaedia.Jeppiz (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Your inflammatory and aggressive attacks on me here are reflective of POV pushing on your part. I may have made mistakes in the past, which I will readily admit to, but it should be evident to anyone who looks at the page in question that I have done no such thing on Ashkenazi Jews.

I did not delete the peer reviewed paper in question. I deleted the news articles which discuss (and in some cases, misrepresent) the peer reviewed paper, which I believed was superfluous. Further, none of the studies cited in the article even remotely indicate that Ashkenazim are purely European, as he is trying to portray in the article itself. They only suggest that 80 percent of mtDNA origins are traceable to Europe, with the rest being of Middle Eastern origin. Genetic studies do not differ (among the ones cited at least) on the origins of Ashkenazi Jews. They all agree on Levantine origins. I was also under the impression that the related ethnic groups category pertains to groups who share more than just genetics in common, but also culture, geography, linguistics, etc.

In short, this editor is deliberately trying to misrepresent the study, and that in itself is indicative of POV pushing.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where you see "inflammatory and aggressive attacks" nor is it clear to me what you mean by "reflective of POV pushing on your part". I've taken great care to respect NPOV, giving equal weight to equally valid scientific studies, and I've argued at the talk page that the article should represent both views. The fact that you find that "POV pushing" is unfortunately very indicative. When you say I edited to suggest that "Ashkenazim are purely European" you're entering into lies and slander. Could you provide diffs to a version of the article by me that says that "Ashkenazim are purely European". If you can't (and you can't), kindly retract your slander above. I said quite the contrary, as can be seen from my edit of the talk page ([57]). I fear the unmeasured response by Evildoer187 only reinforces my impression that this user should not edit articles related to the Jewish people or Judaism.Jeppiz (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You immediately came out with attacks on my credibility and threatened to block me (even though you are not an admin) after just one edit. Instead of discussing or reverting rationally, you instantly demanded that I be topic banned. That is pretty aggressive, no?

If you were actually representing both sides adequately, then you'd have a point, and I would never have reverted you. But as this diff here indicates (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&diff=586222880&oldid=586221924), you posted that some studies claim that Ashkenazim are entirely European in origin, whereas none of the studies arrive at this conclusion. Further, you needlessly added news articles discussing a study which was already cited in the article.

I will not retract my accusations of POV pushing, because from what I can see, that is exactly what you are doing here.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin." Taken directly from the diff. None of the genetic studies say this, so either you're lying or you're not paying attention. I am inclined to go with the former.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. You're clearly trying to deflect the discussion.

• I did not threaten to block you, I posted a standard Wikipedia warning on your talk page.
• This discussion is not based on one edit or one article, but on your whole edit history.
• First you claim I said Ashkenazim are "entirely" and "purely" European, then you link to a diff where I wrote "mainly European". "Mainly" and "entirely" are two different things.
• The claim about Ashkenazim being mainly European is not mine, it's from the sources I used. That's how Science, one of the main scientific journals in the world, reported the findings of the study. NBC News and BBC News both did as well, though they are not scientific. Whether you agree or not is quite simply irrelevant. Science most certainly satisfies WP:RS and the fact that you accuse me of "lying" and "POV-pushing" for citing it is, once again, indicative of how you refuse to accept anything or anyone not agreeing with you.Jeppiz (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No, the study claims that Ashkenazi MATERNAL origins are mainly European. Your diff said "Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin." If you had clarified that part, or if you had cited the Zoossmann-Diskin study from 2010 which DID arrive at that conclusion (i.e. that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly European), I would never have had a problem with it, although it may have raised WP:UNDUE concerns since the bulk of genetic studies posit that a significant portion of Ashkenazi ancestry is Levantine. Further, it would still have been completely unnecessary to link to anything outside of the main study itself. Additionally, I stated my intent to remove the NYT article and replace it with the actual study, which I was not able to track down, so your accusations of censoring the other side/POV pushing don't hold water here.

I will, however, concede that I made a mistake with regards to your first two *'s. I will be more careful about that from now on.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The topic here is not the article, there's a talk page for that. My edit took into account both sides, and was even more careful in the claim that the article in Science was. Nuff bout that. The topic here is your behavior on Wikipedia and the way you edit, apparently causing inflammatory reactions all around.Jeppiz (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

http://forward.com/articles/185399/jewish-womens-genes-traced-mostly-to-europe-not/#

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/.premium-1.551825

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24442352

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2013/10/did-modern-jews-originate-italy

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/most-ashkenazi-jews-are-genetically-europeans-surprising-study-finds-8C11358210

These are the citations I removed in my original revert (see the diff). Notice how they each pertain to the same exact study, which was also cited in the same sentence (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html). This begs the question: why is he linking to all of these news articles when the study itself is already there (and which I did not delete)? I should hope that the reason is obvious and that I won't have to fill in the blanks. Moreover, notice how the study in question does not say, anywhere, that "Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin". Rather, it says that maternal origins are mainly European. If he had added the word "maternal" in the sentence, this dispute would never have happened. But he didn't, and so here we are.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those are the sources you deleted. Science.NBC News. BBC News. Among the best sources available to us, and Wikipedia welcomes secondary sources. Science wrote "A detailed look at thousands of genomes finds that Ashkenazim ultimately came not from the Middle East, but from Western Europe.", my edit was perfectly in line with that. And your behaviour in this thread is typical of your whole Wikipedia history. You deflect from the topic, you repeatedly lie about me. You declare one of the leading scientific journals in the world unfit as a source. That is the topic here. You do not contribute to Wikipedia, you disrupt it.Jeppiz (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I have not told any lies about you. The evidence of your actions is right there for all to see. As for myself, I have done nothing wrong, save for not going to the talk page when I should have (which I admitted to).

And you still have not answered my question: why are you using all of these news sources which merely report on the study, when the genetic study itself is already cited? Especially when said study does not arrive at the conclusion you say it does. It reeks of POV pushing, and I don't know how you could argue otherwise. Further, I never said the Science journal source was unreliable, just superfluous and unnecessary because the study it talks about is already cited in the article.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

And upon closer inspection of the Science article. "So a different team of scientists, led by geneticist Martin Richards at the University of Huddersfield in the United Kingdom, embarked on a new search for the origins of these four founder groups. The team focused on mtDNA, which is often employed in genetic studies because it is easier to sequence and allows analysis of huge population samples. However, mtDNA is inherited through the mother and not the father, so it reveals the history of maternal lineages only.

Geneticists have identified certain mtDNA markers that define lineages in different parts of the world. Behar’s group had traced the Jewish founder groups to two mtDNA genetic lineages called haplogroup K and haplogroup N1b. The Jewish lineages were nested within these two larger groups, which include both Jews and non-Jews. So Richards and his colleagues first set out to understand the history of these broader lineages. They analyzed about 2500 complete and 28,000 partial mtDNA genomes of mostly non-Jews worldwide, plus 836 partial mtDNA genomes of Ashkenazi Jews, to see where the Ashkenazim fit into the overall history.

The result was very clear-cut, the authors say: As reported online today in Nature Communications, more than 80% of Ashkenazi mtDNAs had their origins thousands of years ago in Western Europe, during or before Biblical times—and in some cases even before farming came to that part of the continent some 7500 years ago. The closest matches were with mtDNAs from people who today live in and around Italy. The results imply that the Jews can trace their heritage to women who had lived in Europe at that time. Very few Ashkenazi mtDNAs could be traced to the Middle East."

It is indeed referring to mtDNA specifically, which hardly equates to "Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin", as you put it in the article. If you had wrote instead "Ashkenazi Jewish maternal lines are mainly of European origin" (never mind the fact that you needlessly padded out one study with at least 5-6 news articles reporting on it), there wouldn't have been a problem. But you did not do that. So tell me again how this is not lying, on your part?Evildoer187 (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You deliberately deflect and do not WP:HEAR. I discuss the article on its talk page. I leave it for uninvolved admins to consider your disruptive history on Wikipedia, which is the topic here. It is evident from your talk page and edit history. You are not here to build an encyclopaedia.Jeppiz (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:HEAR "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.

Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. One option to consider in these situations is to stop, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you; see if you can see their side of the debate; and work on finding points of agreement.

Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, because they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed."

I fail to see how I've violated this rule. You are the only one, to my knowledge, who is incessantly battling me on this issue. There was one guy who disagreed with me yesterday, and another on the talk page who ostensibly agrees with me. That's not consensus, last I checked.

Moreover, I have seen your side of the debate, and I understand exactly what the problem is. You are misrepresenting a study in the article and padding it out with news articles reporting on the same study which is already cited. So on the contrary, I did WP:HEAR you. The fact that I'm calling you out on this does not mean I'm not listening to your side. You are dissembling here.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not playing your deflection game and this isn't about me. Your claim that only one other person has commented on your behavior is ridiculous. You have been topic banned and you have been blocked several times for your extremely disruptive behavior. Any admin can check out your talk page, or rather your talk page history as you've deleted most warnings and blocks.Jeppiz (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm refuting the charges you've brought against me here, and pointing out how the entire dispute on the Ashkenazi Jews article (which resulted in this thread) is a result of your editing behavior. As for me, I acknowledged that I've made mistakes, and I've been working to improve on it. You, on the other hand, manipulated sources and violated WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV.

Moreover, I did not claim that only one other person commented on my behavior. I stated, clearly, that one other person disagreed with me on that issue. You accused me of violating WP:HEAR on that topic, when it is evident that I did not.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I said you don't WP:HEAR in this thread. You continue to try to deflect by discussing Ashkenazim. That is not the topic here. The topic is your disruptive behavior throughout your entire history on Wikipedia, your many blocks, topic ban, and the inflammatory arguments you bring to articles.Jeppiz (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you did not. You accused me of violating WP:HEAR on the Ashkenazi Jews article. You even said so in your initial comment i.e. "Given this user's history on Wikipedia, and the apparent inflaming behavior and unwillingness to hear". This was prior to our argument on this page, indicating that you were accusing me of violating this Wiki norm on Ashkenazi Jews. Further, I have acknowledged (this would be the third time, in this thread) that I have made my share of mistakes, and that I am working to improve, so your accusations of deflection don't hold water. I should also note that I have sought WP:ADOPTION, but was never picked up.

Moreover, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out your problematic behavior, as it provides relevant context.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Oh, for crying out loud...this is the longest thread I have ever seen in a back-and-forth argument between two people in a single day. I'm not sure who's right and who isn't (although Evildoer, making an entirely new thread about this same situation wasn't the best idea), but both parties might want to consider taking a wikibreak for a day or two.

And now Jeppiz has commented in that thread. Seriously, you both need to chill out. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 00:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In any case, I don't want to spend all day arguing on here, so I'm gonna back off and wait for an admin to show up.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Since I could not reply to Jeppiz on the thread below, I will do so here instead.

• No, not revenge. I even told you on your talk page that I was going to take action against you here. I've been pre-occupied with other things. I don't live on the internet, after all.

• You did not try to reflect both sides. You took one genetic study (whereas you claimed there were several), misrepresented its conclusions in the article, and buttressed it with at least 5-6 news articles which pertain to the same study. That is POV pushing. Dictionary definition of it. Evidence for this is provided in the diff.

• I only did that in the related ethnic groups template, because my impression was that related ethnic groups pertains to groups who share more than just genetics in common. What do Ashkenazi Jews share with Southern Europeans and Italians other than genetics? What do they share with Arabs, Samaritans, Sephardi Jews, etc? That was my point. Also notice (check the diff) that I did not remove the genetic study in Nature, which is what all of those additional news articles were discussing. He is not being truthful here, and that's the problem.

• Taken from the same article. "So a different team of scientists, led by geneticist Martin Richards at the University of Huddersfield in the United Kingdom, embarked on a new search for the origins of these four founder groups. The team focused on mtDNA, which is often employed in genetic studies because it is easier to sequence and allows analysis of huge population samples. However, mtDNA is inherited through the mother and not the father, so it reveals the history of maternal lineages only.

Geneticists have identified certain mtDNA markers that define lineages in different parts of the world. Behar’s group had traced the Jewish founder groups to two mtDNA genetic lineages called haplogroup K and haplogroup N1b. The Jewish lineages were nested within these two larger groups, which include both Jews and non-Jews. So Richards and his colleagues first set out to understand the history of these broader lineages. They analyzed about 2500 complete and 28,000 partial mtDNA genomes of mostly non-Jews worldwide, plus 836 partial mtDNA genomes of Ashkenazi Jews, to see where the Ashkenazim fit into the overall history.

The result was very clear-cut, the authors say: As reported online today in Nature Communications, more than 80% of Ashkenazi mtDNAs had their origins thousands of years ago in Western Europe, during or before Biblical times—and in some cases even before farming came to that part of the continent some 7500 years ago. The closest matches were with mtDNAs from people who today live in and around Italy. The results imply that the Jews can trace their heritage to women who had lived in Europe at that time. Very few Ashkenazi mtDNAs could be traced to the Middle East."

He made no reference whatsoever to maternal DNA, which would have provided some much needed clarification. Instead, he (tellingly) omitted it and put "Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin" in the article.

• Adding news sources which all discuss the same genetic study is problematic, and you know it. It would seem that you are deliberately trying to bypass WP:UNDUE by making it appear as though these studies (and you did say "studies") are more numerous than they actually are. For the passage pertaining to the Middle Eastern origins of Jews, the citations were much more varied and clearly extracted from different studies. Needless to say, if you are being honest, I expect there will be no objections if I employ the same tactics vis-a-vis the Middle Eastern origins of Ashkenazim.

• My accusations against you are not unfounded. The evidence I have posted here shows that clearly. I do not think I should be topic banned because although I have made mistakes, I have not edited the Ashkenazi Jews topic in a disruptive manner, as he claims.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Rarevogel

User Rarevogel has been engaged in a long-term edit war over the ethnicity of Alhazen. For example, they initially replaced a long, referenced discussion of Alhazen's identity with "Iraqi Muslim": [58] They've been engaged in making similar edits to the same text for nearly two months now. They have been warned for edit warring on the article [59] They did recently finally engage in a discussion on the Talk page, but at the point where it was still far from clear that there was consensus for change they went ahead and made an edit to the same text anyway: [60] There was some support for deleting the overly long discussion in the lead, so in the interests of moving the article forward I largely let the edit stand. Rarevogel then basically implied that their opinion was the only thing which mattered in the article. When I said that if the consensus in reliable sources was that Alhazen could be described as an Arab, that's what we should use, Rarevogel told me "Go fuck yourself": [61] I haven't looked at Rarevogel's other edits to other articles, but interestingly they have recently been warned for removing the word "Arab" from articles: [62]. I personally think Rarevogel's behaviour is unacceptable, and that some sort of block is required to make that clear. --Merlinme (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Rarevogel's response to being told "Go fuck yourself" was unacceptably rude was "I meant to say: Go piss up a rope". [63]. --Merlinme (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I warned him/her about the personal attack. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 21:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even see the second attack at first (I'm not sure what "piss up a rope" even means but I am sure it was meant to be pretty derogatory). I second a block. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 21:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Exceptionally rude user, would need some time to reflect on their behavior.Jeppiz (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but grumble a bit that the issue that brought this to ANI (and what everyone seems to be focusing on) is that Rarevogel swore at another editor he was arguing with. I also question whether being told to fuck off constitutes a personal attack instead of simple incivility. By the way, being told to "piss up a rope" works essentially the same as "fuck off" (both could be seen as vulgar variants of "go fly a kite"). And reviewing the other edits here, while I do see evidence of perhaps overly BOLD editing, I think the description of the first diff at the very least belies that this is at its core a content dispute (though one of a traditionally highly contentious nature: the ethnicity and nationality of a historical figure). I really think more diffs are needed to demonstrate a pattern of incivility rather than isolated frustration stemming from this content dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't think it's relevant that Rarevogel has been warned for removing "Arab"? And I've never had someone swear at me like that in seven years of editing the encyclopedia. I described it as gross incivility, it was another editor who described it as a personal attack, but either way I don't see why I should have to put up with it. The Talk page conversation goes: Me: "You may have a point, but please give references to support your viewpoint"; KansasBear notes Rarevogel's tendency to remove "Arab"; Dicklyon finds zero sources for Iraqi, some sources for Persian, some for Arab; Rarevogel then deletes the section; I let it stand but remove "Muslim", which was rather over-emphasised in the lead, and note that Rarevogel really shouldn't have made an edit in such a controversial area without much clearer consensus; Rarevogel comes back with "It shouldn't be controversial bro... The only thing we know for sure was that he was an Iraqi and a muslim, and that he wrote exclusively in Arabic", giving zero sources; we then get: Me: "I'm not your bro. And if the consensus of authorities is that it makes sense to describe him as an Arab, please don't impose your own personal opinion otherwise on the encyclopedia." Rarevogel: "Go fuck yourself. Its not a matter of opinion. I've stated the facts. The burden is on you to prove that he was Persian or chinese or whatever, ehrn there is no evident proof. Its not on me to prove he wasnt." Me: "a) Yes it is up to you to justify your opinion, using reliable sources; b) "Go fuck yourself" is unacceptable. I'll now raise at WP:ANI." Rarevogel: "I meant to say: Go piss up a rope. Sorry for using the f-bomb, but you shouldnt be so rude to people." Now, could anyone please explain to me what on earth I did to justify being told to go fuck myself? And why Rarevogel's relentless determination to assert that Alhazen was an Iraqi Muslim while providing zero sources is helping the encyclopedia? --Merlinme (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

All I see going on here is Rarevogel said something rude during a content dispute. That doesn't make it a behavioral dispute warranting administrative action. And as to your points about the content dispute, this is decidedly the wrong forum to hash them out, but I'll point out that from my admittedly ignorant perspective, that someone is a Muslim and hailed from what is now Iraq (sources for both points are in the article) makes it trivial to say he was an Iraqi Muslim. At the very least, that's what I gather Rarevogel's position is. If that position is wrong for reasons other than sourcing (which, as I've argued, is not a problem), then I suggest you respond along those lines at the talk page and follow the dispute resolution process. ANI just isn't the right forum for this content dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to get sidetracked over a (resolved) content dispute, but to explain why calling Alhazen Iraqi is controversial, it's like describing Sitting Bull as American would be controversial if you didn't explain the difference between the geographical area and the modern country; that's why no reliable source describes Alhazen as Iraqi.

That wasn't why I came here though, I came here because I thought that telling someone to "go fuck themselves" is not acceptable under any circumstances. This is the first time I've ever reported anyone for incivility, but I thought that clearly crossed the line. There is apparently a difference of opinion on this though, so I've had a look at WP:Civil: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." "Even a single act of severe incivility can result in blocks; for example, a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor." "3.Civility blocks should be for obvious and uncontentious reasons, because an editor has stepped over the line in a manner nearly all editors can see. In cases where you have reason to suspect this would not be the case – cases where there is reason to believe that taking admin action against someone who was uncivil would not be an uncontentious (or nearly so) prospect – it is expected that discussion will be opened on the matter, via WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U, before any admin action is taken." Personally I think Rarevogel obviously and uncontentiously crossed the line; being told to "Go fuck yourself", and then told to "Go piss up a rope" is surely "extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor". Rarevogel has given absolutely no evidence of any intention to give an apology or modify their comments. I do not have great confidence in my own ability to resolve the matter calmly while being abused, which is why I have asked for outside assistance in making it clear to Rarevogel their behaviour is not acceptable. Whether it justifies a block according to current policy, I don't know, but I would appreciate at the very least that Rarevogel is warned to not to use that kind of abuse again. I am relatively thick skinned in these matters, but I can imagine (for example) expert editors rather being put off editing if the atmosphere on article Talk pages is closer to flame wars than scholarly debate. --Merlinme (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

1)You analogy of the Sitting Bull doesnt make any sense. Youd know that if you kbew anything about the history of the Mid East. Iraq is an ancient name for the lower Mesopotamia, the region where Alhazen was born. It was in use since the earliest Arab presence in the region. Its official name was Iraq al-Arab, that part of Mesopotamia south of Baghdad. Everything above Baghdad was sometimes included, but often given a seperate name: al Jazira (the island, because it is almost entirely surrounded by the Tigris and Euphrates). The was another Iraq, namely Iraq al-Ajam (the non-Arab Iraq). This was what know is the mountainous border region in Iran. If we can call Rembrandt a Dutchman,evrn if in hie lifetime noone would idebtify hims as one, why is it wrong to use Iraqi for Alhazen? Ehen Alhazen himseld undoubtedly used that word to describe his homecountry: it was THE word for where he came from.

2) The lack of ANY evedence of him being Persian should override any obscure writers that call him a Persian. I have explained to you why those writers describe him as one. Its a very silly cobclusion they make.

3) I said bro to you, and you responded by saying that Im not your bro. Where Im from thats a slam really, very disrespectful, especially when I did nothing to deserve sucha rude reply. Im not smart enough to com with a witty comeback, so I juet dropped the f-word. Works all the time. Anyway I apologized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 21:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link from a book discussing the extent of the use of the name Iraq, by the 10th century it was THE name for the region as north as Tikrit, present day north of Iraq.

http://books.google.nl/books?id=MVHtRZwU-cAC&pg=PA98&dq=iraq+al-ajam&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=F26vUsXtMoab1AW-7IHABw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 21:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I kind of figured something like that when I saw the "I'm not your bro" response. I don't know why people take it upon themselves to respond that way to being called "bro". Not saying that justifies the incivil retort, but it just goes to show you the importance of civility and collegiality from both parties. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

As everyone can clearly see, Rarevogel's argument is that other editors do not have knowledge of the Middle East, he has not presented any facts to support his opinion, continues to ignore two university sources stating Alhazen was an Arab, and when Merlinme addressed these issues is told to "Go fuck yourself". Rarevogel has not addressed the two sources on the Alhazen talk page stating, "Please remove that first sentence and feel free to cobtinue your guesswork in the autobiography section." and "Whether or not you think he was Arab or Chinese or French, its stupid to have the page start out with speculations: '...is an Arab or Persian scholar..'. Thats a childish way to open up the page." and "kansasbear you have a tendency of blindly allowing false info to stay on these pages". This is what Rarevogel calls "The Oxford History of Islam" and "The Encyclopaedia of Islam", "false info". It is clear Rarevogel refuses to get the point and is not here to build a community encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

For goodness sakes, this isn't the place to hash out the content dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

For goodness sakes, I am showing a pattern of behavior for this editor(ie. blindly allowing false info, stupid way, childish), implying the ignorance of other editors(Youd know that if you kbew anything about the history of the Mid East.) --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Anyway I apologized: "I meant to say: Go piss up a rope. Sorry for using the f-bomb, but you shouldnt be so rude to people". Just to be clear, that's the apology we're talking about, right? --Merlinme (talk) 10:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:70.134.229.223/User:70.134.228.221

Since a couple days this IP user is Wikihounding me and my edits, using 2 IPs (I assume 70.134.229.223 is also 70.134.228.221 same subnet whois Private Customer - SBC Internet Services SBC07013422800023051028141157 (NET-70-134-228-0-1) 70.134.228.0 - 70.134.229.255) , inhibiting my work, making poorly based complaints and generally being rude/arrogant (not only on my talk page but also in an article I'm currently improving). Please check the user's contribs. I feel annoyed and harassed. I have no problem with polite critic or people pointing out that I made a mistake, but in a polite tone. Any help is appreciated. ₪Stormmeteo ^Message 21:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@Stormmeteo: Sorry, but that doesn't look much like wikihounding – you and 70.134.228.221 only edited four pages in common (two of which are your respective talkpages). You and 70.134.229.223 only edited two pages in common: Medicane and Appleton, Wisconsin. WIth only three pages in common, that doesn't exactly constitute stalking. Four? Maybe. Five? Definitely. But two or three? That is probably just an overlap. Correct me if I am wrong. Epicgenius (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless Stormmeteo has diffs exhibiting something more serious, this isn't wikihounding, and isn't a candidate for administrator intervention at this time. It looks like a single, narrow dispute, where one of the IPs has stated things a bit more aggressively than I might (but definitely a far cry from incivility). And frankly, the statement that the anonymous editor is "inhibiting your work" on an article you're improving is concerning; you don't own the articles you work on here, and there's every indication the IPs are editing constructively (see this diff or this diff). Honestly I really want to know exactly there was in this revert that served to harass you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I might currently be a bit thin skinned (having a 2 year old daughter at home who currently is very sick), nevertheless I still think that this IP is rude and could be way more polite without that "know it all better" stance. That being said, I withdraw this report as per comment from Mendaliv "...isn't a candidate for administrator intervention at this time." ₪Stormmeteo ^Message 20:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User: Jeppiz

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

---

I've been meaning to do this earlier, but I got caught up in other things. This user has engaged in POV pushing on Ashkenazi Jews. When I tried to rectify this (see this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&diff=586222880&oldid=586221924), he accused me of disruptive editing and POV pushing. The problem here is threefold. One, the passage "Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin" is not supported by the genetic study cited. So either he's being lazy, or he's deliberately manipulating the source. His immediate and aggressive reaction to my reverting him would indicate the latter. Two, he padded the study out with links to news articles and journals which report on the same study, which is superfluous and arguably a violation of WP:UNDUE. And the fact that there was only one actual genetic study cited in that passage makes the claim "Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin" even more erroneous. Instead of discussing this rationally, he became accusatory and is now trying to have me topic banned. I am hopeful that this dispute may be resolved peacefully.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Speedy close. This discussion is already taking place here; we don't need two discussions about the same thing (but frankly, both of you need to take a time out). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 23:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• First of all, this topic is an obvious revenge. I came to WP:ANI [64] to point out that Evildoer187, a repeatedly blocked and topic banned user, is causing disruptions everywhere he goes. This is the revenge.
• Second, what he calls "POV-pushing" is attempt to reflect both sides in a thorny issue, the origin of Ashkenazi Jews. Some scientists say the Levantine, others Europe. To reflect this, I wrote " Scientific studies differ on their origins, with some DNA tests suggesting an origin in the Israelite tribes of the Middle East, Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin." Several scientific sources were provided for both claims. How on earth is this "POV pushing"? Several other users agreed with my edit on the talk page.
• Third, Evildoer187's response was to delete the second half, leaving only the reference to the Levantine. Who is POV pushing?
• Fourth, Evildoer187 claims my sentence "Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin" is not supported by the sources. I quote from Science, one of the leading scientific journals in the world and one of the sources I used "A detailed look at thousands of genomes finds that Ashkenazim ultimately came not from the Middle East, but from Western Europe."
• Five, my "padding out" is normal Wikipedia practice. Using secondary sources is welcomed at Wikipedia. Sources I used included Nature, Science, BBC News and NBC News, all of which satisfy WP:RS.
• Sixth, and the only correct aspect. Yes, I do think Evildoer187 should be topic banned. He is a highly disruptive user who is here for the WP:TRUTH. His edit history is revealing. I am almost glad he started this retaliatory thread with all the unfounded accusations just to get back at me. This shows exactly what kind of user he is. So yes, I repeat my call that Evildoer187 should be topic banned from all articles related to Judaism and the Jewish people. His whole history on Wikipedia shows that he cannot edit these topics without causing a great deal of disruption and conflicts.Jeppiz (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Continuous legal threats and promotion by User talk:Bigsundayowner

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

---

SPA to make legal threats and insert promotion on Big Sunday. Left a threat at my talk. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 16:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed that personal attack from your talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd just reported the user to WP:UAA but per edit, they should be indef'd asap. Blackmane (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I just blocked. Considering the promotional edits, the organizational username, and the past warnings for legal threats, I saw no reason to stop short of an indef. DES ^(talk) 17:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Baseball Bugs being obnoxious at Wikipedia Reference

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

---

Can someone "talk to" User:Baseball Bugs about his nearly constant, rude and pointless spamming of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? He is totally out of line. If you check his contributions you will see that spamming the Reference Desk is all he does on Wikipedia. Why don't you just block him? This does not seem like a productive use of editor time. I cannot leave a message on his talk page since his talk page is write-protected. It's time action is taken sirs. RayBans77 (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You should supply diffs of a user's contributions (see Help:Diff on how to do this), because there are many complaints, and administrators do not have time to go through all of a user's contributions to find evidence which they cannot know a priori is even there. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs has an unprotected talk page; there's a link on his regular talk page. I have notified him of this thread. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Bowdlerizing college basketball article and endless reversions

User:Eodcarl has been editing out any mention of the former name of Mizzou Arena several times since Dec. 2011, all the while claiming without substantiation that "The arena has only had one name," that "Paige Sports Arena" is "imaginary" and that what I was doing was "vandalism."

Thoroughly intent on the deeply seated idea that was correct, he first reverted my edits to Mizzou Arena, then redirected Paige Sports Arena to itself (twice) and found himself on the losing end of an argument with User:Ramaksoud2000 and User:Benboy00 in which he accused me/us of harassment against the university. Which I attend... Yeah.

I have cited my sources and, when reverted, lined out in detailed reasoning, why his editing harmful. My commentary fell on his deaf ears as he deleted my comments and continued to vainly insist that the name never existed, at one point showing that he had no idea all along, what the word "formerly" meant. His convictions are so deeply held that nothing will get through to him. We have gone to the trouble of citing our sources. Shouldn't he? I have wasted far too much time researching this, only to be reverted with a mouseclick and some reiterated falsities. Help. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm that User:Eodcarl has a strong case of WP:IDHT, which is disruptive editing, and at one point even said "No, I am not going to address the source." Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Both refuse to address the fact Mizzou Arena opened as Mizzou Arena. The proposed name that was never applied, Paige Arena, is continued to be applied as vandalism in the article. The funding issue could be addressed in the article, but "formally known as Paige Arena" is false. Eodcarl (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Either you have a good reason to ignore this source, or you don't know what "Vandalism" means. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was funny when I checked out the article last month that the proposed name was never mentioned in the article when it was there in the past. Eodcarl, suggest you check out Gillette Stadium, which also has the history of a never-used name for a sports venue (that case, CMGI), and boy, would Minute Maid Park's article look awkward without the mention of the one season it was named for a notorious former energy company. We mention the entire history of a venue, gagged name or not, and we don't sugarcoat, especially for the donors of a third of that arena's cost, and in the meantime you're way above WP:3RR; restoring MQ's last edit with the expectation that sourced information is notable. Nate • (chatter) 05:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have now added four new sources regarding the naming to the article, and any further reversions should merit some kind of 3RR sanction. Nate • (chatter) 05:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This diff is particularly worrisome. @Eodcarl (talk · contribs) if you take disputes on Wikipedia this personally, you may wish to simply avoid them altogether. We are all just trying to make Wikipedia better. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks and recruitment by single purpose static IP User:54.242.221.254

After User:Baseball Bugs perfectly reasonably asked a user for the source of a comment he quoted on the Entertainment Ref Desk, this single-purpose account appeared, attacking Bugs on the ref desk,[65] and attempting to recruit users not involved in the discussion against Bugs.[66], [67]. Please take appropriate action against 54.242.221.254. I cannot tell, but it may be possible this and the earlier ANI filed today against Bugs may be related. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. Blocked. Poor Bugs--someone send him a box of chocolates and a fifth of bourbon, please. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Curious, the IP locates to amazon.com corporate office. Any possibility this is a proxy? The attacks on bugs seem very similar to the recent ones against me with the banned user wickwack suspected. μηδείς (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The IP looks to be part of the Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud to me, not Amazon's head office. So it's likely a proxy of sorts (not necessarily an open proxy or a normal proxy). Nil Einne (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Should the proxy be blocked? Epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Immediate block for possibly compromised account needed

• Behemoth (talk · contribs)

See recent contributions (17 December 2013). Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I second that. Bizarre. Doc talk 09:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indef on that possibility, any admin can unblock on your own good judgement without prior consultation with me if we get a good explanation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Harold Camping BLP problem

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

---

Various redlinks claim he has died, based on highly dubious sourcing, and no mainstream sourcing at all. I reverted everything since Nov 23. Page may require protection, but I would like to hear some opinions here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It appears he's dead, Jim.[68]. Toddst1 (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I never heard of kake.com, and the alleged "press release" from his radio station has the wrong URL prefix, so it may well be a hoax. If he were really dead, I would think CNN and others would be all over it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

KAKE, channel 10, is an ABC-affiliated television station based in Wichita, Kansas. There are CBS news reports of the guy suffering a stroke yesterday as well. I've added {{findsources}} to the talk page for more info. Toddst1 (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

They could have been fooled by that alleged press release. When I googled [Harold Camping] I got all of three "sources", all of them presumably based on that "press release". If it's true, the mainstream media will pick up on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

He's dead, Jim.[69]. Toddst1 (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Again sourced to http://hosted-p0.vresp.com/1030185/5988170fbb/. Why wouldn't that have the family radio URL prefix? And why does the actual family radio page have nothing about it and talks about him in the present tense? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

When I stripped away the suffixes to that link, all that remained was a few Japanese characters which translate to "Today". How likely is it that the family radio operation would use something obscure like that instead of posting it on their own website? http://www.familyradio.com/ ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep an eye on [70] - that's a Google News search. If it's real, we'll likely get a decent, high-quality source soon enough. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

vresp.com is the common domain for Vertical Response, an email marketing/list management company. This is where the client outbound emails come from. It looks like someone got an email from Family Radio and used the "View this on the web link". I would consider it a primary source. 129.9.104.10 (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that it's legitimate, but it's curious that no mainstream media have picked up on this. After the hoopla in 2011, you'd think they'd be covering this if it were true. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There's edit-warring going on on that page. For the sake of the BLP rule, someone needs to lock down the page to the version of Nov 23 until or if such time as mainstream media have confirmed it. There was a similar rumor a couple of years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This has been done. The page has been fully protected for 2 days by ItsZippy. However, his death has recently been confirmed by ABC News, which seems like a reliable source to me. So it appears that the mainstream media have picked up on this, Baseball Bugs. [71] Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 17:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's confirmed now. Have at it! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Chinese version of the Jane Fonda article

I just noticed, via WP:LIVINGDEAD, that the Chinese (zh) version of the Jane Fonda article has been vandalised. Could someone who understands Chinese please revert the edits. --Racklever (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This is English wikipedia. We don't have authority over the Chinese wikipedia. It might to be profitable to complain at zh:Wikipedia:管理员通告板/其他 (WP:AN's analog there), but not here. Hasteur (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand Chinese so I can't use that page.--Racklever (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It turned out to be easy enough to just revert [72], assuming they have something like WP:BOLD over there too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks --Racklever (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Camille Paglia page may be hacked

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

---

I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this, but I visited the Camille Paglia page and was greeted by a picture of a woman peeing. It appeared to be more of a banner ad than anything that belonged on the page. Readin (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

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

MiszaBot

I'm starting to get worried. All three of Misza13's bots hasn't edited here since October 2nd. Is there like a error going on that needs to be fixed, or Misza13 decided to not run the bots anymore? Blurred Lines 15:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

See the notice at the top of User talk:Misza13, as well as Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard/Archive 8#MiszaBot III and #MiszaBots down. To summarize what's said in the three: they aren't really working anymore, and I don't think Misza13 has the time to operate the bots. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

‎Lowercase sigmabot III and others are doing the work. At least in many cases. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

But not in a lot of cases. Is there a fix for that? Epicgenius (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Legal threats and repeated blanking at Talk:Pennsylvania Virtual Charter School

Someone claiming to be a director of the school has since yesterday been blanking content referenced by reliable sources at Pennsylvania Virtual Charter School, replacing it with promos for the school, referenced only by official school documents. Diffs: [73], [74], [75]. Now in this edit at the talk page, she has threatened to call in the lawyers, accusing me and two other editors of libel, and asking someone to phone her to sort it out. I have no involvement with the school, and only got involved when I noticed her deletions breaking references in Category:Pages with broken reference names. I have mostly kept her additions, but have re-added the referenced content she deleted, merging the two together for now. I haven't warned her yet about Wikipedia policy on legal threats, as I'm not quite sure how to proceed with that. Ruby Murray 21:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have indeffed for legal threats. Their post could be removed as far as I'm concerned.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the post with her legal threat and contact details. Ruby Murray 21:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Good block. That's a straight-up legal threat. As to WP:DOLT concerns, it's like a bad joke. I'm not even sure PA charter schools can sue for libel (IANAL). Anyway, I really doubt this person is authorized to make legal threats on behalf of the school. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism of Parcheesi

The article Parcheesi has been repeatedly vandalized by user 68.196.14.175 , who always says that the game can be won simply by bringing a wheel of cheese. The most recent case is [76] . All his other edits, back to last August, are similar. All four levels of warning have been posted on the (otherwise blank) user-page, with no response but more vandalism. I have just asked for the vandal to be blocked, but the request was taken down with a statement that the complaint was not actionable. Will someone please enlighten me? J S Ayer (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I second this. Not sure why blocking the IP would be considered unactionable. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The reason that the IP is not being blocked is because blocks are used for preventative measures only. Since the most recent edits are from a month ago, it's not likely that the IP is going to vandalize the article in the next hour or so. In addition, IP addresses are often reassigned over time. If we were to block the address, it's likely that it would affect an uninvolved individual. Mike V • Talk 05:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No matter the editor if any vandalism resumes at the article don't forget that you can also make a request for page protection at WP:RFPP MarnetteD | Talk 05:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Some IP addresses are more dynamic than others; and some IPs are more or less likely to be used by other people. This IP started vandalising Parcheesi in August. This IP has never been used by any other person. In that light, I would suggest that a preventive (though not indefinite) block is unlikely to cause much collateral damage. bobrayner (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the same person has edited this from other IPs as well, so I've semi-protected the article for six months, which is a similar timescale to the length of time the vandalism has been going on for. -- The Anome (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi protection is the way to go here. If you block, then who knows if this is a proxy that might prevent others from editing Wikipedia? - Letsbefiends (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It appears from this discussion that the vandal knows the rules and has carefully paced his attacks to evade them. Thanks for the protection. J S Ayer (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

IP:152.26.68.2

I am requesting that the IP block against 152.26.68.2 be reinstated. The IP is tied to an educational establishment and has a long history of vandalism. Its last one-year long block expired this month, and the IP has continued disruptive edits and been given fair warning. The IP recently disrupted the GAN for the article Grand Theft Auto V. CR4ZE (t) 14:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

...and they're gone. FYI, WP:AIV is a better venue for this in the future :). --Mdann52talk to me! 14:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

That's where I meant to go, but I was working quickly and am very tired. Thanks for the swift response. CR4ZE (t) 14:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to get back here to tell you. That's my 2nd block of that state school network in 3 days. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reason why we can't give a very very long block, if not indef, as it seems very static and vandal prone? --Mdann52talk to me! 16:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Indefs against IPs, especially those which may be used by many people over a period of time (whether dynamic or the result of an organizational NAT configuration), are generally discouraged. Anyway, the block here is for two years. Anyway, even if we wanted to reexamine the idea of indef schoolblocks, I don't think this would be a candidate; the vandalism only seems to have started as recently as 2011. There are school IPs out there with warnings stretching back to 2004. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Constant vandalism

Just wanted to bring the light the constant vandalism on several films by Albert Pyun by a user at the IP address 209.133.6.7 on here. The edits and reverts can be seen here here. It is most likely the same person who has spammed Pyun for ages on other sites and on Wikipedia (in reference to his Max Havoc scandal). Any addressing of this matter would be appreciated as I don't like getting to Wikipedia every morning and being told my corrections have again been reverted. Udar55 (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've blocked the IP for one week. This kind of thing can go to WP:AIV in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

I'm not really sure how these works so pardon me (and ignore it) if Im wrong. But according to my understanding there is a violation if something is made (and especially reverted) in regards to that topic across WP right? It seems that User:Sopher99 violated this after he mentions that he is topic banned on syrian civil war articles till the 18th. It appears then that he made several related editss: User_talk:Kudzu1#Syrian_civil_war, an edit on WP about the topic (and it was a revert without explanation of a POV statement [77]), this, BUT it was self-reverted, this, and this. It seems the 2 week ban started on the 4 of Dec, btwLihaas (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sopher99's topic ban is the result of the general sanctions to which Syrian Civil War articles are subject. Anyway, the complaint here seems to be about edits to Portal:Current events that added or edited entries related to the Syrian Civil War. Whether that fits within the "Syrian Civil War articles" limitation (even with broad construction) is better left to those more experienced in these matters. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The use of the expression Topic Ban would suggest it is a WP: TBAN as such, any edit related to the topic anywhere on Wikipedia (other than appealing the ban) would be a violation. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually from looking at the background of this, what is the justification for the topic ban? --Kyohyi (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Have notified Darkwind of this thread, given he imposed the topic ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the limits of the topic ban are pretty clear, Darkwind: "you are topic banned from all pages related to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed, for two weeks" - I didn't touch any page related to the Syrian civil war. Sopher99 (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations have nothing do with the Syrian civil war even if the user being investigated has edited on Syrian civil war pages. As for Dylan Lacey, I casually gave him reasons on his talkpage as to why he should self-revert an edit he made - Dylan agreed to those reasons and casually reverted himself

None of this shows I edited on Syrian civil war pages. Sopher99 (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Upon asking another user to remove he warned that such mention would be in violation, and then the portal revert came.Lihaas (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Swedhombre

I think this edit speaks for itself. I reverted this offensive material months ago, and this user has now restored it, so now I feel I need to request assistance. Thank you. Omnedon (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked the user, deleted the user page and cleared the talk page. There haven't been many useful contributions from the user in the past couple of years and a couple have been plain unhelpful and problematic. I've left the user a message about requesting an unblock, we'll see what he says, if anything, and take it from there. Nick (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

¡Gracias! Omnedon (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

coretheapple is disruptive editing, violating terms of service, deleting content

RE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SantaCon I have entered this information on coretheapple user talk page. User coretheapple has decided to use wikipedia as an his personal sounding board on an issue he feels strongly about-attacking new york santacon and its participants. He is threatening me after he blanked large amounts of my content on santacon wiki page, tenaciously removed my content and violated neutrality rules to make page very negative and one sided. He removed all postive entries and added all negative entries. user coretheapple is citing editorial opinions, articles and blogs as references that are not encyclopedic or neutral. That violates the neutrality and non personal opinion and non vandalism rules. User coretheapple has written santacon wikipedia page as an attack on nyc santacon, not as a description of the entire event. He has repeatedly deleted sections "charitable contributions and good works" and "other cities". He is violating mutiple policies of wikipedia and wikimedia. I request he be banned from volunteering and editing for violation of terms of service and cyberbulling me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30a:c07a:25c0:cc23:3f82:60ac:138d (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Coretheapple's position, that the negative descriptions in the media are more important than self-promoting text from SantaCon itself. Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) This is apparently the same IP user whose edits blanking entire sections was rolled back by User:Jorm [78]. His/her latest edit[79] I marked as good faith but really was unconstructive ("While one Santacon, NYC, has garned bad publicity and is the focus of the writer of this page,..."). Jorn tells me that he can't grant a semiprotection, though warranted, because his tools are not community granted. Also I notice that a constructive IP just edited it. If there is more blanking, I think a semi may will be warranted. Coretheapple (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I really don't think removing 5 paragraphs, 4 external links, 3 French hens, 2 turtle doves, and adding the following sentence is consistent with Wikipedia policy:

While the overwhelming public reaction to SantaCon is positive, a very small number of vocal not in my backyard critics that hate parties, young people and recreation involving alcohol have raised shrill voices in protest.

(with apologies to Frederic Austin and everyone in English history). One must typically have clean hands to obtain relief at ANI. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Lnapolit pushing coyprighted info into article

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 h. Materialscientist (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

At first I thought above user was simply writing in non-neutral information to the Dean Hamilton article but after User:Discospinster pointed out it was copied from http://tayronastudios.com/dean.php, I warned them on their talk page. After which, said user placed the violating information back in twice [80] and [81]. Can we get an admin to look it over? Thanks. Jns4eva (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Info has been re-added again since posting this [82]. Jns4eva (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Potentially disruptive class project?

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

---

No idea what to do or what our policy is, so I guess I'll drop this in your guys' laps before I AFK.

There seems to be a class project to add content to Wikipedia, possibly regardless of weight or notability, some of whose edits may be disruptive. I wonder whether they're being graded on whether their content remains up, in which case it's an invitation to unconstructively edit-war.

Class project noticed here: [83]

I'm asking them what's up here: [84]

Sample edit that I would classify as disruptive: [85] (Edit: that was a weak example. Better example is one OlYeller21 was complaining about: [86])

I'm not sure how to follow "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." as it's not about a particular editor, but rather a group. I would take to SPI but I'm don't know whether it qualifies as meatpuppetry per se. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this should be cross-posted to Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents? EdChem (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I added a notice at EN/I (in this section) which links here and to the NPOV noticeboard. Voceditenore (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I should have posted there instead of here the first place, thanks! Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have notified two of the editors involved - Stellaiyeo (talk · contribs) and Midgeholland (talk · contribs) - about this ANI discussion. GiantSnowman 12:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. My name is Tavi, and at the risk of having my name added to the list of "Potentially disruptive class project" participants; I am one of the people who was in that class. I just had a few questions.

1. Is Wikipedia to be edited by anyone?
2. Were any students in the class willfully adding trolling, incorrect, or otherwise misleading information? Can you point to those edits?
3. Was it "disruptive" solely because we are all new, and make tiny errors here and there? Or is our actual information incorrect?
4. In fact, this whole incident seems very amorphous and unclear. Can you cite multiple examples with explanations as to why the edits do more harm than good?
5. If you'll see updated pages such as H. J. Mozans, and new pages such as Woman in Science, you'll see that we are doing our best to make sure that the new information is correctly sourced and cited. Or, are you also frustrated with these edits too?

Thank you for your time, and I hope this to be expeditiously resolved. TaviWright (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

What I suggest is to copy the contents of the article and put it into your user sandbox. And yes, everyone can edit Wikipedia, but see WP:COI. Epicgenius (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, I agree that GiantSnowman should post the articles there, and I would be willing to use my sandbox for such offending articles.

As far as Conflict of Interest goes, I do not know how there could be any. The class was graded on accuracy of content, and NOT graded more favorably if the information stayed up indefinitely - only that there was a discussion, and learning about how to edit wikipedia happened. TaviWright (talk)

I can't speak for other editors, but that addresses my personal main concern, thanks. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, just claiming things as a "conflict of interest" or "disruptive" without giving reasons doesn't help us reach a conclusion. TaviWright (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@TaviWright: The reason why I am mentioning COI is because you seem to know a lot about the sources needed for the article, and about the topic for said article. Please exercise caution when you are working on articles on topics that you are familiar with. Epicgenius (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I can see how that could be an issue. However I think you may be misinformed - we did not have prior knowledge of the article or topics. Most of the information was gathered while, or just before, editing. At the same time I understand that it is within interest to keep articles fair and unbiased.

Okay. I see that you are editing with good faith, rather than tendentious editing. Anyway, good luck with your project. Epicgenius (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There are scores of disruptive class projects every term, and the fit hits the shan from mid-November to mid-December, and then again the US spring term. For the incident at WP:ENI, what is the outcome here? Sandbox? These kinds of incidents happen by the boatloads, and eventually something will need to be done, but for now, at least they are being tracked at WP:ENI. Do we know the course? I'd like to fill out the incident report at ENI for future ref. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

TaviWright and Midgeholland are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Students, whose instructor may be Wadewitz. With student editing, if you just keep following back all of their contribs, you eventually can sometimes find a course. Rarely. Most of the time we just never hear anything and the articles end up merged or deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Continued tendentious editing at Talk:Morgellons

The following discussion is closed. 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 Sierraparis was advised in this ANI case from July not to continue to cause problems. They have continued to chime in every so often about how the article needs to be rewritten (without actually proposing specific changes themselves) to give more credence to fringe views and include sources already determined to be unreliable. They literally do nothing else here on Wikipedia besides advocate for fringe views to be included in the article. They've already stated they are not here to contribute. Sierraparis isn't here to build an encyclopedia, is clearly a SPA, and needs to stop disrupting the editors. Proposing that they at least be indefinitely topic banned from medical articles and their talk pages. However, since not being allowed to edit doesn't appear to be a concern for them, I'd suggest going straight to an indefinite block. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

actually what I have suggested is that fringe theories be deleted from the article unless you can come up with stronger sources than popular press such as a magazine about "mechanics". Sierraparis (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You're suggesting the use and inclusion of unreliable material that claims Morgellons should be seriously considered to be of non-delusional etiology. That's the fringe view we're against including in "serious medical stuff" parts of the article. The bit you're suddenly wanting removed is silly claims made about Morgellons in the media; in no way is the Wiki article suggesting that those claims should be taken seriously. The fact that you don't seem to possess the ability to distinguish between the two situations is one of the reasons why this ANI case had to be opened. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Support topic ban from all medical related articles. User was given WP:ROPE and then used it. Indeed, after being reminded a few weeks ago [87] (S)he has continued to re hash the same old stuff that almost got him/her topic banned back in July. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support and thank the anonymous user 69.23.116.182 for their continued crusade against disruption on Wikipedia. Maybe this should be moved to somewhere more conspicuous. Epicgenius (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support too much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and not much else. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support topic ban from all medical related articles.. WP:Nothere and generally disruptive and a waste of our time. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support, due to ongoing WP:IDHT problem. Most recently at Talk:Morgellons#Filament formation associated with spirochetal infection, makes repeated unsubstantiated assertions and misstatements about new journals using post-publication peer review, and doesn't appear to be reading or understanding the papers he suggests we use as sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support WP:MEDICINE-scope topic ban per above, unfortunately. Sierraparis was given WP:ROPE and warning in July but avoided a sanction as there wasn't enough evidence; now there's enough evidence. Although they have slowed down their pace of editing, the edits they have made exhibit a time-wasting unwillingness or inability to embrace sourcing policy in this area. Zad68 02:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Support; as ever, Zad68 puts it more eloquently than I could. bobrayner (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Support - clearly a single purpose account who's only intent is to argue (disrupt?) the Morgellon's talk page. - ^theWOLFchild 07:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Action requested. Can we use the "snowball clause" here to save this suffering animal from more misery? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes please, this discussion has passed the threshold for action at ANI rather comfortably. Zad68 14:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Any chance of adding a block for IP user 98.196.159.176? Their contributions to Wikipedia have been adding a quick anti-Wikipedia rant to the Morgellons article and deceptively calling it "spell correction" in the edit summary, removing the subsequent anti-vandalism bot warning they got from their talk page, and adding a similar rant to the Morgellons talk page. For what it's worth, I'm the IP user who originally opened this ANI discussion, just posting from work instead of home. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, probably not necessary to do anything with that IP just yet. Zad68 14:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

02:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)it's obvious that anyone who has a neutral point of view eventually gets banned. Read the archives. In the short time I have been here I have seen several editors go down before me. Anyone who promotes even the slightest hint at the possibility of Lyme Disease or anything other than pure delusion gets the ax. So it is not surprising that the attack is now on me. I have never experienced such a controlling and rude group of editors anywhere. The first day I joined I was accused of being a sock puppet. Saw the same thing go down with pthers over and over. The archives have the history and your intentions are easily traced. Sierraparis (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do encourage others to read the archives, and to read the old ANI case linked above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

What other group of editors would you say you have experience working with to make such a comparison? 69.23.116.182 (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Note I put in a request for closure at WP:AN/RFC. Zad68 04:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:QuackGuru

User:QuackGuru has been displaying disruptive editing for some time now, especially at the GERAC and Acupuncture articles.

• Disruptive tagging ([88], [89], [90]) even though he's been asked repeatedly to stop this ([91], [92])
• Stubbornly referring to other editor's contributions as "nonsense" (Talk:German Acupuncture Trials#Nonsense deleted) even though he has been asked a long time to refrain from doing so ([93])
• Refusal to accept talk page consensus (Talk:German Acupuncture Trials#Results should not be should be limited in the article, Talk:Acupuncture#Rate of serious adverse events).

The last time that several users asked GQ to stop his pattern of disruptive editing was on 02-Dec, but to no avail. Discussion with GQ is further hampered by him deleting all messages on his talk page as soon as possible. I request a topic ban. --Mallexikon (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I think WP:BOOMERANG should apply here. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I wonder if you even tried to discuss the matter with the user—all I see on their talk page is a link directing them to this page. User:QuackGuru removed the messages from their page, so not Mallexikon's fault. --Epicgenius (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine. WP:BOOMERANG. And please explain it to me. We got an almost constant discussion at the acupuncture-related pages. And we used to have a lot of problems with fanatic acupuncture proponents in the past, but recently it's just that hard-core skeptics bunch with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, which is killing the very spirit of WP. I do understand that QG and Roxy and Brangifer do what they do in good faith - I'm a skeptic myself. But when they overshoot their mark like QG, or like Brangifer here yesterday and administrators keep on turning a blind eye, article quality will drop. Cause anyone with a different opinion will feel bullied and silenced. I appealed to AN/I some time ago because another hardcore skeptic user deleted 80% of an acupuncture-related article (all sourced material), and then took the remaining stub and nominated it for deletion - administrator's interest in this was almost zero (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#GERAC). Everybody's complaining about WP being too white / male / tech-friendly influenced, and everybody's always talking about how incivility should not be tolerated - but obviously that's just talk. Thanks a lot, guys. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep me out of this GERAC mess. I haven't been following it enough to understand the issues. All I know is (and I'm speaking generally here) that when pushers of fringe POV try to keep mainstream opinions out of articles, that's a type of violation of NPOV we do not tolerate. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Could some admin PLEASE, PLEASE take a look at this? This is starting to turn into an edit war at GERAC. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring is at WP:3RRN. MilesMoney (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

CensoredScribe

Could I have some more eyes on CensoredScribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ? I am worried about competence, but would like some third opinions on whether he's an actual problem. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Just going by what's on the user talk page, I see a track record of running into issues with WP:MEDRS, but it doesn't look like it's been an issue lately. I also see a number of notices from BracketBot and DPL bot recently. Finally, briefly skimming CensoredScribe's contribs, I see a lot of recent activity, some of it arguable (e.g., WP:NOTNEWS issues: [94], [95], [96]), but I don't think it's anything obviously bad. Without diffs or a better hint of what you're seeing, GWH, it's a bit hard to evaluate this more. I think it might be too soon for ANI. Also, CensoredScribe has now been notified of this discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This editor is inexperienced but enthusiastic. The balance of these two things is a net positive, though there are opportunities for improvement. I see MEDRS as a problem to which editors like him are the solution, rather than the other way around. This is something to address by talk page discussion, not ANI. To be clear, I think that the encyclopedia is much better off when it references exciting, important new developments in science rather than leaves them out, even if occasionally (as with the second diff above) they should be a little more cautiously worded. Wnt (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've had this editor on my radar for a few months now and they're a bit of an odd duck...maybe more than a bit.  (I don't mean WP:DUCK but duck). Their meandering blog-like edits to their User page make for interesting reading indeed... the edits are usually made in response to some article edit of theirs that got reverted. Their article edits are bizarre to say the least, just browse through them. Sources are often cited but are only sometimes WP:RS sources and the content added almost never meets WP:DUEWEIGHT, they're often some weird bit of trivia needing a revert per WP:NOTNEWS. I can't say that on the whole this editor is a net-positive although I can't say this editor is outright disruptive either. What does Wikipedia do with an editor like this? Zad68 16:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, good feedback. Will use normal talk-with-editor process, that's generally more preferable to admin actions anyways. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Add this to the head-scratching column: [97]; I reverted and gave a warning for vandalism. JNW (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm also one of the people who has witnessed CensoredScribe's sometimes-odd editing. As for what JNW pointed to, CensoredScribe explained that it was an accident. I've seen those type of accidents enough times to believe him on that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Smauritius disruption.

We are currently having issues with a single editor at Shraddha Kapoor. Issues have been ongoing for quite some time, they include sockpuppetry [[98]] which was used to pass this article to Good Article Status, and overall WP:OWN issues. Several Editors have attempted to discuss this at length on the article talkpage and the editors talkpage but we are having problems with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviors. Examples of this is [[99]]. Also edits like [[100]] saying an article with 10 categories has no categories makes me think we are dealing with an editor who just doesn't get it. I have notified the other editors, I've also asked for pending changes protections so the article changes propsed myst be reviewed by a reviewer to at least try and make this a decent article, at this point maybe a block should be issued but at the very least we could use more editors to watchlist this page. I am notifying the others involved. The sourcing needs to be checked source by source as well because some of the claims being made are not in the sources at all. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've declined the protection request because I don't intend to apply pending changes level 2 against the community consensus unless a local consensus here believes it's necessary. However, since it's one user, protection isn't ideal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • On a side note would you mind pointing me to that consensus? I would like to review it so I am not wasting time in the future. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
    • No worries, this RfC and this RfC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked User:Smauritius for 3 days for edit warring and disruptive editing. But given the disruption to the article (including through CU proven sockpuppetry) I'd be in favour of an article ban from Shraddha Kapoor. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I personally think a topic ban may be unnec at this point..maybe just give him WP:ROPE see how they respond. It may not be needed if they get the point..if not then I would support it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I would hope that they take the time during this block to re-evaluate their position and come back with a new appreciation for collaboration. A ban might be jumping the gun. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Let's see how they react after the block gets expired. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I dropped by the article and reverted and warned Smauritius over some rather pointless but disruptive edits. I'm inclined to think that WP:COMPETENCE might apply rather than anything else. That does not mean that all is lost, and serious proactive mentoring may do the trick. Fiddle Faddle 16:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• This may or may not be related to the topic, but I find it unusual that the article was delisted as a good article less than a day after promotion. Does it have to do with this users disruption? Epicgenius (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Epicgenius The good article status was awarded by this users sockpuppet [[101]]. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, thx. Epicgenius (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In such case, why isn't the master blocked indef? (I had written this before. Where did my comment vanish???) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Particularly nasty vandalism to Evolution

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

---

Not quite sure where the vandalism's coming from - I can only presume it's an unprotected template of some sort. Warning: NSFW Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

When I went to the cell membrane article, I noticed something really disgusting ad that somehow I can't get rid of. The message has mentions users like Reaper Eternal, and another user named Meepsheep, whoever that is, in which I founded that suspicious. I just refreshed the page, and it disappeared. Is it weird that someone hacked in to the Wikimedia system to make that disgusting ad? Blurred Lines 14:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a vandalised template, which just shows we need to protect templates on high-vandalism articles more carefully. Same issue I raised just above. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The vandalism was fixed, but I'd like to know which template was vandalized. Anybody want to give us a clue? Jehochman ^Talk 14:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

No template was inserted, or removed in the cell membrane article, as of it was last edited in November. Blurred Lines 14:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Template:Library link about (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). --CIreland (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we please lock that down? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I did. Can we please list File:Frau beim pinkeln.jpg so that it can't be used on any page of Wikipedia. (How do we do that; I know it's possible but can't remember the page.) Commons doesn't help us by keeping such a large collection of pornography. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done I have added it to the WP:BADIMAGE list. Zad68 14:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I will say one thing: This image has little obvious value, but we need to be careful railing too much about "porn" - One man's porn is another "Thank god, I needed naked images of people of all sorts of body types to practice drawing." I can't help but remember the last great "porn" purge included artworks by notable artists, and become a bit nervous when people start complaining about porn on Commons. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Tip: If looking for vandalism done via a template, the left site tools menu has a link to "related changes". That will immediately surface the recent template edits that contain the vandalism. Jehochman ^Talk 14:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• I highly suggest that a checkuser should keep a longer eye on Meepsheeper, just in case it does more "s". Blurred Lines 14:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

{{Plain list}} was also hit - Secret fixed it and blocked the editor. As Plain list was a redirect if anyone is locking down templates check the redirects too. Side note - you wouldn't believe the amount of traffic it's generated at OTRS today. NtheP (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• A picture of a woman urinating (which is not exactly porn) isn't appropriate, at all, for this website. Why hasn't the picture been removed yet? Shouldn't many of the WP:BADIMAGEs be removed from public view? Epicgenius (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

What's "inappropriate" about it? It's not in the Evolution article any more. (Serious question.) It's a very natural act that everybody does several times a day. That HAS TO be encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Sure, everyone has to pee several times daily, but it's sadly turned into a fetish for some, especially men ages 13 and up who like to see the bodily functions of young women. Pictures of genitals and bodily function is not something that people want to see when visiting Wikipedia; they would go to a pornographic site for that. And you must remember that little kids use this site as well. I know, WP:NOTCENSORED still applies, but there is a place where WIkipedia has to draw the line. Curse words like "shit" and "fuck"? They're allowed on Wikipedia. But pictures of the female and male genitalia should not, for many moral and ethical reasons, and because Wikipedia would be faced with lawsuits from parents everywhere.

On a side note, the article on evolution is supposed to give a brief summary of evolution, not a NSFW free-for-all. Epicgenius (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) But pictures of the female and male genitalia should not... I was just wondering: are there any other varieties of genitalia? EEng (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

BTW, there are some communities on Reddit that tout this and other fetishes. Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

To be brief: the historical consensus on that is against you, Epicgenius, and this ain't the place to change it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: The historical consensus on what? I am extremely confused. Is it about Eric Corbett, or the ANI discussions, or about the NOTCENSORED thing? Epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The idea that pictures of genitalia should not be allowed. not sure how Eric Corbett even entered into consideration... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Me neither, so let's drop the idea of Eric Corbett. Epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] With all respect, if we try to get rid of nudity, we're going to have to get rid of a good chunk of iconic artworks.

Wikipedia can sometimes be foolish on this subject, like when Wikipedia 1.0 - the CD release for Wikipedia that was popular for a while? - grabbed articles from WikiProject Pornography (or something like that) for their release. God knows who that CD release was intended for. Not schools. But it's certainly memorable when you work in an arts Wikiproject and realise you're being heavily trimmed back to fit in things like that. However, Wikipedia is never going to become genitalia-free, and probably shouldn't. Not while "nude painting" is a major genre of art. What we should definitely do, though, is weed out the least educational, unused things. Indeed, I'd suggest adult, non-sexualised nudity might be something we arguably need more of - such categories tend to get trimmed down to the "pretty people", which is not necessarily particularly useful for educational purposes such as teaching drawing, where a variety of poses and bodyshapes would be helpful. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but these iconic artworks, with nudity, aren't necessarily porn per se. Lady Gaga has had some pictures of her uploaded to Wikipedia that are partially nude, as do some other famous people. However, pictures that solely serve the purpose of giving someone sexual satisfaction is not appropriate. I am not advocating the removal of nudity, I am just trying to say that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a porn site—it is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Epicgenius (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Does it bother you that many Muslims find images of Mohammed offensive and obscene, but we include them here too? HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Could not disagree more about images of female and male genitalia as does Wikipedia its self. This is not some religious website... we are here to facilitate knowledge not to conform to religious views on subjects. Better we explain and show how a penises works and how to keep it clean over just telling kids nothing and just chopping some skin off because we are not willing to talk about the problem. Ignorance does not help anyone. -- Moxy (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Another template was vandalised today in a similar fashion. See [102]. The vandalism revisions were Rev deleted. -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 02:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to recap:

• But pictures of the female and male genitalia should not... As previously mentioned, inquiring minds want to know what varieties of genitalia there are other than male and female.
• Is it about Eric Corbett Does everything have to be about Eric Corbett?
• Sure, everyone has to pee several times daily Might want to see a urologist if that's becoming a problem.
• Lady Gaga has had some pictures of her uploaded I don't know what part of Lady Gaga's anatomy is referred to by the phrase "her uploaded", and I don't want to know. So that editors who have already lost their appetite for breakfast might regain it in time for lunch, please have mercy and end this thread.

EEng (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

If we can get back on topic here, this kind of template vandalism has happened at least 4 times in the past few days (most recently affecting the article Adolf Hitler, and I'm not sure what template was vandalised). As far as we know, the perpetrator is Meepsheep's sockpuppets. Is there any action we can take to prevent further large scale vandalisms such as the ones noted above? -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 01:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This is really childish, so let's just delete the image and prevent its creation. Epicgenius (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Look, the solution isn't to delete the image, whatever it is. Having a picture of Charlie Brown inserted is disruptive as well. The answer is to protect these templates, plain and simple. Now, let's move on, and with thanks to the oversighters and template protectors. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Brian Josephson editing on Water Memory

• Brian Josephson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 5.15.39.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Brian Josephson (this guy) has recently been editing Water memory, a topic in which he is professionally involved (he is one of main proponents of the topic). The article is under discretionary sanctions (Pseudoscience and Homeopathy.) Both he and an ip have been attempting to remove sourced content from the article describing the scientific view of the topic, or to dilute the scientific view. The ip's behavior and focus is strangely similar to Brian's, possibly one of Brian's students. Brian has been informed of WP:COI (most recently here). He has continued making edits to the article, and has displayed a battleground attitute on the talk page. His talk page edits have become tendentious.

Warnings

• TenOfAllTrades: Brian Josephson's remarks in this thread are headed way across the line of personal attacks., "you're attempting to turn an article on a scientific non-phenomenon into a soapbox for your personal opinions"
• Jojalozzo: Your unilateral actions in the article are disruptive and counter to policy
• Brangifer: You are mentioned a number of times in this article, and are intimately and personally involved with the subject, ergo you have a VERY strong COI., "I suggest you follow policy and not attack other editors."
• Me: Consensus distinctly opposed these sorts of changes before these constant IDHT repetitions drove off every other editor but me... Bring new sources, or go to RSN, or drop the stick."

Battleground and not AGF

Dilution of scientific consensus

Extended list of diffs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Brian suggests adding sentence contradicting the scientific consensus and sourced to himself. "According to Josephson, many of the arguments used to dismiss memory of water out of hand are unsound." Brian changes "not consistent with accepted scientific laws" to " not consistent with the law of mass action" to imply there is limited incompatibility. Our sources say it is not consistent with "the laws of physics and molecular biology" and "conventional scientific understanding". The change was already opposed on the talk page, but he made the change anyway, saying "no objections made". IP suggests "It is claimed by some sources evasively that the concept of water memory is inconsistent with the law of mass action among other (unspecified) eastablished scientific laws." changes article, nearly identical changes had already been opposed on talk. Brian claims that the sentence was unsourced and should be removed outright. It was amply sourced to Nature and Time. He made similar claim earlier backed by original research. Ip responds by adding cn tag despite two clear sources and opposition on talk. Brian adds synthesized material about magnets to contradict scientific findings on the topic. Brian deletes scientific source outright based on his own OR that "persistent correlations in water structure" is different than water memory. The paper he deleted is titled "Ultrafast memory loss...of liquid H2O" and is quite obviously about "water memory". Ip removes it again, and again, and again.

Example of tendentious editing

• Brian recommends distinctly unreliable content. Arthur Rubin responds "There is no possibility that could be considered a reliable source, or even a pointer to reliable sources". Brian writes that he wasn't suggesting using it as a source (despite suggesting it be included in the article). I explain the problem. Brian says any source he produces would be rejected anyway, so he refuses to produce any. IP says opposition to including this content shows lack of competence and is tendentious. Both continue to argue the point. Most of the talk page follows similar patterns as this.

Brian seems to be having similar issues on other fringe and pseudoscientific topics, (for example, Cold fusion, also under discretionary sanctions), but I'm not as familiar with those topics. It's clear browsing the talk pages of those articles that the same pattern of behavior has been going on for some time.

I'd like to suggest a topic ban on a minimum of Water Memory for Brian and the ip. I believe if a topic ban is imposed for a few months, it may encourage Brian to read up on our policies and work more collaboratively within the realm of his COI. If a topic ban is considered premature by the community, then I'd like to request that Brian and the IP be warned for tendentious editing and that we get a few more eyes on the article. If the community feels my proposal is too limited, a topic ban on pseudoscience, fringe theories, or homeopathy may be more appropriate.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

All relevant users pinged. Formally notifying them now. Done.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This complaint indicates that Brian is attempting "to dilute the scientific view". This is entirely consistent with homeopathic principles, diluting the criticism strengthens it and the article remembers what it was like when criticism was present and thus remains or even becomes more NPOV. I just hope he shakes the article correctly after each dilution. </sarcasm> EdChem (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL! Good one. Well, the article history does remember, so content can be recovered. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, very few of these diffs are from the actual article. Almost all of them are from talk pages. So that dilutes the attack on Josephson considerably.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I must second Mann Jess's concerns. I was hoping that our warnings would work, but I'm not surprised they haven't. We have a case of lacking competence regarding the purpose of Wikipedia, and massive IDHT.

Specific article bans may be a good first step, followed by a topic ban from pseudoscience/fringe articles if that doesn't work. The COI sanctions must be enforced very firmly in this case. We also need semi-protections to keep IPs from editing.

Normally we welcome a Nobel Prize laureate as a nice addition to the team, but in this case I'm more saddened than anything else. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• (Comment from uninvolved editor) If Brian keeps on continuing not to work with others, someone should look at the possibility of a temporary block or even a topic ban. It is very awe-inspiring that he is a renowned professor that has a Nobel Prize, but Wikipedia cares more about the conduct of its editors than about how important its editors may be. Epicgenius (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Let me get this straight. We have a Nobel Prize winning physicist, an internationally acclaimed scientist, and we are supposed to defer to regular editors who patrol WP:FRINGE? Gee, that sounds a lot like what happened in the early 1900s. It seems like there was this whackjob named Albert Einstein who had some ridiculous idea about relativity. Thank God the cabel was able to shut his nonsense down. GregJackP Boomer! 02:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Let me get this straight. We are supposed to give a single person free reign over an article because he won a Nobel Prize? We are supposed to sit back and stay quiet while he makes the article disagree with almost every paper published on the topic in respected journals? News to me! Let's go make sure Wikipedia makes note of the fact that bacteria can be identified by their radio transmissions and astrology is real, HIV is harmless. Listening to experts is great. Differing to experts is great. But asking someone to sit on their hands to satisfy a single expert is dumb. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, two other Nobel Prize winners who push wacky ideas. Yes, they made fun of Galileo, and he was right, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. The Galileo Gambit doesn't work with us. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• GregJackP, you have a very good point, but there are many big IFs involved here. You're jumping in without knowing the background. We're dealing with someone who doesn't know how Wikipedia works, refuses to accept advice on how to edit when he has a huge COI, doesn't use RS, and is pushing ideas rejected by mainstream science and RS (homeopathy and water memory). IOW he's fringe POV-pusher. We've really stretched ourselves to offer him aid so he could improve content, but that is not his mission. If he would only stick to the area of his expertise many decades ago, and use RS, it might be better. No one is questioning his expertise in physics, but that's not the focus of his activities here. Otherwise we do love to have experts here, so if all was well, your comment would be spot on, but it misses the point. This has been brewing for a long time and has a context. Most other editors who have been doing what he's doing would have been blocked a long time ago. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just as a point of reference, that would dramatically impact our articles on telepathy, cold fusion, transcendental meditation, parapsychology, and homeopathy (among others), just based on this editor alone. Josephson believes telepathy is real. Our article should not say it is. Expanding this idea to other Nobel laureates would make wikipedia considerably racist.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) It is correct that, at the time that he did the work and developed the equations and principles that bear his name (cf Josephson effect), Josephson was an internationally acclaimed scientist. The work he did was sterling, and if he wished to contribute to our articles in that area, where he has a remarkable and solid track record of skill and competence, he could be of great benefit to this project, and I would tend to give his comments in that area great weight. Unfortunately, that reputation is less useful when brought to bear – some decades later – in areas where Josephson may be a vocal commentator, but has not carried out and published high-impact, widely-recognized research—areas like psychokinesis, telepathy, cold fusion, and (here) homeopathy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'm an uninvolved editor, I've never heard of water memory before, and it looks somewhat fringe to me. However, I have gone over user:Brian Josephson's edits and I really don't see much of a problem. What I do see is other editors reverting everything he attempts to insert in articles, sometimes with dubious justification. I'm also seeing a failure to assume good faith because he supports some fringe theories in science. We let everyone edit here regardless of their views unless they clearly violate policy. That means we allow people who know little about science to edit science articles. Is that really better than allowing a Nobel Prize winner who also holds some fringe views to edit? Let's not put Wikipedia in the news again for driving off a Nobel Prize winner. I am One of Many (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• The problem isn't that Professor Josephson holds fringe views. The problem is that he uses Wikipedia to promote such views. Repeatedly. In multiple articles. With little regard for policy or guidelines. Requiring Josephson to abide by the same rules as everyone else hardly constitutes 'driving him off', and handing out free passes because we are worried about hypothetical 'news' stories (written presumably by journalists unfamiliar with Josephson's track record) would hardly improve Wikipedia's credibility. Josephson has been around long enough to know how Wikipedia works - and if he isn't prepared to work to the same rules as the rest of us, he only has himself to blame for the consequences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• When I look at the article history, I see 4 edits by user:Brian Josephson. Two moderately substantial edits reverted and two somewhat trivial edits reverted. On the talk page, I see mostly reasonable discussion (some that could be more friendly on both sides). I haven't looked back at his editing on other articles or other discussions, but I just don't see why this should be brought here. I don't see with 4 edits on water memory and with no edit warring that there are behavior issues warranting coming here? I am One of Many (talk) 06:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. You've got a group that has decided that they are the "experts" on what is fringe, and if you disagree, they overstate the case and run off real scientists. I haven't seen anything untoward by Josephson and plenty of attempts to work with other editors. It appears he has been patient in explaining issues and how the scientific community works, but the "cabal" doesn't agree. GregJackP Boomer! 13:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be a real travesty if a bunch of self-appointed "experts" tried to run off real scientists... MastCell ^Talk 16:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that you agree with me on both issues. GregJackP Boomer! 00:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

comments from BDJ himself

OK, let me, as the person concerned, comment on all this. First of all, the speculation that one of my students is the person responsible has no factual basis, period (and, for clarity, perhaps I should add that I have no idea who these editors are). I assume the person concerned is someone equally concerned about the tendentious editing on this page, and it is hardly surprising that similar things to mine are being said. I am glad to have such support (from a number of unsigned people), particularly as it shows that I am not a lone voice who has gone off the rails.

Now as regards 'removing sourced content', I and others have objected to this content (specifically: 'The concept is not consistent with accepted scientific laws') because nothing exists in the way of proof of fundamental inconsistency (only inconsistency with a specific scientific law), and in the absence of proof there is no basis for including such a statement. It is bad for such statements to present be in a medium of reference. On the other hand, I understand that wikipedia is happy to include incorrect statements, just as long as someone designated a reliable source has made them, and the policy is (it would seem) that such statements should stay even if challenged by someone who knows what he is talking about. Let's however take a closer look at the arguments of my chief critic MannJess. He cites two 'reliable sources' to support the statement that he insists should stay, notwithstanding adverse comment by a number of people.

First of all let me compare the two authors. Ball is an expert on water, while John Lagone (author of the Time article) is described as a science writer and editor. As far as I know, water is not his field of expertise, and presumably he was merely asked to cover, to the best of his ability, what looked like an interesting story. Clearly Ball should be considered a more reliable source, and he, choosing his words carefully, says only that the claims '[defy] conventional scientific understanding', clarifying this by citing the law of mass action -- and he does admit that this is not necessarily the full story. Ball's article definitely supports my proposal, repeatedly rejected by MannJess, that the nature of the inconsistency be clarified by citing specifically (as Ball does) the law of mass action.

What, though about the Time article? In the introduction, what Lagone says precisely is that the claim '[defies] the laws of physics'. What does he mean exactly in his use of the word 'defied'? Is he suggesting that it actually contradicts the laws of physics? Without reading the full article it is impossible to know. I made the point that the full article should be examined, and to the best of my knowledge none of my critics has taken the trouble to register with Time, and find out and inform the rest of us. Black marks for them!!

However, Lagone does cite a specific issue of Nature, so it is possible in fact to see what information he is relying on. MannJess himself suggests we should consider Nature reliable, so let's find out what Nature did say, which should give us clearer insight into where Lagone is coming from. What we find is an editorial, whose actual words involve the phrase 'observations for which there is no present physical basis', which translated means something along the lines of 'no-one has yet figured out an explanation'. This again gives us no grounds for the wording being persistently pushed by MannJess, involving talk of an inconsistency. The same applies to a similar editorial statement to be found on p.836.

I submit that the version favoured by Mann Jess is unsound and should be replaced by my preferred version which is well sourced. --Brian Josephson (talk) --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone object factually on the above analysis? That is key issue here! I haven′t seen here at ANI a factual content objection to it, only rant about Brian supposedly pushing fringe views. Clarification is needed in article on vague assertions by Time and Nature.--5.15.63.155 (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Ethically, not the recommended course of action. You should never be editing topics that you're involved in to begin with - owning them is even worse. You're clearly not able to view this objectively enough to be editing the article - you may be the primary proponent of some WP:FRINGE, but that most certainly does not permit you to be the primary editor ES&L 17:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Would it not be ethical, sensible, whatever, to read and study in detail what I have to say before commenting? Or do you think looking in your crystal ball, or at the guidelines, tells you all you need to judge my text fairly? Imagine you were at a job interview, and you told your potential employer you were an editor on WP, and he asked you how you judge comments, and you told him you didn't actually study what was said before responding? Do you think you would get the job? What is the point in ignoring the detail of what I have to say? --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

And as I've said elsewhere, I find it distinctly insulting when people such as yourself question my objectivity. May I ask what qualifications you have to judge this? --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm... I suspect the question is because of the nature of the human condition, and Nobel Prize laureates are not only far from exempt, but possibly more likely to consider their status and position as making them better than others, or having more rights than others. That places objectivity as an even more distant goal to be sought. The higher one's position in life, the greater humility needed to offset the greater fall one risks. We all seek objectivity, and will never reach it. We have other editors here of extremely high position, but they do not mention or exploit their position or status....

In summary, questioning your objectivity is only to remind you of why we have a COI policy, and that your refusal to follow it is problematic. We want your expertise, but not if it means violating RS, COI, or OWNERSHIP. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

As a remark, OWNERSHIPS and misquoting RS is more attributable to MJess, Brangifer and others who choose to ignore factual content analysis pointed out than to Brian.--5.15.28.134 (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

convenience break

• Having looked at this in a modicum of detail, I wonder if that is a boomerang I can hear whistling through the air? --John (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• A relevant RS/N thread: Memory of water issues. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• It's kind of hilarious that Time magazine is cited as a scientific source. I have removed this citation. Shii (tock) 16:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• See WP:PARITY. Water memory is a fringe topic, and as such does not require scientific sources in every case. Time is certainly a reliable source for general claims.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you even read the guideline you are linking? WP:PARITY absolutely does not apply to an article about a study published in Nature. Shii (tock) 17:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I opened a new section on talk to discuss it. The publication in Nature was discredited, and the results retracted. We already cover that in our article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• This is very simple. Josephson is advocating a fringe view, disruptively. A topic ban is in order. It's also entirely expected, since Josephson advocates many fringe views. More than one topic ban may be needed. We absolutely no not need true believers in homeopathy and parapsychology conducting their never-ending Gish gallops here. As a notable advocate of fringe ideas we can cite Josephson, but he is as much use here as Dana Ullman was on the homeopathy article.

Example: this edit is blatant special pleading, it has no real relevance to the article as it is not a general effect, requires specific conditions which are absent in the context of homeopathy (the article's context), and the text serves only to sow doubt where none, in fatc, exists. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Andy and Guy -- the incivility is at most borderline, but the continued effort to promote fringe topics is clear. a13ean (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not academic publishing, a problem that has arisen with many other tenacious advocates of scientific views outside the mainstream. Josephson is, unfortunately, widely cited as an example of an eminent man pursuing crank notions. He also has a worrying tendency to self-cite, though again this is normal with academics in similar situations. His talk page shows that this has been a problem ofr a long time, and is not getting better over time. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

And why is this a problem for you, Guy? Whereof do you worry? --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Were I to guess, I'd have to say "because self-citation, COI, and general crankery are detrimental to Wikepedia, especially when pursued over long intervals by persistent individuals". But that would just be MY guess, and I'm not Guy.GJC 18:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) In addition, Brian, regardless of whether you have a "preferred version" of an article, no one owns articles on Wikipedia. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

What GJC said, plus it displays the lack of self-criticism which has been evident on your talk page for some time. You are a clever man, a very clever man, but you appear to think that being very clever means that everything you say is correct, and of great value. I'm afraid that is not the case. Being very clever is no barrier to being completely wrong - look at Einstein's "my God does not play dice" for example.Guy (Help!) 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Well, sure, this guy (however eminent) cannot add references to his own work to articles, that's a COI right there. On the other hand, edits like this one from User:Mann jess are somewhat weird. How does racism come into it? Josephson has espoused fringe views, but that in itself does not get you a burning at the stake here. If it was up to me I would topic ban both of them. --John (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he was referring to James Watson [105] a13ean (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I still don't get the point he was making. --John (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I said "Expanding this idea to other Nobel laureates would make wikipedia considerably racist". There are many examples, including James Watson, Phillipp Lenard and William Shockley. I have no reason to believe Brian is racist. The point I was making, if it still isn't clear, is that giving someone free reign to change articles in opposition to our content policies just because they are a Nobel laureate would open us up to huge problems that I think we can all agree are undesirable. That is what some editors seem to (still) be suggesting.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, what a strange way you have of expressing yourself. I'm not sure bringing racism into it was a good idea at all. It's "free rein", by the way. --John (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I agree with Guy on the basis that this user should maybe be topic-banned. And we are dealing with some pretty serious COI issues here as well—this Nobel Prize laureate is adding links to his own research. Epicgenius (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_160#Memory_of_water_issues, your assertion is misconceived. This was merely a suggestion as to how the article on water memory might be enhanced, and obviously I had to provide the link on that discussion page in making this suggestion. Do you have a problem with that procedure? If you believe I have added a link to my own work to an article page, please supply that information rather than making a generic accusation. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Brian Josephson: I believe that you are a reliable source. However, you are causing disruption to Wikipedia, according to the page history. You should probably maintain a neutral stance on the article, and avoid them if possible, as this seems to be causing great discontent among a lot of people. A topic ban should be a last resort, but you are violating some rules here (like WP:3RR). Epicgenius (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have tried to contact the editor inorder let them understand our policies. Hopefully, they'll respond favorably and we'll find an amicable solution to this. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• So we're going to topic ban an editor who knows what they're talking about, and has literally THE most prestigious award in Science, just because a bunch of nobodies have a bee in their bonnets about being shown to be inaccurate? Outstanding. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yep. There is no authority principle in science -Josephson himself loves to state that. What matters is facts: that is, the bulk of scientific evidence, which in turn becomes published sources. And despite what Josephson says, the bulk of scientific evidence and community rejects Josephson views. If he wants to push forward his views on these topics, he is welcome to publish them in peer reviewed journals and provide evidence, until shifting the scientific community view on the topics. Josephson is not the first science Nobel Prize laureate to endorse very fringe science views -check Linus Pauling and orthomolecular medicine, for example. Or Kary Mullis and AIDS denialism. --cyclopia^speak! 16:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No one's disputing that Josephson did some excellent physics as a graduate student and that his Nobel Prize was well-deserved (especially not me since I use SQUID on a regular basis). The question before us is if he is currently using Wikipedia to push a fringe viewpoint, and I'm afraid that in his editing here he has been unable to keep bias from his current endeavors[106] out of his editing. a13ean (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• As Cyclopia says, there is no authority principle in science; anyone who doesn't realise that all of science is provisional and contingent should not be editing any science articles and should certainly not go near any of the fringe science articles, where a more nuanced approach is needed. I found this a staggeringly bad edit on several grounds; reverting rather than trying to compromise, and using Time to reference "The concept is not consistent with accepted scientific laws and is not accepted by the scientific community." Time is not a scientific journal and cannot be used to reference material like this. I've offered to give User:Mann jess a free wikibreak if he does any more reverts at that article; there are better ways to enforce neutrality on a complex subject than reverting and using popular sources. --John (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• John, I really, honestly, don't get where all your aggression is coming from. You've suggested several times that I should be blocked sanctioned. I don't see anyone else even coming close to that. Productive discussion has been taking place on Talk:Water memory since yesterday morning... discussion I began. Regarding Time, I've commented here, on the talk page and in edit summaries; WP:PARITY applies to fringe views such as water memory, and Time is undoubtedly a reliable source for general claims. Even if it were not, I supplied 10 other sources (nearly all scientific) unambiguously supporting the current wording separate from Time. If you have something to contribute to the content dispute, why don't you participate on the talk page? I'd appreciate it if the focus of this conversation wasn't diverted in the meantime. There are very real issues with Brian's editing that should be discussed in more depth, and it seems fairly strong agreement from most editors that some intervention is necessary. Can we please discuss that?   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Brian Josephson's behaviour is being addressed. Your edit-warring is also problematic. This is the first time I have threatened to block you and I stand by it. Be aware for the future that bringing another editor here means your own behaviour will be examined too. --John (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• [107], [108], [109], [110] You've misunderstood me again. I'm not asking you to let it go because I don't understand how ANI works. I'm asking you to let it go because you've suggested sanctioning me several times now, and no other editor appears to share your sentiment. Repeatedly suggesting it only serves to distract from an issue that a multitude of other editors have agreed requires intervention. ANI is drama filled and distracting enough without that kind of repetition. This is the last I plan to comment on the issue, I'd truly appreciate it if you could do the same. You've made yourself clear. Let's move on, please.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The current wording is vague and needs further clarification. Man Jess has been repeatedly explained that he should stay out of topics where his technical expertise is weak. He insists on his misquoting of sources he doesn′t bother to read in full text to prevent misquoting, like in the case of Cowan reference, also discussed on article talk page, where insisted with his faulty insinuation.--5.15.28.134 (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

He also claims that ′′Productive discussion has been taking place on Talk:Water memory since yesterday morning... discussion I began′′ ignoring other editors′ feeback on aspects pointed out.--5.15.28.134 (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• what a charming validation of the "Iron Law of Oligarchy" : "As wikis grow, the probability of adding new leaders drops and these entrenched leaders are increasingly active in administrative activity while using their authority to remove contributions of experienced community members." as an iconoclast, I still defer to the experienced, not for their laurels, but for the self-discipline and intellectual achievement, those laurels represent. I don't see much self-discipline around here. an admin would have to ask: "do I feel lucky: do I want to make history sanctioning a Nobel prize winner?" make no mistake, academic papers will be written about you, and Wikipedia's toxic culture. an editor would have to ask: "am I exacerbating or ameliorating the toxic culture?". Duckduckstop (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

In order to avoid being tempted into wasting valuable time responding to comments here, I have dropped both this page and the water memory pages from my watch list. I am dropping in here only to make anyone interested aware that I am adding some thoughts regarding the problems I see with wikipedia procedures (as informed by these discussions), to the Wikipedia Policies section of my user page. Feel free to comment there if you have any thoughts that you'd like me to address. --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

If I had a pound for every person who has come along advocating a fringe view, been rebuffed, and spent the rest of their Wikipedia career telling us why we're all wrong and they are right, I would be considerably richer than I am. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:Ante Vranković

[111] - This guy is asking me to to provide an address so that he can start a lawsuit against me, because of this edit summary in which I removed a claim by one minor sports official that commented that certain soccer player's penalty by FIFA for making fascist salute is a result of "pressure" by the Croatian government. According to WP:NLT I'm supposed to report it here. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow. That was a really intense legal threat in response to a single edit. I've blocked him indefinitely unless and until he communicates an understanding of our legal threat policy and formally retracts the threat he made. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably shouldn't even be unblocked then. Calling another editor a criminal for criticizing another editor is a line we shouldn't be crossing. And the current unblock request is close to being defamatory per se with respect to Ivan Štambuk. Suggest removing said user's talk page access and redacting. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove the user's email access too, while you're at it. It's not necessary to keep it so he can start spamming other editors with uncivil emails. Epicgenius (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Ante has withdrawn the legal threat. Whether we want to unblock is another matter entirely, however. But, for someone with no other block history and no evident pattern of incivility... who knows. One more chance? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Vnisanian2001 ‎

Vnisanian2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user continues to make unsourced edits despite warnings dating back as far as June 2011. The user has twice been blocked for this behavior and for WP:INCIVIL comments made on talk pages, yet still the user continues to make unsourced edits such as this, without using Template:Cite web or any form of reference in the actual edit. When the edit was removed and a warning left on the user's talk page, the user left two personal attacks on my talk page ([112], [113]) before deleting them and re-linking to a URL to a user-submitted video on Youtube the user earlier posted on the talk page. This user fails to meet WP:COMPETENCE, exhibits WP:BATTLE mentality when edits are questioned, and continues to repeat the same behavior despite two prior blocks and dozens of warnings for the same patterned behavior. AldezD (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Those don't really seem like attacks to me (incivility, yes; IDHT, hell yes, but...). Also, although it's true that Vnisanian2001 has been blocked several times, it's interesting that all the warnings (from this year, anyway) came from you. Maybe this is a case for WP:DRN? (I would also suggest listing him/her at WP:LTA.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The difference between this editor not meeting WP:COMPETENCE vs. actions falling under WP:IDHT is negligible. The user has exhibited the same pattern of behavior for several years. How long must this continue? AldezD (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair question, but...since s/he hasn't made an edit since you filed this report, let's see if anything else happens. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 10:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

User:JHunterJ

This user seems to insist that Basak redirect to Basak, Mandaue, and shows WP:OWNERSHIP of the redirect by reverting any attempt to have it point to the disambiguation page. Under WP:MOSDAB, if a title is ambiguous it should be a or point to a disambiguation page, unless the primary use is an article. Needless to say, there is no indication that Basak, Mandaue, a barangay (among at least two so named) in the Philippines, with a population of 32 is not the primary use. I contend there is no primary use and JHunterJ provides no explanation for his reverts when MOSDAB was cited. I won't edit war with him/her; but someone needs to stop this behavior. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Basak. I think JhunterJ would prefer you use the WP:RM process. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure he wasn't just preventing the duplication of an existing disambiguation page? Having Basak redirect to Basak (disambiguation) isn't particularly helpful either. I do agree that Basak (disambiguation) should be the primary topic, but since another editor is involved it should be done via a move request. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, JHunterJ is clearly doing the right thing, in preventing duplicate disambiguation moves. Carlossuarez46 is correct in that the disambiguation page is the primary topic (though I don't think JHunterJ necessarily disagrees). I would be happy to request the move if that solves the problem. StAnselm (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. But I do need to say that as an admin, User:Carlossuarez46 ought to know about these things. StAnselm (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• What are you requesting to be moved, User:StAnselm? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Basak (disambiguation) → Basak. Isn't that what you wanted? StAnselm (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• That would be fine; why keep pointing it elsewhere? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• User:JHunterJ is absolutely correct. The article currently at Basak, Mandaue was at Basak for four years before it was moved to the latter title. The move itself was done without discussion, which is okay per WP:BRD, but that also means that there has never been a discussion to determine that the title, Basak, should point anywhere except Basak, Mandaue. Any editor is entitled to contest a unilateral change of that redirect, and that change should result in a discussion to determine consensus. Since, for common sense reasons, we do not permit duplicate disambiguation pages at the "Foo" and "Foo (disambiguation)" titles of a page, and we do not permit "Foo" titles to redirect to their own "Foo (disambiguation)" titles, a move discussion with respect to the existing Basak (disambiguation) page is the proper way to bring about the change proposed. bd2412 T 20:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

  You can contest things as long as you are compliant with WP:MOSDAB; otherwise there's chaos. Not everything needs to be discussed. That's bureaucracy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

  And neither the duplicate dab you started with nor the malplaced dab you tried next were compliant. Not everything you don't understand is bureaucracy. That's why there are Talk pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• If you all want Basak to keep pointing to the little barrio in the Philippines, because you think that that's what makes WP better as JHunterJ wants; keep it that way - this is too much drama over this redirect. Over and out. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The point is not about whether anyone wants it that way, the point is that you can't resolve it by making a duplicate page, or a redirect that goes the wrong way. bd2412 T 21:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Just remember, Carlossuarez46, it's the drama you created at Basak and then amplified by pretending here that there's an ownership issue or that I gave no explanation[114][115] when fixing your mistakes there. Your behavior is bad form for any editor, but especially for an admin. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Repeated policy violations

For most of this month, User:Dcelano has been violating policy at The Wiggles and its associated pages, despite numerous warnings and requests to stop from myself and from User:AngusWOOF. Here are some diffs: Removal of content without explanation or discussion [116]; addition of unsourced edits [117] [118] [119]. On Talk:The Wiggles, he's used it as a WP:FORUM, despite repeated requests to stop; see everything after December 3, from the section "Anthony's Shirts" onward. [120]. Most egregiously, Dcelano deleted part of the talk page when I warned him that if he continued, I'd see about getting him blocked. [121]. He has also engaged in the same sort of behavior on my talk page [122] and on AngusWOOF's [123] [124] [125]. There are other examples on other Wiggles pages as well. I think that a block is in order, since that seems to be the only thing that will stop him. Thanks for your consideration. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

He has deleted stuff off my old talk page as well as bring up the same unsourced and poorly researched topics over and over for years [126] and posts the same stuff on other articles [127] -AngusWOOF (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I would suggest a topic ban at the bare minimum. In addition, Dcleano has made time to use the article's talk page as a forum but he has yet to ever respond to anything on his own talk page; speaking of that, deleting things from someone else's talk page is ridiculous. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

world war 2 has been vandalized

Something to do with templates, I can't figure it out. Pfalstad (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Fixed now. Pfalstad (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Pfalstad: Out of curiosity, did the vandalism have something to do with an image? Epicgenius (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

yeah a face sitting image and a message asking people to follow meepysheep. Pfalstad (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Solutions already underway--but thanks for reporting yet another instance. Pretty sure some more over-arching protection will probably be required til this sockfarm settles down. GJC 01:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This is out of hand. An abuse filter should be put up ASAP to block the insertion of certain images. Epicgenius (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

We can already label images as "bad images" that can't be placed in certain places, as well as we can protect templates that are highly used. The problem is that there are a lot of highly used templates that aren't protected and there are too many images to label as bad images to individually find them all to label. We can't set an abuse filter to look at an image an tell if it's good or not. A more viable solution is to have only users with autoconfirmed or a similar right the ability to add images to templates. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Since it's fairly unusual to add an image or to change an image embedded in a template, an edit filter could be set to flag such edits by non-autoconfirmed editors. Acroterion (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Can an admin please Put up some edit filters against "Meepsheep" & "Meepysheep" etc. The help chat has had plenty of questions on whether Wikipedia was "hacked". The reality is not much better. Thanks, -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 04:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Done to Special:AbuseFilter/58. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 04:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Can someone have another look at the edit filter - just had another bout of Meeysheep, this time to {{Flagu/core}}. Thx NtheP (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons q

Any Commons admins around who can delete File:David Horvitz Profile.jpeg? I just blocked the uploader for not being here to improve encyclopedia. If you need background, there's some on my talk page and more in the history of David Horvitz (an article that needs some attention); let me just say that I believe this edit summary. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Drmies: Can't en.wikipedia sysops delete pages on en.wikipedia? I believe that the image is on local wikipedia. Epicgenius (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope. If we were ever to ask for power on Commons the shit would really hit the fan. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Understood. Epicgenius (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Diannaa tagged it as a copyright violation, and while the coloring was a bit off between the version on Wikipedia and the version on the corporate website that Diannaa pointed to, it was very clearly the same photo. (That, of course, meant that how the uploader used the image became a moot point.) If you ever need a Commons admin in the future, feel free to ping me. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Excellent; thanks. I'll keep that in mind, Sven. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Slow moving edit war

I'm writing regarding the article Picture Perfect (Sevendust song). I changed the article into a redirect on August 4, only to have T.o.a.b revert my change. The article was then the subject of an AFD, the decision of which was to change the article to a redirect. Since then, T.o.a.b turned it back into a full article on August 24, September 20, and December 19. On my talk page on October 1, the user stated that he controls the article. I explained policy to no avail. I'm not asking for a ban, but I feel like an uninvolved editor should explain the situation, since he's obviously not listening to me at this point. Andrew³²⁷ 07:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) What you told him/her was pretty clear. S/he hasn't edited anywhere since you gave him/her the warning, so let's just see if anything happens from there. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. If they continue I wouldn't have an objection to a short block (and would do it myself). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Much obliged, hopefully it doesn't come to that. Andrew³²⁷ 09:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin is evading his block.

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

---

User:Arthur Rubin is blocked for a week for, among other things, evading his topic ban by getting someone to edit for him. Now he's evading that block by -- you guessed it -- getting others to edit for him.

Rubin was gently warned by SimpsonDG, but responded by making transparent excuses and refusing to stop. According to him, these are just "notes as to edits I intend to make later", as if he couldn't do that off-Wikipedia, and as if his proxies weren't literally checking off items as they do his bidding.

Willful and repeated Arbcom topic ban violation is a serious offense and the weeklong block was barely a slap on the wrist, but he's making a joke out of it by engaging in proxy editing. What makes it worse is that he's an admin so he ought to know better. Editors have been indeffed for less.

I'm not asking for an indef. I do think his block duration should be restarted and extended to include his own talk page. My personal opinion is that he ought to reconsider remaining an admin, as he does not appear to have any respect for the rules he's charged to enforce, but I am not making a formal request about that at this time. MilesMoney (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No. None of the issues he flagged on his talkpage are even related to the topic ban area. This is unproblematic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. He's not evading his topic ban. He's evading his block (which he received for evading his topic ban). Please read WP:EVADE if this is not clear. Thank you. MilesMoney (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment by NewsAndEventsGuy

I believe this is meritless and I arrive at that conclusion through two entirely separate thought processes.

First, we should start with WP:AGF and proceed to Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?, which explicitly approves of user talk pages containing "to-do lists", "reminders" and "planned activities". The scope of Arthur's block did not include his talk page, so he can post such things. The only way to conclude those are overt proxy recruitments is to chuck our willingness to assume good faith - a natural state of mind for someone with a grudge, I suppose, but there isn't any tangible evidence to overcome the assumption of good faith rule. In other words, the conclusion that Arthur overtly recruited proxies is an emotional conclusion, not one derived from analysis of evidence. Since his block did not turn off his right to edit his own talk page, he can include all of the material listed at Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?.

Second, this complaint is predicated on a false statement. The complaining party wrote

"Rubin was gently warned...but responded by... refusing to stop."

A simple look at the verion history shows that is untrue. At the moment I am typing, Arthur had posted no additional "to do" items to his list after the gentle, and in my opionion misguided and undeserved, warning.

Conclusion: Looks to me like someone has a grudge. But they should include me in this ANI if they really want to push it, because I claimed an item from the to-do list on Athur's page and did it on my own hook. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

In all candor, you should probably mention that you are one of the two proxies he is currently using to evade the ban. Also, claiming I have a grudge is itself a violation of WP:AGF, and it also happens to be false. I previously defended Rubin, but he has since burned through all the good faith.

As for the rest of your defense, it is flawed and not factual. In specific, when he was warned about evasion, he did not admit to it or agree to stop. He said "I don't see it". If he stops adding to the list after I made my ANI report, this would only be an argument for not blocking his talk page access. He would still deserve to have his block restarted from today. MilesMoney (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Per the proxy rules you have previously cited, proxies do not have independent reasons to make edits and/or the project is not improved as a result. I removed external link spam that was making a legal threat against Wikipedia. Gee, naughty meNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would make up your mind.

First, you say that he did stop asking others to edit for him after he was gently warned, which is an admission that he ought not have been doing so in the first place. When I showed that he, in fact, rejected the warning, you gave up on that line of argument.

Now you're saying that it's ok for you to follow his directions if you have your own reasons, which contradicts your admission that he ought to have stopped when warned. It also confuses the issue of whether you should have followed his orders with whether he should be giving orders.

You really can't have it both ways. MilesMoney (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Using that logic, if you deny ever having beaten your wife/parent/child, then you are guilty of refusing to stop beating them. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Logic does not work that way. Try again. MilesMoney (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with what Arthur is doing, so long as he confines himself to posting to his own talk page for the remainder of the block. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That is very kind of you, but WP:EVADE is less kind. MilesMoney (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The policy you quote is just as kind as I am, actually. "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." The edits Arthur has been requesting all seem good at first glance. Let's not harm the encyclopedia just so we can stand on principle (especially when said principle is not even founded in policy). Someguy1221 (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

e/c::::I agree entirely, except for suggestion the complaining party is standing on principle. He and Arthur are fresh from content disputes and the complaining party has been unwilling to drop-the-stick. Instead, he's trying to kick the other guy (Arthur) when he's down. This complaint is a classic example WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and calls to mind WP:BOOMERANG if you ask me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, really? What content dispute was that? Diffs or it didn't happen. MilesMoney (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Except that we know that independent reason is irrelevant. The other proxy wrote:

Sorry about the block. If you want me to post anything to ANI on your behalf, let me know.

This violates WP:EVADE, in that they would not have "independent reasons for making such edits". Having shown their willingness to proxy, they followed through by making almost all of the changes Rubin requested. MilesMoney (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Cut the crap, Miles. Has any harm resulted from this proxy editing, or do you want Arthur punished for the sake of enforcing (your interpretation of) a policy? I can't speak for the other ~800 admins, but I'm intent on letting it slide (WP:IAR and all that). Someguy1221 (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to let it slide, then, but I will not, and there are ~799 other admins out there.

Rubin's actions are injust, and that makes them harmful. When an admin is allowed to break the rules but regular folk have to follow them, it makes the admins look like dicks. Anyhow, thank you for invoking WP:IAR, as it means you've given up claiming that he didn't break the rules. MilesMoney (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Using that logic, you are guilty of assault and battery if I offer to beat your wife for you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Logic still doesn't work that way. If I ask nobody in particular, "Who will beat my wife for me?" and you do it, I am not innocent. MilesMoney (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Someguy1221, let me ask you a question. Let's say we grant, for the sake of the argument, that what Arthur did is completely legitimate, somehow. If this is the case, why did he lie when confronted?

Look at his talk page and you'll see that he didn't respond, "Hey, I'm allowed to request proxying just so long as there's independent reason". That would have been (in my eyes) questionable, but at least direct and forthright.

No, he didn't say that. Instead, he said, "I don't see it. Are you saying it's inappropriate to take notes as to edits I intend to make later?" Instead of admitting he expected others to make these changes for him, he pretended he was going to get around to them eventually and it was just a coincidence that he's leaving them on his talk page. As if he couldn't have saved them on his own computer. He lied.

Why did he lie? Well, I'm not an expert, but I'd say it's because he had a guilty conscience. He knew that the warning was fair, so he didn't want to admit to what he was accused of. Remember, he is currently blocked because he just engaged in proxying to evade Arbcom, so the fact that evading could get him into trouble is something that must have been prominent in his thinking. If only that had stopped him from reoffending. MilesMoney (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• In general I'm one of those who believe talk pages should not be used to stir drama, and if someone is blocked, posting a helpful list of suggestions that talk page watchers might act on is just going to cause drama (witness this report). However, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and each case is evaluated on its merits, and we are not bound by a misguided reading of WP:EVADE (which does not say what MM appears to think). Looking at this particular case shows that the talk page comments are unrelated to any contentious topic, and the reported case is not one that EVADE attempts to cover. Regarding the talk page: it's owner should just wait out the block and keep personal notes off-wiki, and while onlookers are welcome to act on such benign points, acknowledging them on the talk page is sort of saying FU to the system that initiated the block—it would be best to skip that. The fact that MM has brought this to ANI demonstrates a win-at-all-costs approach, and that demonstrates that the other threads regarding MM are soundly based, and the project will benefit when MM is removed. Hint: we don't kick people unless such kicking assists the encyclopedia. BTW, offering to posts comments for a blocked user at ANI is standard operating procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You mean the thread with all of the Opposes? That thread? I would love to hear you explain how your comment is anything but a threat of retaliation for reporting Rubin. Please, I'm trying really hard to assume good faith, so work with me here. It would really be helpful if you would explain why he gets to WP:IAR, but I get threatened by you for pointing out when he ignores them. It would also be great if you could explain why it's WP:BATTLEFIELD for me to report him for "sort of saying FU to the system", but it's ok for Rubin to threaten to retaliate with SPI and ANI. These are tough questions, but I'm sure you have good answers, and I'm waiting for them patiently. Until then, have a great day. MilesMoney (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting interpretation of my open/honest statement of accountability (for deleting an external link spam and vague $100 million liability threat against Wikipedia). I suppose one might initially think I was "sort of saying FU to the system that initiated the block", but on further reflection I would hope one would realize it is hard to tell the

• System fuckers and too stupid to know better proxies

from the

• Honest editors who take personal ownership for their acts, and believe the project was improved even if the edit was called to their attention by a blocked editor.

And that is only more difficult if such edits are made in the dark, instead of the light. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not saying FU to the system, it's saying FU to every non-admin who contributes to the system. It's also saying FU to Arbcom, but I figure they've got thick skins by now, so Rubin's actions won't hurt their feelings. MilesMoney (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's MilesMoney again! Big surprise...good thing he moved this matter to the right drama board (his words). Drama is right...--MONGO 11:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• MilesMoney, you need to stop. Now. We all understand you are hell-bent on having somebody blocked, but ANI is usually not very friendly to people with vindictive agendas as obvious as yours. If A.R.'s actions really are objectionable, other editors will soon start flocking in saying so independently of whether you keep jumping up and down shouting here the way you have been doing, so you could just as well stop beating the dead horse now. The same goes for your participation on A.R.'s own talkpage, which will soon cross the line into harassment. If you continue this in either venue, this will boomerang on you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm not actually hell-bent on having Rubin blocked. He is already blocked. This is because he violated an Arbcom topic ban twice, once by evading through a proxy edtor. I'd just like that scandalously short block to mean something as opposed to being (in the words of his defender), an "FU to the system". Mostly, I'd really like him to stop doing things like this.

As for a vendetta, citation needed. I defended Rubin initially, and I tried to help him avoid getting blocked. He responded by threatening me. He has since threatened me twice more. If anyone is taking it personally, it's him. In contrast, I've asked only for the minimal reaction to his block evasion, which is quite fair and impersonal. Please do not violate WP:AGF by claiming I have a vendetta.

The horse isn't dead, but I'm done riding it. I'm off to the real world. When I return, I fully expect that someone will break the rules to protect Rubin's bad behavior by shutting down this report. It'll be one admin whitewashing another. Even if so, I bet Rubin won't be leaving commands for more proxy editors for the remainder of this block, so that's something. Still, it would be great to have my pessimism dealt a blow. Are you up to it? MilesMoney (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You said above you want his block reset to start now, so how is that not wanting him blocked? An admin needs to block you...first for 24 hours and then for increasingly longer durations until you stop disrupting this website.--MONGO 12:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

MONGO, it's discourteous to ask me questions after I've announced that I'm done riding this horse. In an attempt to be courteous, I'm going to answer you while slowly backing away. I do not intend to further comment on this section, so please don't encourage me to.

I cannot be asking for Rubin to be blocked because he is already blocked. However, through the use of proxies, he has evaded this block for a few days. I am asking that (as per WP:EVADE) the days he evaded not count towards time served. The mechanism for this is to extend his current block by the number of days that he cheated it. This is equivalent to resetting the expiration timer to the original duration. None of this is the same as asking to have him blocked, which is a logical impossibility anyhow so long as he remains blocked.

Remember, a total of three editors have agreed that Rubin should not have sought proxy editors, and it now looks like Rubin will stop, regardless. If he commits to stopping, then I would be fine with him being allowed to keep editing his talk page while blocked. If not, then taking away his talk page access would be necessary to protect Wikipedia.

Now, if you have any further questions, you're welcome to visit my talk page. MilesMoney (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, this is silly. An editor's prime purpose for continuing talkpage access while blocked is to request unblock. However, making a "to do list" of things that they personally intend to do when unblocked is not unacceptable - as long as there is no overt requests to others (which could include using "e-mail this user", or pinging someone). Let me put forward a few examples to show why this whole thing is silly:

1. I'm currently on-leave from my senses admin tools. If I approach another admin and ask them to block someone/undelete something/protect a page, am I violating my holiday by proxy?
2. If someone keeps a list of "articles I plan to create" on their userpage, and I go and create one of them, have I done something wrong?
3. If I keep a list of "admin-y things I need to do as of January" and someone comes along and does those things, have they done something wrong? Have I?
4. If an editor makes a list of spelling corrections they intend to make once unblocked, and I go ahead and make those edits, have either of us done something wrong?

So, take this as you may ... ES&L 12:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

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

COI editing, talk page whitewashing by User:Jphearts

User:Jphearts has only ever edited Abraham_Silberschatz and its talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jphearts - subject to the proviso that I don't have deleted contribs X-ray vision. That page has a serious COI issue inasmuch as it was largely written by User:Avi28 who acts exactly as if they are the subject of the article, let us say.

User:Jphearts's latest batch of editing was to remove the BLP and COI tags from the main article without addressing them https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham_Silberschatz&action=historysubmit&diff=586802545&oldid=584918546 (this diff subsumes one edit by me removing honorifics from the article body per MOS), and remove my comment from the talk page mentioning the COI https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAbraham_Silberschatz&action=historysubmit&diff=586801974&oldid=550321798 . I was advised to take this to AN/I, so, here I am. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Some admin should full-protect the page temporarily, as Jphearts is already autoconfirmed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Full protection would be a very poor solution. Let's see if Jphearts is communicative at all. If not, a block it is, possibly a topic ban, possibly an indef block. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Armenian Genocide

Resolved

 – Done.  Sandstein  20:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Can an admin please semi-protect this page and block the IP? 95.7.140.82 puts the same text in the talk page with clear racist and insulting phrases in the edits summary:

“ European Court of Human Rights' (ECHR) Decision dated 17.12.2013 on 1915 Events must be placed to the Article. Now, researchers can freely research without any threat of ARMenians. 2013: ALL Turkey's archieves open, Armenia hides its archieves! Don't hide ”

[128]

“ Reference of ECHR Decision added. Heyy, researchers, historians..! Do not afraid! Just search 1915 events. It is easy to discover the international lie. Russia and Turkey archieves are open. Think why Armenians' arciheves are closed! Liers Hide! Till when ”

[129]

This is getting ridiculous. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Dassault Rafale

This page has been vandalised and requires attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.243.90 (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't see anything in Dassault Rafale not is there anything in the recent contribution history that looks like vandalism. However a template Template:Flagu/core used in the article (Special:RecentChangesLinked/Dassault_Rafale) was recently vandalised, this may be what you are referring to. Either way it seems fixed now. If you continue having problems, trying following the instructions at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache and WP:Purge Nil Einne (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Graham Power

Seen during STiki patrol. Graham Power needs to be looked at by an admin. Legal and religious implications. BsBsBs (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I cleaned the article up and welcomed the user. Hopefully further edits will be constructive. -- John Reaves 05:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I didn't dare to ... BsBsBs (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

disruptive editing on Jung Myung Seok page

Harizotoh9 reverted hours of work on the Jung myung seok page including edits by multiple contributors and lumped everything into one category. I will not participate in edit warring but would like an admin to offer a warning and a block to this behavior as it violates wiki policy. Furthermore on Richwales talk page the user acknowledges their lack of familiarity with wiki procedures. I posted on the users page that they should ask for help and not perform edit warring. I just noticed that this is not the first time for this user to participate in this behavior and has been warned by Rutebega in Feb 2013. Is a warning or further action in order? Please help. MrTownCar (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) MrTownCar, judging from this, it seems like you're forum shopping because you're upset that the article doesn't look the way you want it to (no one owns articles on Wikipedia). Regardless of whether Harizotoh9 had been warned, you neglected to mention that you have been warned yourself about that article; and it definitely doesn't help that you insulted him afterwards. (You might want to read WP:POT.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the brilliant observation erpert. The difference is I learned to work within the rules of the system even if I don't like the system or what is posted in the article but I have made the effort. For some one to make a broad sweeping edit reversion reverting multiple contributors with opposing persectives and then claim ignorance about the process is quite ridiculous and intellectually dishonest. cheers.MrTownCar (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You've learned to work with the rules of the system? I don't know; this section makes me think differently. And after reading all the bickering on the article's talk page, it appears that the information that Hari removed was all based on unreliable sources. Basically, if you were tendentiously editing and another user reverted your edits in good faith, you can't then come to a noticeboard and expect people to want to overturn the reversion, much less block that user. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 03:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of all the rest, this is a BLP with some fairly serious stuff. In such a case, it's not unresonable to removal material which seems to be questionably sourced while discussion takes place. In any event you're apparently referring to a single edit (plus a merger request). Harizotoh9 hasn't edited the article since October before that. Nil Einne (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has already been going on for over a year. The usual pattern is that a consensus is reached, and several months later the two SPAs start editing again simultaneously. Shii (tock) 02:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Even more reason why it's unlikely Harizotoh9 is going to be sanctioned in any way. (To be clear, I wasn't suggesting Harizotoh9 was necessarily editing without having discussed first but rather even without having to look carefully it's hard to see how there's anything on Harizotoh9's part warranting administrative attention since the OP is basically complaining about a single edit which was per the edit summary the removal of questionably source content and it was on a BLP.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Some background. On Dec 16th 2012 I came across the article. I had never heard of Providence or its leader before then. To my horror, I saw that a lot of the article uses primary sources from the Providence religion directly. Imagine an article on L Ron Hubbard that relied heavily on Scientology's official sources. I started to remove them and to restructure the article so it looked more like a standard wikipedia biography article. On the 29th, Macauthor reverted those edits. That's the pattern that has been going on forever. Eventually I thought that a consensus was reached about the unreliability of the Providence sources. Finally on Oct 28th of this year, I removed the final providence source from the article. With those gone, the work to refining and improving the article could begin. I stopped paying attention to the article. Then again, on Dec. 13th, I looked at the article again and was shocked to see those very same sources back in the article. So I reverted the article to a previous time.

Read more about the edit warring here:

• Administrators noticeboard: Long-term edit warring at Jung Myung Seok

Sometimes you have to say that a spade is a spade. These are two single purpose accounts. They have only edited articles related to Providence. They continually re-insert primary sources, try to remove sources critical of Jung Myung Seok, and edit war. I made the post on RichWales' talk page out of frustration. I wasn't sure which noticeboard to contact. This is an ongoing issue, and no one seems to be doing anything about it. The article was semi-protected, and protected, but these are inadequate actions.

At the very, very least more people need to have the articles on their watch list. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware that primary sourcing is permitted under BLP rules? there are guidelines that dictate what is appropriate and what is not but nonetheless it ABSOLUTELY permitted. As I see it most of macauthors contributions WERE NOT primary sources if you took the time to review the citations and some were ie sermon content to further explain his teachings.MrTownCar (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the massive repeat POV additions in the article. I second the observation made by Shii here above, and find this filing is a BOOMERANG. A suggestion of topic banning the two SPAs would have my support. Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant idea ban the two people who are part of Providence and know the most about Providence from contributing to the article.MrTownCar (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

That's what happened to the Scientology articles in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-06-01/Scientology arbitration. Shii (tock) 14:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, for an editor to be "part of" the subject of a controversial article is not always an advantage on Wikipedia — not because we're trying to promote ignorance, but because we are required to cover subjects in a neutral encyclopedic fashion, and people who are too heavily invested in a given position may not be able or willing to deal with the subject in the required dispassionate manner. Someone who is intimately involved with Providence may be able to help here by bringing up potentially relevant source material, but it may still be necessary to allow other editors (people who are not connected either with Providence or with anti-Providence groups) to weigh the available material and decide what to use and how to use it. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

MrTownCar should have due credit for finally and frankly disclosing that they and Macauthor are part of Jung Myung Seok's organisation Providence.

As part of a long post on Talk:Jung Myung Seok MrTownCar writes 6 November:

I have read many of his sermons and his proverbs. The man has a love for God that is unparalleled and is obvious to those who have witnessed his life. His greatest desire in this life is to please the heart of God and save spirits of human beings. Akin to Jesus, he loves those who persecute him and prays for their salvation. He underwent a sham trial and was accused by false witnesses. It is truly ironic and shameful that the very thing that he preaches against from the deepest part of his heart is that which the false witnesses accused him of and had him sent to prison for ten years.^{[Diff of Talk:Jung Myung Seok]}
— User:MrTownCar

Shii in their COIN filing^Diff politely reflects "Obviously this is a statement of faith. To me, this soapboxing on the talk page places doubt on his ability to withhold his bias in a way suitable for Wikipedia."

To me there is no doubt that an editor who believes that Jung Myung Seok, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping young girls in Providence in a trial tried by all three different levels of Korean courts, should have undergone a sham trial, is an editor with a COI that makes neutral editing impossible. Ey have a long history of flat out denying existing sources and deleting content ey do not like, e.g.

• Diff of Jung Myung Seok
• Diff of Jung Myung Seok
• Diff of Jung Myung Seok
• Diff of Jung Myung Seok

Sam Sailor ^Sing 21:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

My current concern is that Sam Sailor is reverting to a version that includes anonymous quotations that are very contentious. I dont do block reversion like him/her but line by line edits with clear explanations. Herefore I state that SAm Sailor is not editing in good faith and is including anonymous quotations from lawyers and an alleged victim which violates BLP policy. another admin richwales has suggested on the talk page that better sources be used. Not difficult to see my contention. MrTownCar (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

If an administrator, editor, or even an SPA improves the article by adding relevant verifiable information and does so according to wikipedia policy, then their work should not be reverted, or at the very least be discussed further before being taken down. Does, "Disruptive editing," refer to the addition of edits that were discussed and agreed upon beforehand, or does it refer to the reverting of those edits without discussion? As for the edits that I made recently and were reverted, they were based on suggestions by other editors. I even quoted the previous discussions that had taken place about the content I introduced at the bottom of the talk page. The article was reverted based on an old argument over the neutrality of ProvidenceTrial.com as a source. That reason is not even relevant because the new material is not being sourced to ProvidenceTrial.com. That suggestion was made more than 6 months ago and is not relevant to everything or almost anything they reverted. It seems that editors are editing/reverting without thoroughly reading the recent discussions on the talk page. Could we at least agree to read the discussions on the talk page before any further suggestions of penalizing editors or reverting their edits? Macauthor (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

These are edits that I referred to above as being reverted. 3 major additions reverted without relevant reason Macauthor (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

In connection with a later instance of unexplained reversion, I asked Sam Sailor for an explanation (see this section of the article's talk page). The ensuing exchange dealt not only with the original issue (which seems like it had to do with whether source material quoting anonymous individuals could ever satisfy WP:RS), but also with whether — or to what extent — the article ought to deal with controversies about the degree of fairness of Jung's criminal trial. Clearly (to me), two different groups of editors believe very strongly that this article must (or must not) include detailed claims regarding the accusations made against Jung (not only the factual existence of said accusations, but also their credibility). Questions to be resolved here (or perhaps elsewhere) include how to apply our editorial policies to material dealing with both sides, as well as the extent to which WP:BLP may require us to hold material to a higher standard of quality — and we should remember that "contentious" material for BLP purposes may be "negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable." — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I do see the usefulness of simplifying the history of this article and generalizing about its editors by grouping them into one side or another to help newer editors get an idea of what's been going on, but I do not agree with many of the edits of MrTownCar or subscribe to the idea that the facts about Jung's conviction should not be posted. The edits mentioned by Sam Sailor above for instance have nothing to do with me and I agree that those edits do not improve the article. But some of the same users accusing MrTownCar of questioning sources have done the same thing by removing verifiable articles from secondary sources, and removed primary sources (direct quotes from published sermons of the subject, Jung, himself) time and time again. Ultimately the editors of this page must agree not to remove each other's edits so long as they meet the highest standards of wikipedia policy if we want to resolve the edit-warring problem. Macauthor (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

From the sock farm that brought you List of Jewish American fraudsters I present

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

---

List of American fraudsters of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev. And, perhaps for a precedent, List of American fraudsters of Irish descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). For both of these new ones we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American fraudsters of Jewish descent but I'm probably going to delete at least the Jewish descent one shortly as a recreation of an article deleted at AfD as well as a creation by a blocked editor after lunch. Some of the background is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American fraudsters and the earlier ANI discussion[130]. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, someone beat me to it. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dougweller#Feedback — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.1.214.45 (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This is getting funny. Should those be revdel'd or something? Ansh666 16:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

IP blocked and posts revdeleted. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Is "fraudster" even a real English word? I've only ever seen it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Request block

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

---

NOTE: Sorry, I posted this at the Administrators' noticeboard by mistake. This is a copy of what I posted there.. I would like to request a block for user User:US1939. He or she is creating tons of one sentence stubs about moths and butterflies (articles I all expanded). He or she seems to think he owns the articles and keeps reverting changes I made. He is linking to disambiguation pages, as well as replacing specific stub types with a generic stub type. He is not responding to any comments made on his talk page and has now started edit-warring. Furthermore, I suspect he is using sock-puppets, since similar articles are being made by other users who appeared around the same time as US1939. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think User:I'm Shmacked is a sock-puppet account. This user is creating articles which are exactly the same in structure and both accounts are new. Furthermore, this user is also not responding to any comments on his talk page. Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Doesn't this belong at WP:SPI? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah sorry, this is the wrong page then? I'm an experienced wikipedia editor, but never requested admin intervention before, so please forgive me.. Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If you can't figure out the SPI interface, just list the suspect accounts in a message on my talk page. I'll look into this tomorrow if no one else has. Going to bed right now. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with blocking US1939 to get him to respond and participate in discussion; this probably could have gone to WP:ANEW. Not as sure about I'm Shmacked. The use of {{butterfly-stub}} on every article he creates rather than a more specific stub template (identical to US1939) is curious at least. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, as well as the sentence: [author] used the scientific name in [year of description]. This particular sentence has not been used on any other moth or butterfly stub and there are now a number of users who introduced this sentence all within a week or so. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Other sock-puppet users are probably User:‎Laylatul-Qadr, User:Kindergarden's mirror, User:Not enough213 and User:You are Xtupid too. Although the created articles are technically sufficient for addition to wikipedia, I would really like someone to halt this person. These articles are useless stubs only containing info that is already found on country check lists. I like to keep track of new articles and expand all butterfly and moth articles right away, but I cannot keep up with the sheer number of articles created within a few seconds. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

US1939 blocked 24 hours. Hopefully that'll loosen his lips. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope, he just created two new accounts: User:Inept red square and User:Meat eater Ants and created another 100 or so useless stubs that I need to cleanup. I suspect this is not going to end anytime soon. Would an IP block be possible? This is really de-motiving me from working on Wikipedia. I like to create articles in an orderly fashion. I can handle one or two badly structured stubs a day, but this is too much. Ruigeroeland (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hang tight - I'm working through some CU results now.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. Nice to see all the helpful people over here! Makes me wanna report vandals more often.. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Several are now blocked. Notable exceptions are User:Laylatul-Qadr, User:Meat eater Ants and User:Inept red square, who are probably candidates for blocks based on behavior even if the CU didn't turn evidence (particularly Laylatul-Qadr, whose current userpage is identical to an older version of I'm Shmacked's). Guessing we'd theoretically call User:Stern review the sockmaster given it's the oldest account, though it could also be compromised. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for any further editing which looks suspicious and report it here. Thanks again for the swift resolution! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I reacted too soon. There is yet another sock puppet: User:Emails back to college. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Ruiger, are these articles always accurate? I'm just wondering what kind of cleanup is or isn't necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, there essentially is no information in them, except the name of the species and who described it. Since he is basing his articles on a check-list of species without any further inquiry, I would say at least 1/3 is listed under the wrong name (i.e. the species is no longer deemed valid and is now a synonym or the species has been moved to another genus). Other problems are: he is not putting the articles in the right category, he is not using the right stub-category, he is very sloppy and makes a lot of errors: i.e. some articles have the wrong authority listed, the ref is often wrong (refers to a source which is about a completely different species), etc. I other words: There is almost no info and the info that IS there is often wrong. Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

To eleborate on that: please see Scoparia crepuscula (I fixed it now). The title and article do not match (species name crepuscula vs. ejuncida), the authority is wrong, the family is wrong, there are two wrong cats, the link is wrong, there is no reference and the link to the genus linked to a disam. page (someone else fixed that). In other words: there are about 10 errors in a one sentence stub. Most of the articles he creates are like that. If he would at least respond and take on board advice I could live with it, but he stubbornly keeps creating tons of articles in this same fashion. Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional checks are still being done as the socking is extensive. I will open an SPI and post the link here when the report is up; any additional suspected socks can then be reported and tracked via the investigation page.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

SPI opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stern review. Please report any additional suspected socks there.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, will do! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Topic ban proposal for Michaeltleslie

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

---

Michaeltleslie (talk · contribs)'s purpose here seems to promote one "MD Rabbi Alam", starting with adding him to the Million Muslim March article (which was a damp squib). The same day Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MD Rabbi Alam was created (and rejected on October 9th) and his name added to 3 other BLPs (along with the MM march). These edits[131] added a mini-bio to List of University of Phoenix alumni. Now this was a new editor so the bad references, etc are understandable. We then get a biography added to WP:BLPN[132]. On the 5th of this month he created User:Michaeltleslie/MD Rabbi Alam and added another series of edits to Million Muslim March to promote Alam.[133] And something I've never seen before, added a link to an AfD as a source in the article Jason Kander.[134] On the 9th a 'faux article' was created at Template talk:MD Rabbi Alam (I've blanked it) and Template:MD Rabbi Alam. An editor took this to templates for discussion on the 9th, where it has been relisted although I'm not clear why and is now at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 18#Template:MD Rabbi Alam. We also have on the 9th the creation of a redirect request[135] which is again a bio.

I don't know if this editor is capable of editing Wikipedia according to our policies and guidelines, but I am proposing at least a topic ban on anything to do with M D Rabbi Alam. The warnings and advice given on his talk page seem to have been ignored. He did ask User:Cirt for advice on the 9th but then went on to create the template and the redirect request which as actually a bio. Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed that he didn't create User:Michaeltleslie/MD Rabbi Alam, he created Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/MD Rabbi Alam which User:EricSerge userfied and speedy tagged but turned into a redirect to the userspace page (which if deleted will be a red link of course). Dougweller (talk) ( 12:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There also seems to be a major conflict of interest as it would appear as though they know each other see here. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban because it's epic fail not to. Man katal (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Revision of topic ban Probably needs to include anything to do with the Million Man March. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: My sole advice to the user was this, DIFF. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - editor cannot currently be trusted to edit in these areas. With a topic ban, he has the opportunity to show he can be a constructive editor in other areas. If he breaks it, then we need to indef. GiantSnowman 18:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban since we're here anyway. It has been shown that the editor is causing massive amounts of disruption to the topic. Epicgenius (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Just trying to keep this open during a very quiet time of the year. Dougweller (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support as per GiantSnowman. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Nichiren Shōshū

Disruptive behaviour by User:Daileyn on Nichiren Shōshū — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catflap08 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Daileyn started a DRN thread about 20 minutes after this thread was started (and about 10 minutes after he was notified). Probably better to work it out over there for now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As the volunteer coordinator at WP:DRN this month I'll be putting that (DRN) discussion on hold until this discussion is closed. So far it appears there are no diffs nor any substance to the complaint, so a speedy close by an Admin might be in order. Thanking you in advance. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion appears to be continuing at Talk:Nichiren Shōshū.--ukexpat (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that. I think they are making progress now that some experienced editors have joined the conversation so I will close the case at DRN and let the talk page discussion continue to develop a consensus. Thanks for all your help. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user Goethean on Gun Control article

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

---

The gun control article is currently the subject of a controversial and heated discussion and RFC, which Goethean is continually disrupting. Deleting the section under discussion, removing sources, tag bombing, etc.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_control&curid=44276&diff=586691031&oldid=586690527
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=586689737
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=586686675
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=586350360 (prior to creation of RFC, but during active discussion)

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Might also be worth mentioning the rude personal attacks by this editor (goethean) on another editor's talk page. ROG5728 (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Page numbers are, in fact, needed for those references and the Nazi Germany section does, in fact, duplicate the scope of another article: Gun politics in Germany. That's apart from the fact that the inclusion of the Nazi Germany section in the history section is inappropriate and detracts from the article's neutrality. — goethean 20:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Repeatedly deleting the material while it's being discussed is clearly disruptive, regardless of what you personally think of the material. Leaving bad comments on another editors' talk page is also disruptive. ROG5728 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but User:Gaijin42 claims that my "tag bombing" the article is disruptive. In fact, I added templates which are entirely appropriate to the article --- and he reverted my change. You can't cite the entirety of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (he actually did this!). You need to supply a page number. — goethean 21:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that ROG5728 has appeared. ROG5728 is the editor who on 11 Apil 2013 moved the "Associations with authoritarism" subsection from "Arguments" to "History".[136] That was the original bad move that has resulted in strife and edit wars at the article ever since. Seriously: he moved a section which (NRA-style) argued for gun control's association with authoritarianism to History, and that's why we have a mini-history of the Holocaust at gun control. Maybe ROG5728 can explain to everyone why he moved a section which described arguments made by one side in a debate to the History section. Of course one could just as well ask User:Gaijin42 and User:North8000, as they are the ones who have been enforcing ROG5728's bad move since April. — goethean 12:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion on the article content is well reflected in the RFC discussion. The discussion here is your attempt to WP:GAME and WP:DISRUPT the discussion by deleting the content and sources WHILE THE DISCUSSION is ongoing. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime, it appears this editor (goethean) has also performed at least 3 reverts on that article in the last 24 hours. ROG5728 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the article in question has repeatedly been characterised as a POV-fork of our oddly-named Gun Politics article - and lacks any reliable sourcing whatsoever to justify this forking. The article is clearly maintained by contributors intent on skewing an article supposedly giving international coverage of a topic to suit the narrow agenda of factions of the U.S. gun lobby. The article concerned likewise lacks any sourcing beyond active supporters of this lobby for the assertion that 'gun control in Nazi Germany' is of any great significance to the subject - unsurprisingly, given that, contrary to propaganda dissipated by fringe pro-gun lobbyists, the Nazis actually reduced regulation of access to firearms for the majority of the population - and no credible mainstream historian appears to support the assertion that the restriction of access to firearms (or even to butchers knives for that matter) was anything other than part of the general process of removing citizenship rights, and general harassment, of the Jewish minority. The ridiculous attempt to correlate 'gun control' with 'totalitarianism' that the article propounds is unworthy of Wikipedia - as not only is it ridden with original research (of which the proponents are proposing to add still more [137]), but it utterly ingores the self-evident fact that some of the least authoritarian states in the world have also restricted access to firearms - and to a much greater extent, obviously, than Nazi Germany did (or didn't, as the evidence actually suggests). The 'article' is little more than a propaganda-piece, and a disgrace to Wikipedia. If there was to be any pretence at NPOV, this fork would be merged with our other article on the regulation of firearms, the U.S.-centric pro-gun spin would be removed, and those responsible for this abuse of Wikipedia for narrow political objectives would be sanctioned severely. I say 'if', because it is evident that this disgraceful state of affairs has been allowed to go on for as long as it has largely because of the narrow U.S.-centric bias of Wikipedia, and because those behind this dungheap of pseudohistorical spin are willing and able to rally an entire corps of 'contributors' to muddy the discussion with off-topic personal attacks, tendentious and repetitive nonsense, and a complete refusal to actually support the position of the article with credible sources. The tactic used to rally the troops on this occasion is one that I seem to recall Gaijin42 using before: posting a POV-ridden RfC which asserts as fact that which is under debate, and then notifying the mob that took part in the last farcical 'debate'. I'm sure that such tactics will prevail once more, and Wikipedia coverage of firearms regulation will remain the festering heap of shite that it currently is. Some things in Wikipedia are beyond fixing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

no credible mainstream historian appears to support the assertion that the restriction of access to firearms...was anything other than part of the general process of removing citizenship rights, and general harassment, of the Jewish minority.

...which is why we have really funny things like User:Gaijin42 citing a NYT article from Nov 9 1938 as a reference in the article. This citation is still in the article; Gaijin42 reverted, without supplying an edit summary, my attempt to remove it.[138] — goethean 21:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Uncontested Facts (such as a german official making a particular announcement, on a particular day in this case) do not suddenly change because the source documenting them is old. Additionally, that NYT article is cited by numerous secondary sources (The Halbrook article, but also many books on Kristallnacht). To your point above about citing the entirety of the rise and fall of the 3rd reich - I reverted your disruptive tag bomb during a discussion, but I do not believe I am the one who added that source to the article, however, it has been in the article for many months, so I could be wrong. As mentioned in the article discussion, yo umake many accusations about fringeness and sick fantasies, yet have yet to point out a single factual error in the section. You may disagree with the opinions of people in terms of the relevance of the facts (that are undisputed by all historians and sources) all you want, but their opinions are notable, and should be represented neutrally in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

What do 'all historians' (or indeed any historians beyond the fringes of the U.S. gun lobby) have to say on the relevance of Nazi Germany to a general discussion regarding the regulation of firearms? How about rather than Google-mining for obscure sources to promote your agenda, you actually engage in a little wider research? If Nazi Germany is really as significant to the article subject as you wish to make out, prove it - by finding the independent sources the article so clearly lacks... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Again you propose bars that do not exist. ALL POINTS OF VIEW are to be included to maintain neutrality. There are dozens and dozens of sources discussing this topic. Some neutral, some biased, some about gun control, some about the holocaust - but even if we had only the biased gun control sources, it would not change the fact that it is at minimum a notable minority viewpoint that should be represented. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. And WP:WEIGHT. And WP:OR. And then provide evidence that anyone but the same old sources you are repeatedly trotting out actually consider Nazi Germany of such significance that it merits the coverage our article gives it. Evidence from sources discussing the general subject, and not sources promoting the same propagandistic and pseudohistorical agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Uncontested Facts (such as a german official making a particular announcement, on a particular day in this case) do not suddenly change because the source documenting them is old.

If you are not a credentialed historian, then you should not be citing primary sources like old newspapers as if you were. And you should not be treating my removal of such as if it were vandalism. — goethean 22:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

When did "old newspapers" become "primary sources"? I read the WP defs over and over -- and suggest that "old newspapers" are invariably "secondary sources." Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought you knew this. It becomes a primary source, fringe, OR, not Cabal approved whenever a small group says so. Unless you are a credentialed historian/scientist/Nobel Prize winner who agrees with them, you really shouldn't participate. GregJackP Boomer! 00:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Very Painful Experience - This incident by Goethean has been very painful for many of the serious and patient established editors. I have been editing for 10 years and in my entire experience nobody has ever come onto my talk page and just started dumping profanities at me like Goethean. And I edit the Global Warming pages so that should tell you something. He's disruptive in his editing approach and he is disruptive on the talk page. Specifically:

• profanity on my personal talk page.
• removing blocks of content without discussion on talk.
• adding need verification tags to peer reviewed, npov, very reputable content that is not in dispute
• unwillingness to discuss substance on the talk pages, focus on person attacks and personal disagreements.
• other points raised above by other editors

I think my fellow editors have been very patient. This is some of the worst of Wikipedia right here. This is why good editors leave. I feel bullied by this editor Goethean. Regarding the dubious contention that the article is a POV fork, a cursory search for gun control on google returns 700million hits. Gun control sections exist on the major newsmedia sites like cnn and time. In addition, broad subjects sometimes have independent articles....ie, climate change also has separate global warming, politics of global warming, global cooling and a bunch of other articles.....similarly at a minimum, gun control deserves a stand alone article page. So that claim is weak. The article is not in the best of shape right now because of disruptive editing like that seen by Goethean -Justanonymous (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

A POV fork is when there are two articles on the same topic in order to display a particular point of view in one of them. Whether there are gun control articles on CNN is beside the question of whether gun control has been turned into a POV fork of the recently-renamed gun politics. I am sorry that I have made you feel bullied and I will do my best not to bully you. — goethean 00:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

"Gun control sections exist on the major newsmedia sites like cnn and time". Yet again, Justanonymous demonstrates the fundamental problem with this article - it is driven exclusively by the narrow discourse around 'gun control' in the U.S. This article is supposed to be presenting a multinational perspective on a global issue. It singularly fails to do so. Furthermore, it also fails to even offer a balanced viewpoint of the subject from a U.S. perspective. Instead, it cherry-picks sources to project the absurd 'argumentium ad Hitlerium' perspective of a minority even within the pro-gun lobby. This is a fundamental violation of WP:NPOV policy, and all the petty whining about 'being bullied' (yeah, right, as if Justanonymous wasn't engaging in the same personal attacks s/he accuses others of) should not divert our attention from this fact. Yes the debate is heated, and no, it isn't always civil - but the more fundamental issue is that Wikipedia is being abused by contributors concerned entirely with pushing a fringe agenda, rather than producing an article which accurately represented a balanced view of the subject. This is the real issue than needs addressing here. Or if not here, then perhaps at ArbCom, where the continued abuse of Wikipedia by POV-driven propagandists might at least stand a chance of being dealt with in a more fundamental way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump I would welcome arbcom. your repeated attempts to derail consensus building by wikilawyering and attempting to stop RFCs, goetheans removal of sources during a discussion of sourcing, complete ignoring of the pillar that "ALL Points of view should be represented" (" we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view") plenty for arbcom to discuss. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Please illustrate with diffs where you have attempted to add any points of view other than your own into the article. Oh, thats right, you haven't, have you? No surprises there... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

And goethean removes another source, directly discussing laws which prevented Jews from owning guns, during the discussion about if this section is sourced or not. This type of behavior is unacceptable. [139] The cited reference : [140] which reads ) "[Discussing the Nov 11 law] This prohibited Jews from "acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition [...] those now possessing weaopns and ammunition are to at once turn them over to the local police[...]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 18 December 2013

(Non-administrator comment) Has anyone noticed that Goethean actually admitted to being disruptive? [141][142] And all this while s/he is supposedly on a wikibreak (plus, s/he boldly declares that s/he is indefinitely topic-banned somewhere else; WP:IDHT, anyone?). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Erpert, those diffs do not show Goethean "admitting" any such thing. You should strike through them. It's really important not to distort or exaggerate the statements of other editors, particularly in the context of a heated discussion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

If that was a misunderstanding, I apologize, but that was hardly a personal attack. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 02:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

(plus, s/he boldly declares that s/he is indefinitely topic-banned somewhere else; WP:IDHT, anyone?)

The topic-ban from Tea Party movement-related pages could be construed to include hundreds of pages. The note atop my user page is intended to be a request for editors to contact me if they think that I have edited a page that I am not supposed to edit. It is difficult for me to understand how you think that I was bragging about a topic-ban. — goethean 14:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend all of Goethean's behavior here, but Gun control does appear to me to be an indefensible POV fork. A haphazard collection gun laws from various countries apparently to promote the gun lobby's point of view, with half the references coming from blogs or news media when we should be citing historians and other scholars. I believe a boomerang is in order here. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Goethean should be sternly warned to be more polite when dealing with people who create NRA-driven POV forks. Those people, on the other hand, should be ashamed of themselves for subverting Wikipedia for the purpose of politically biased historical revisionism and rewarded by having their fork chopped off. I support deleting the article and salting the earth. MilesMoney (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be doing the gun lobby in general a disservice to suggest that the article accurately represents their point of view. They usually present better arguments than "Hitler took away the Jews guns so anyone who wants guns to be regulated is a Nazi" - this seems to be an extreme position even for them. This isn't mainstream 'gun lobby' propaganda, it is right-wing-conspiracy-theorist propaganda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll accept your correction. If it's even further to the right than the NRA and all the way into the lunatic fringe, all the more reason to burn it with fire. MilesMoney (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm disappointed that Gaijin sought this forum. Goethean, while not much of a diplomat, has a point to make: the referencing in these articles is full of all kinds of problems, even at the basic level of using on-the-spot newspaper reports to verify broad statements about supposed policy goals, missing page numbers, basic confusion between factual verification and historical interpretation. Some throw around RS, as if RS allows us to insert POV interpretation as if it were established fact. BTW, Goethean isn't the worst of the NPA offenders--there's one on the other side who's worse, in my opinion. Anyway, I see no need for admin intervention. What this needs is the intervention of a historian, preferably a professor, to give a lesson or two on picking sources, being objective, and differentiating between statement and interpretation. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

drmies As I have mentioned before, I have great respect for you as an editor and an admin. I think we are both well aware of our difference of opinion on gun and gun rights, and in the end the consensus may go against me (although I think no-consensus would be the probable outcome currently)- but surely you aren't saying it is acceptable to blank the section multiple times, and delete sources, when the discussion is the sources themselves! BTW, I certainly dont think throwing around RS allows up to insert POV as established fact - but the dozens and dozens of sources certainly does allow us to insert and attribute the POV as one of the multiple points of view on the topic. the primary sources are used to supplement the secondary sources - and those secondary sources directly reference and cite the primary sources. This is the exact purpose of WP:PRIMARY.I am very well aware that the section (and article) have major problems, but we are unable to work tactically on improving the article, because this same "it must be deleted, nobody can ever hear of this" attitude has been driven by Goethean and a few others for almost a year now. This is not WP:FRINGE NOBODY (no historians, no gun control advocates, editors here notwithstanding) disagrees about the facts. There can be no fringe on "what should we think about these uncontested facts" - everything by definition is an opinion. harcourt, slate, mother jones, straight dope, etc, all the preceding have directly addressed this topic - sure some disagree on the conclusion, but all admit the facts, and by entering the debate, surely it shows that the opposing pov is notable Gaijin42 (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oh gosh. I took a look at the article and its a festering mess of OR, SYNTH, COATRACK and everything that makes Wikipedia suck. It really needs a complete rewrite by a competent and unbiased editor, after which it will be much shorter and much better. Meantime, Gaijin42 needs to stop reverting. --John (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have had an immense amount of experience with Goethen, and about 90% has been painful, driven by Goethean. And the next runner up I've encountered in the entire Wikipeda is about 1/6th of that (about 15%). I am mentioning this only to say that what I say about behavior at this article is carefully considered and reinforced. They seem to turn everything into a nasty attack, a spun-up accusation, insult, villianizing people or viewpoints, ad hominem deprecation of people and that as a way to deprecate their viewpooitns, or something similar to that. A close review of the the last week or so at the talk page would go a long way towards illustrating and establishing this. They have also been trying to get their way by "aggressive editing" in areas under discussion, to put it charitably,but managing to stay under at least the bright line 3RR def of edit warring. What we have there is what would be the typical widespread situation of a contentious article due to reflecting a real-world contest...contentious but not nasty. Except that it has been turned into a painful situation largely by Goethean's behavior, and to a lesser extent by that of Andy the Grump. The behavior and atmosphere problem is what needs to get solved there. I'd suggest one of two ways to fix it:

• Give Gooethen a rest from the article and a warning to Andy or
• Place a general warning on the article that there is to be little or no: turning things into a nasty attacks, doing spun up accusations, insults, villianizing people or viewpoints, ad hominem deprecation of people and ad hominem deprecation of people that as a way to deprecate their viewpoints.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

If I had to suggest a fix for the article, it would be to (for a few weeks) turn it over to two participants there who I have immense respect for and who I've seen take the "high road" 100% of the time, exhibit expertise, and who I think are on opposite sides of this issue. Drmies and Gaijin42. And the rest of us voluntarily agree to sit back for a few weeks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• disruptive. parsing out the subtleties twix firearm and gun is ridiculous[143], such behavior may be considered obstructive or worse by some. from the cited source which was deleted by the editor, This prohibited Jews from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearmsDarkstar1st (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that 'citation' presents a perfect example of the piss-poor Google-mining WP:OR that has gone on in the article. Let's look at the citation in full: "<ref>{{cite book| url=http://books.google.com/books?ei=42nAUdDqPKKOigKsxYCACw&id=uXnZAAAAMAAJ&dq=complete+history+of+the+holocaust&q=weapons#search_anchor | title=A Complete History of the Holocaust | accessdate=2013-06-18}} page68</ref>". That's right, it is a citation to a Google search result! A Google search result which when followed tells us that the book is in the category "Juvenile Nonfiction". The search result presents a single small 'snippet', but no further context. Has whoever added the citation read the book? I think it is fair to assume not - otherwise why cite a Google search result rather than the book itself? Does the person who added the citation know what the authors views are on the relevance of gun control to the Holocaust, beyond this brief contextless snippet? I very much doubt it. Furthermore, the snippet tells us that "This [What? - The snippet doesn't show the previous sentence...] prohibited Jews from 'acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons...'". So it is 'weapon control', rather than 'gun control' anyway. The ('Juvenile') source is being cited to support something it doesn't actually directly say, based almost certainly on what is visible in a brief snippet. Such 'sourcing' would be dubious at best in support of an uncontroversial statement about an episode of The Simpsons, but in reference to the Holocaust? Truly appalling... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed a "Juvenile Non-Fiction" book the other day--was it stuck back in? Drmies (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I see that I raised the same point on the talk page, plus a couple of others. We just went through a similar thing in Gun Control Act of 1968, where the allegation was proposed, in our article, that the US 1968 act was based on or even copied from Nazi legislation. The "clincher" there was a statement by Neal Knox, a notable person and pro-gun activist, who had published a book with a real publisher, in which they drew the conclusion (to cut a long story short) that because a US legislator had read the German law and another had submitted the German law and a translation to the Congressional Record that therefore the US law had to be based on the Nazi law. This supposition on Knox's part (clear synthesis and guesswork, with no actual evidence provided for instance from analysis and comparison between the documents, or evidence from the person who supposedly wrote the law) was inserted in the article as a reference to support the suggestion that US legislators adopted Nazi legislation. Compare this version, "Alleged Nazi connections", to the current version, where the section now reads nothing but "Gun rights activists often associate the 1968 GCA with Nazi gun control laws, with some saying that the bill was comparable to German laws." The earlier section and its problems present the Gun control issue in miniature. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Not surprised the article is full of POV. Because this ANI thread is full of the opposite political point of view pretending to be neutral. Nothing will be achieved here because nearly everyone is too emotionally charged over guns one way or the other to contribute positively to this situation.--v/r - TP 15:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, I beg to differ, but the basic question is whether Goethean's comments (many of which address content issues, by the way and, also by the way, I suggested they tone it down--maybe too quietly) is actionable or not as personal attacks. I don't see that it is. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

On the behavior side, rather than try to ascertain whether such a severe or bright line has been crossed to merit sanctions, IMHO some milder actions to fix the nasty talk page atmosphere are merited. Even a general warning (but which lists the nastiness tools that I suggested above) not directed at any individual would be a help. North8000 (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The personal attacks issue is weak, they are certainly skirting incivility, but it probably isn't an NPA. The issue is repeated vandalism and disruption of the exact section which is being discussed in an RFC. A clear case of WP:GAME and WP:DE, regardless of the ultimate strength or weakness in goethean's arguments.Gaijin42 (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, you've got a POV warrior here who has already been topic banned from Tea Party articles. Since gun right's is a MAJOR Tea Party issue, I'm not sure how that's not a topic ban violation. But even assuming it isn't, this ANI thread and Goethean's comments make it clear that the Tea Party topic ban wasn't broad enough. He's clearly disruptive in more than just Tea Party and I think a broader topic ban of all political articles would be more suited to his flagerant disregard for content policies (misuse of WP:IRS to suit his POV). The article may need to be toned down for POV, but this ANI thread is clearly on the opposite end of the spectrum, not center and most definitely not neutral.--v/r - TP 16:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Drmies: Nothing speaks more to Goethean's misuse of WP:IRS than this diff right here. Goethean is making a rediculous requirement for page numbers when no such requirement is supported by policy. The requirement in WP:V is that a source be verifiable, not that they are easily verifiable. Next he'll ask for the paraphraph number, sentence number, and then the exact word by book word count. It's a rediculous requirement, made up by Goethean, to fight sources he doesn't like. That's POV pushing at it's finest, my friend.--v/r - TP 16:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Although there is no strict policy about providing page numbers in books, it is a well-established content guideline. It is also, obviously, good editing practice. In my experience, people who refuse to provide page numbers usually have a reason they won't disclose, such as not actually having the book or not being able to find it in the book. Someone adding text to an article must have checked the citation themselves, that is definitely policy, so why can't they give a page number? Requesting a page number is perfectly reasonable, though removing a citation until a page number is provided may or may not be (it depends on circumstances). For something highly disputed, refusal to provide a page number can be evidence of unverifiability. Zero^talk 01:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

No, not really. The Tea Party article specifically says that such social issues as gun control are NOT part of the broad tea party movement and go so far as to point out two local exceptions to that rule. Gun control is mentioned only once in that article, in that line about the local exception. So no this really isn't part of Tea Party. It might be part of conservatism generally, but not the tea party. 16:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

[144] "15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs...5. Gun ownership is sacred." Please don't be silly.--v/r - TP 16:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Tparis, there's a bunch of POV warriors here (I may well be considered one, though I resent the term). I'm not familiar with Goethean or the topic ban and its circumstances, but to say that gun control is part of a Tea Party ban because the Tea Party talks about gun control, that's a stretch, despite your one-liner above. Next thing you know you'd disallow Goethean from editing topics on US politics, the Republican Party, immigration, taxes, redistricting, K-street, Washington DC (the city), and the list can go on. And I vehemently disagree with your assessment of the content discussion (and Gaijin's "vandalism" accusations--one could charge disruption, but edit warring is a two-way street): in my opinion Goethean and Andy have a better understanding of precisely what RS and NPOV mean than their opponents. Seriously, you can't go around citing NRA officials on Nazi gun policies, or Juvenile Non-Fiction, or 1938 on-the-spot newspaper reports in an article like this, and I think you know this, politics aside. Warn Goethean, on their talk page or here, for adopting an inappropriate tone and start 3R proceedings if need be (but look at what other editors have done--it's plain to see in that article history), but this thread is too broad, and I doubt you'll find a lot of admins agreeing that Goethean needs to be sanctioned for their behavior. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually you absolutely CAN quote NRA officials on their opinions. WP:NPOV explicitly states "ALL POINTS OF VIEW". Not "All points of view except the NRA". Not "all points of view that are popular in the liberal media". Not "All points of view that the editors here agree with". ALL POINTS OF VIEW. Period. These are recognized and notable experts in their field, and their views are repeated in multiple neutral sources (as one of the possible viewpoints). Reversion of vandalism is not edit warring. Deleting the content under discussion is vandalism. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The Juvenile non-fiction can no more be thrown away for lack of context than it can be used for lack of context. Being written for adolescents doesn't change what it is. And age does not make a reliable source unreliable. If that were the case, we need to update Template:Cite to warn us in 100 years that our citations are too old. We use on-the-spot citations constantly. Don't you recall the Balloon boy hoax? The argument is only because used now because of a POV, plain and simple. And no, I wouldn't call you a POV warrior. Holding a POV and warring over it are different things. The only problem I can see is an over-dependence on pro-gun sources and especially the NRA. However, citing the NRA on Gun's Right's is no different than citing TransWatch.org or the Southern Poverty Law Center on anti-gay hate speech. They have a viewpoint and they are going to express it on their blogs and site. Either we allow that stuff or we don't. But we certainly do not pick and choose which ones we support based on our personal POV. There are objective criteria, they exist at WP:IRS and being biased is specifically not a determining factor in if a source is reliable. Read the policy yourself, there is a section specific to what I am talking about here. Goethean needs to be topic banned from anywhere he is incapable of contributing to without causing disruption. Clearly Tea Party isn't broad enough. His emotionally fueled tirades against the NRA are clear on that. That the article actually does have a POV slant doesn't absolve him of his behavior and I seriously doubt he could make the article neutral. He'd very happily just slant it the other way and be proud of himself. No, this guy is not capable of editing this article and I'd say politics in general.--v/r - TP 16:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

And off we go again. Yet another contributor apparently unable to see beyond the narrow discourse of the U.S. gun control debate. This article is not about the NRA. It is not about the U.S. It is about the regulation of firearms throughout the world. Or it is supposed to be. The NRA is no more an authority on Nazi Germany than it is on Japan under the Shogunate. And it doesn't claim to be. The article entirely fails to demonstrate that this pseudohistorical bollocks has any credibility whatsoever beyond the right-wing fringes of U.S. politics. If this issue belongs anywhere, it belongs in an article on the U.S. gun debate - and clearly identified as the fringe position it is even there. Allowing this nonsense to dominate a supposedly international article is a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. The 'Nazis did it' argument simply has no credibility, and no traction, anywhere else, making it about the most blatant example of the endemic U.S.-centred bias that Wikipedia is lumbered with. This needs addressing, not the petty squabbles about who started calling who names first. That is a problem for the talk pages. This disgraceful 'article' is a far more fundamental problem, plainly visible to all those who read Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm prety sure you haven't read a word of what I wrote since I haven't said a single pro/anti gun thing here or even discussed article content. I'm discussing an editor who is liberally interpreting WP:IRS to suit his POV. That's a behavior issue. Since your entire post is about content, I'm not sure who you thought you were responding to, but it clearly wasn't me.--v/r - TP 23:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42 has edit-warred in order to keep in place what is agreed to be a non-neutral version of the article, one which which uses bad sources. These sources are apparently the result of the haphazard Google-mining of book-snippets[145] in order to compile sources to support the partisan argument that gun control is associated with authoritarianism. Of course, the putative support for this argument is placed in the history section, not the argument section. He then brings the opposing party to WP:ANI in order to have him blocked. When I remove an off-topic source, he undoes my edit[146] and accuses me of committing vandalism.[147] I suggest that WP:BOOMERANG is appropriate. — goethean 16:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

So you admit to deleting sources during a discussion about if content is sourced. Im glad we could clear that up. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Such removal is fair: we don't use Google snippets, since context is everything. What are you pointing at anyway--I know, you're pointing at the guns and nothing but the guns, but there's also mention of stabbing weapons and stout pieces of furniture. Essential questions like "did it matter at all" aren't answered by your snippet, so your inclusion (or edit-warring to keep it in?) to support what is seen by at least a half a dozen editors as POV editing is itself disruptive. You could have just let their edit stand and explained on the talk page precisely what was found in that book: but I have a suspicion that you don't have that book, only the snippet from Google Books. In contentious matters sourcing is everything--and citing snippets devoid of context and evaluation is not helpful. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The page is about gun control, therefore the relevant part of the content is the content discussing firearms. Yes, half a dozen think it is POV. an equal number think it is appropriate. We are in the middle of an RFC to determine consensus, and he deletes the content. This is not a BLP libel issue emergency. The content has stood for months, and he deleted it at the exact time that it was being discussed and would be most valuable for editors to evaluate. That is vandalism. Alternative history "did it matter" questions are very interesting. There is a good living to be made writing fiction about what the alternatives were. But it is absolutely uncontested that it did happen, so clearly the Nazi's thought it mattered. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my expressed concern on " nasty attack, a spun-up accusation, insult, villianizing people or viewpoints, ad hominem deprecation of people and that as a way to deprecate their viewpooitns, or something similar to that." I think that Goethean just did several of those in one post right here. And this is representative of what has been happening on the talk page. People can disagree without all of that painful crap. An atmosphere change is needed at the talk page. Disagreeing does not need to be painful nastiness. North8000 (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

North, Goethean made a couple of jabs on the talk page, but this particular comment is to the point and in no way nasty or villanizing. He says "Gaijin has edit-warred"--that's hardly a personal accusation or anything like that; if it is, then all Goethean's opponents, who accuse them of edit-warring and worse, should be blocked on the spot. Come on: be reasonable. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Goethean's summary is correct. Gaijin42 has tendentiously violated just about every one of the core content issues of WP. This kind of editing is why WP is nowadays increasingly derided and ridiculed by scholars, journalists, and ordinary researchers. Gaijin has persisted in this behavior for months now, driving away many editors such as myself who came to work on improving the article. As a relatively new editor trying to apply core WP policy, I was appalled to have Gaijin42 call my editing (via grammar he later tried to weasel out of) Holocaust denial. Those who haven't read it might review the entire talk thread on which Gaijin delivered that disgusting attack. Is this ANI process capable of doing the right thing? I stuck around for a while and then concluded that Gaijin simply would not allow constructive policy-based improvement to occur there, so I left. I propose a topic ban for Gaijin42, and if any editor agrees with me I suggest they begin a new bold-type sub-section in which to poll the opinions of the current group. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Editors attempted to redefine gun control to not include any discriminatorally written or applied laws (link), and attempted to say that gun control factually did not happen as part of the holocaust. If the shoe fits... Gaijin42 (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that Gaijin42 has just accused a contributor of Holocaust denial, I formally call for him to be blocked indefinitely.

See [148]. About as egregious personal attack as I have seen on this notice board. This repulsive behaviour cannot possibly be allowed to stand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

He's accused someone of denying part of the Holocaust, and one attack doesn't merit an indef, might not even be enough for a block. Seems punitive to request an indef. Dark Sun (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit. There was nothing in Gaijin's personal attack to suggest that. It had already been argued that Gaijin had previously accused a contributor of Holocaust denial. His response was "If the shoe fits..." AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think everyone needs to take a breather here... Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Erpert: - I don't think your solution stops the damage. I took a breather 6 months ago. So did others. How's that working? Please consider. Our purpose is to safeguard WP from behavior which threatens ultimately to destroy it. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't read as an accusation of holocaust denial. It reads as a denial that gun control played a part or existed as a piece of the Holocaust. It also doesn't read as an egregious personal attack. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what Capitalismojo just said. People using the holocaust to oppose U.S. gun control measures is ancient internet trope.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for these comments. It is absolutely outrageous to accuse other editors of holocaust denialism. We should have zero tolerance for this sort of behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Like CapitalistMojo, I didn't read the comment as an accusation of holocaust denial. Gaijin wrote that editors have "attempted to say that gun control factually did not happen as part of the holocaust". In my eyes, it seems like he is accusing editors (Goethan) of not seeing gun control as part of Holocaust. Not seing gun control laws as playing a part in Holocaust is hardly Holocaust denial. Iselilja (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

So what exactly is "If the Shoe fits" supposed to mean? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Its all tied into the gun control analogy. The turds that claim that Newtown was necessary evil to prevent another holocaust and internet hyperbole like that.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I find this an interesting block because I repeatedly have been accused of other forms of bigotry, and far more explicitly, which I haven't brought here. (IMHO and others, clearly trumped up accusations based on absurd interpretations of innocuous comments). Guess next time I will! Assuming it's not just a matter of who says it and how/which admin interprets it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump Maybe you are right and this was some attempt to link an editor (Specifico?) to Holocaust denial; only that Gaijin in that case doesn’t understand what Holocaust denial is; so his accusation becomes nonsensical. Iselilja (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That was obviously not an accusation of Holocaust denial nor was it a personal attack. Gamaliel, did you actually read the editor's comment before blocking him? He was talking about people denying that gun control occurred (or was significant) during the Holocaust -- totally different. AndyTheGrump is just looking for a problem where none exists. ROG5728 (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It's plain English that it was NOT saying that somebody was denying the holocost. It was saying that they denied that gun control happened as a part of it: "and attempted to say that gun control factually did not happen as part of the holocaust." Folks need to read what they actually said instead of ginned up mis-characterizaitons of what they said. They should be unblocked immediately and an apology given for the error. North8000 (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I would have read the comment in the same way as the blocking admin. When playing this game, editors need to be especially careful not to use words that can be mis-construed. --John (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

And other editors need to be very careful not to intentionally and with full complete understanding of their actions misrepresent others to get them blocked.--v/r - TP 16:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• John, Gamaliel, I'm sorry, but I disagree strongly. I'm on the verge of unblocking but won't, since I don't want to add more fuel to this fire, and I think I'm the only admin so far who opposes the block, so I'm outgunned for now.

  Anyone in this discussion knows that I'm strongly opposed to some of the claims made by Gaijin in this thread and on the talk page, but I don't see that this comment was an accusation of holocaust denial. "If the shoe fits" and all that is a rather boneheaded comment, but I do not think this (and other comments) rise to the level of blockable. For the record (in duplicate) I don't think that Gaijin and others have proven that Goethean ought to be blocked either. I strongly urge Gamaliel to reconsider: denying that certain events happened in 1938 (mind you, Gaijin, that's before the Holocaust--another reason why this was a bit boneheaded, plus, no one argued that Jews were not denied certain rights) isn't the same as denying the Holocaust. Consider unblocking Gaijin, with the caveat that they really need to look before they leap, since a number of editors clearly took their comment to mean what I don't think Gaijin intended it to mean. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

John How can you say that? It's clear plain English:

Preface which says that what follows is what Gaijin said that they attempted to say: "and attempted to say"

And so here Gaijin says what he claims they attempted to say:

• Subject: Gun control"
• Verb "Did not happen"

And to top it off, the end doubles up on that because with "as part of the holocaust." Gaijin is implicitly saying that they are are acknowledging that the holocaust DOES exist, the exact opposite of what Gaijin is accused of. North8000 (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That was a bad block. Gaijin should be unblocked immediately, as there is no way a reasonable person would take that as a personal attack or an accusation of holocaust denial. GregJackP Boomer! 19:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Why would you think that calling a couple of people "unreasonable" is going to help matters at all? Drmies (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It probably helps a bit more than telling other editors they are full of it and to quit sprouting bullshit.--v/r - TP 16:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• I can be persuaded that a block was justified, but not on the stated grounds. The actual accusation of holocaust denalism was in April, the recent "if the shoe fits" comment was in fact, snippy, but not an accusation of holocaust denialism. The specific context here was Specifico complaining about something that Gaijin42 said several months ago, and Gaijin42 responding poorly. Responding to "you said something mean, X, about me" and replying "I did not, but if the shoe fits" is not the same thing as saying X, even if it is poor behavior--Tznkai (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• The comment by Gaijin appears to have been intended to cause some degree of stir - one does not bring up Holocaust when describing an editor otherwise. Could his comment be interpreted in 2 (or more) different ways? Yup. I see that Gaijin has yet to post an unblock request that clarifies both the meaning of his written words and the intent of them. If they provide a valid, WP:GAB-compliant request, then unblock accordingly. ES&L 19:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• If it was a one-off comment, then possibly, but given the previous issues [149] I don't see how any convincing GAB-compliant request could be made. Black Kite (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've tried very hard to be offended by the comment. I lost family in the holocaust. I have found it impossible to be offended by this, but I find the block itself offensive in that it assumes that I might be offended by the post. This looks like 'hair trigger blocking" (I intend the play on words) and is a bad block. They should be unblocked at once. Of course I'm not an admin, but, seriously, this is political correctness gone mad. Fiddle Faddle 19:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Silly claim I read and read the offending post and did not read it as accusing anyone of "Holocaust denial" and the block, IMO, was unwarranted. I am amused that AtG is arguing that someone else has used intemperate language, of course. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Ridiculous block by what might be construed as an involved admin.--MONGO 20:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• It is an accusation of holocaust denial. There is nothing silly about the claim that this is an accusation of holocaust denial at all. The relevant passages are User:SPECIFICO's comment "I was appalled to have Gaijin42 call my editing (via grammar he later tried to weasel out of) of Holocaust denial" To which User:Gaijin42 replies "Editors...attempted to say that gun control factually did not happen as part of the holocaust. If the shoe fits... ". It's clear that the last sentence responds to SPECIFICO's complaint that he has been accused of holocaust denial. So Gaijin42 is clearly repeating the accusation, albeit in a slightly self-distancing way ('if the shoe fits'). Of course Gaijin42's argument is so utterly incoherent that the sentence can easily be misread. He seems to think that not including "gun control" in the Holocaust is entails denying that the Holocaust happened (the definition of 'holocaust denial'). I think editors here are putting too innocent an interpretation on these remarks because the utter illogicality of the argument actually obscures what was being said. Yes, "Not seeing gun control laws as playing a part in Holocaust is hardly Holocaust denial", as Iselilja has noted. But the point is that Gaijin42's comment makes no sense unless he thinks that it is holocaust denial. Paul B (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You present an interesting link -- the salient part of which appears to be: Don't resort to some pathetic demented Survivor. Pity him, but don't wave his fear and rage at us in this WP article. I suggest that where such an antecedent is found, that the discourse is blamable on both parties equally, to be sure. Gaijin ought never use the word "Holocaust" and SPECIFICO ought never refer to pathetic demented Survivors. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

As Paul said, the comment in question is "incoherent". So, if Gaijin42 acknowledges incoherency and promises to be more coherent in future, and clarifies that he does not accuse the other editor of holocaust denial, then we should be able to move on. Grump raises a good point about the article being a POV fork, but perhaps its focus (and title) could be narrowed to avoid that problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have just unblocked User:Gaijin42. He has agreed to be civil in his interactions with other editors and refrain from references to holocaust denial. Unless someone is, you know, actually denying the Holocaust. Gamaliel (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Block Andy for intentionally and dishonestly misrepresenting a user.--v/r - TP 23:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. 184.155.85.172 (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Propose topic ban for Gaijin42

Given that this is User:Gaijin42's second block for behaviour while editing this same problematic article, I propose a 12-month topic ban from this article, to begin when the block expires. --John (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It's plain English that it was NOT saying that somebody was denying the holocost. It was saying that they denied that gun control happened as a part of it: "and attempted to say that gun control factually did not happen as part of the holocaust." Folks need to read what they actually said instead of ginned up mis-characterizaitons of what they said. They should be unblocked immediately and an apology given for the error. North8000 (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That was obviously an invalid block, and your proposal (John) is equally invalid. ROG5728 (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not at all obvious to me. Bringing in the holocaust then saying "if the shoe fits" sure looked like he was calling the other user a holocaust denier to me. Good block, if lenient. --John (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

John, looking at the context of the triggering statement, it appears that Specifico brought the holocaust into it, at least proximally. I think there may be some justification for this, but I'd like considerably more evidence of a pattern of behavior.--Tznkai (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think we're there yet, though I do think that Gaijin needs to take these proposals into consideration and adjust their own tone. Gaijin, just because someone opposes your edits or your comments doesn't mean they're your enemy or something like that. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I hope that editors will refer to the talk page and edit history of the article, starting with the Reliable sources thread on April 2013 talk. Sad to say, this is a case of willful tendentious disregard for core WP content policies and civil discussion thereof. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support but having looked through recent contributions (notably on Gun Control Act of 1968) I would suggest a broader topic ban on gun control issues; the user is clearly unable to stop associating gun control with Nazism. Black Kite (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. This is merely an effort to silence an editor. Making up so-called personal attacks that aren't, invalid blocks, and now a transparent attempt to run someone off. Not cool. GregJackP Boomer! 19:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry Greg, but "effort to silence an editor" is a rather preposterous accusation. I don't think you can accuse John of having such high stakes in a gun control debate that he'd want the opposition muzzled. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. It is much clearer than the bad block. Some of those here owe Gaijin an apology. GregJackP Boomer! 00:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Draconian solutions are rarely without unforeseen consequences, and the proposal here is no answer to much at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Unthinkable Building this on a clearly erroneous block and the clearly erroneous misinterpretation that it was based on is unthinkable. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't know the editor, nor what this dispute is about, but the block is a bad block anyway, so discipline can not follow. There is no smoking gun here. Fiddle Faddle 20:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Irreverent comment I hope you know you're going to hell for that pun.--Tznkai (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a hell? Wow. Fiddle Faddle 20:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

For child molesters, punsters, and people who talk at the theater.--Tznkai (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Lucky for me that it was a play on words, not a pun, then. Fiddle Faddle 20:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I am even less inclined to give the benefit of any doubt to this user per Black Kite's diff. Do those defending Gaijin42 maintain that he has been misunderstood both times? Seems like a stretch to me... --John (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not a well thought out or well evidenced proposal. It seems to me like some sort retributive action, like batttlegrounding. This topic has attracted enough of that. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Punishing Gaijin in this way amounts to a witch hunt. This User is entitled to their opinions like any other Wikipedian. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose facts, gun control happened, the holocaust happened, only one of these facts is being debated here which is as bizarre as if both were. the entire debate exist to decide if firearm means the same as gun control, troupslap. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Strenuously Oppose- Gaijin42 is one of our best editors. This is Beyond ludicrous. -Justanonymous (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support This isn't about punishing Gaijin, it's about keeping him away from a topic that he has proven to have no objectivity about. Frankly, revising the history of the Holocaust to lend support for right-of-NRA gun control opposition is intellectually bankrupt and morally offensive, particularly to those who've lost family to that genocide. Wikipedia should not be enabling this sort of thing. Gaijin's been propping up a POV fork that violates core principles, and I see no evidence that he understands what he's been doing wrong or intends to ever stop, so the ban is necessary to protect Wikipedia. MilesMoney (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The use of gun control measures to disarm the Jews in Nazi Germany immediately prior to the Holocaust is a historical fact supported by numerous reliable sources. Censoring history just because you hate the big, bad NRA is the only thing "intellectually bankrupt and morally offensive" in this case. ROG5728 (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose strongly and this is one of the most absurd, baseless topic ban proposals I have seen in a long time. ROG5728 (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is absurd. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe the block is more than sufficient under the circumstances and is probably a bit excessive. Gaijin said an editor was denying an aspect of the Holocaust and, while that did translate to essentially accusing him of Holocaust denial, it is more a poor choice of wording. These sorts of things do not warrant a block-on-sight approach.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Gaijin42 has written that he "will focus on keeping things more civil going forward" and he should be given an opportunity to do so. If he does not, then this issue can be reconsidered. Gamaliel (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. And I'd like to point out that several of the 'oppose' !votes above appear to be from people 'notified'/canvassed by Gaijin42 in his last malformed 'RfC'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin notified users from both sides of the debate about the RfC. Could you be more specific about what you see as canvassing? Iselilja (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

THe 'RfC' was so malformed and NPOV-violating that it is difficult to see how anyone could take it seriously - but that clearly wasn't the point. It wasn't a 'request for comment', it was a rallying-call for the rent-a-mob that have kept the article in the disgusting state it has been in for so long. Gaijin42 knows full well how to game the system - he's pulled the same stunt before. Sure he 'notifies' a few token opponents of his propagandising spin - but he does so in the full knowledge that his relentless POV-pushing, stonewalling and obstructiveness drives off anyone without the same facile agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I found out about this when I saw his 24 hour block in my Watchlist. Gaijin had nothing directly to do with me coming to his defense. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

indeed, I'd like to point out that several of the 'support' !votes above appear to be from people 'notified' by me. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose...but look...even the perhaps vague insinuation of holocaust denial is a no go zone without concrete evidence to back it up. Editors need to be extremely cautious when they word such notions. I still think the block itself was overkill and should be lifted, but remind editors that if you're going to make arguments over contentious issues that one must refrain from being accusatory towards opposing viewpoints and the editors that one is in disagreement with.--MONGO 22:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as retaliation by those who oppose his POV. The problem here is Goethean.--v/r - TP 23:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for various reasons mentioned above, not to mention the proposer didn't even link to the first block in their proposal which would seem to be the polite and prudent thing to do. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Back to the topic

Let's just get something done to tone down the nastiness that is rampant at the article. Specifically, nasty attacks, spun-up / ginned up accusations, insults, villianizing people or viewpoints, ad hominem deprecation of people and deprecating people as a a way to deprecate their viewpoints. Even just a general warning, but I think that these things should be mentioned in it. And lest the warning become yet another tool for warfare, (= ginned up accusations of violating the warning) just say to keep it vastly minimized. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

If only all editors were so rational! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The source of the 'nastiness' is the article itself - and the POV-pushing tag-team that control it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, while the four original diffs do seem to be more appropriate for WP:Edit warring, if Goethean's Nasty curse filled message on a user's talk page diff is typical, that's the issue that needs discussing. Having been brought to ANI recently for whining too much about POVs on article talk pages and warned about it, I sure would like to see someone warned about something that obnoxious. Assuming there isn't some double standard against female editors doing it, is it OK for me to start cursing people at that talk page, at least until they ban me? Geez, I do enjoy a good swearfest from time to time. (Just joking, do not quote me as being serious.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

This isn't about you. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• The supposed "curse filled message"? There is nothing to it. Goethean addresses the comments made by Justanonymous, nothing more. That they call those comments "bullshit", well, that's fair, since it's a comment on edits, not on the person. In fact, the opposite is probably true: Justanonymous is accusing Goethean of vandalism (a total misapplication of the term--see WP:VANDAL) and can't put their money where their mouth is. So if Goethean, accused of vandalism by someone who can't justify their claim, says "Start a thread about my vandalism or STFU", then that's their right. The sanctimonious "profanity will not be tolerated" is passive-aggressive behavior, exacerbated by Justanonymous feeling the need to make it more "official" by posting at length on Goethean's talk page, User_talk:Goethean#You_are_no_longer_welcome_on_my_talk_page. (BTW, Justanonymous, "Please assume that I own this talk page"--why should we? You don't own your talk page, just like I don't own mine.)

  As for the other points brought up in the first part of this thread--edit warring at most. Not vandalism. This thread should be closed. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Since there isn't Wikiquette noticeboard any more, what is considered proper etiquette ends up here for people to seek guidance: whining, cursing, personal attacks, etc. guidelines are in effect set at WP:ANI. So it's really about all of us. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Next Steps with Goethean

Goethean was very clearly in violation of WP:CIV on my talk page. That's why I banned him. Nobody has a right to just come and start using profanity on any talk page or article. It creates an acrimonious environment that we should seek to avoid per WP:CIV. It's very unWikipedia. I'm looking for a remedy:

1. The editor can provide Assurances to the community - That he will be civil and not disruptive
2. The community can extend the sanctions already in place - Goethean is already topic banned elsewhere
3. The community can do nothing -this would set a dangerous precedent for the community

-Justanonymous (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Wait, you're actually considering this to be "profanity"? Since when is "bullshit" profane? The only potentially uncivil aspect is when he tells you "you know that you are full of it, and you know that you are spouting bullshit" - but even that's pretty minor and is a stretch - certainly nothing there to "ban someone" from your talkpage and thus escalating the situation further ES&L 14:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If you'd kindly look at the whole exchange, you will see Goethean uses the STFU acronym which is a well known acronym for "Shut The Fuck Up" - derogatory in the extreme and bullying. The other word he uses bullshit is also derogatory and profane. When combined with his pattern of editing, describes a disruptive editor.-Justanonymous (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, I know what STFU stands for ... IIRC it's on my other userpage somewhere. Neither it nor "bullshit" are profane - and I cannot fathom you having such Victorian sensibilities in 2013 that you actually believe they are. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and yes, one needs to have a somewhat thick skin. You were not attacked, you were not bullied, you were challenged slightly aggressively to actually prove what you had been claiming ... and rather than do so, you kicked him off your talkpage, all the meanwhile feigning (at least, I can only imagine it's feigned) being insulted. ES&L 14:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

E&SL, Goethean is being a complete dick. Please quit pretending he's not. Fox News, the NRA, the Tea Party, and conservatives are generally hated around here, we get it. That doesn't excuse Goethean's dickish insults and battleground mentality.--v/r - TP 16:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention libertarians, many Austrian economists, some radical feminists, etc.? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Votes on Goethean

Extend Ban - absent very material assurances from editor Goethean which have not been forthcoming, we need to seriously consider extending the editors sanctions. He's already proven disruptive at tea party, and this topic is too closely related if not overlapping already. -Justanonymous (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Dear Justanonymous: You're making a joke of this distinguished ANI forum. It's time for you to withdraw this thread, move on, and stop harassing @Goethean:. SPECIFICO talk 14:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The editor is clearly disruptive, profane and uncivil. I didn't bring this issue up, but I'm happy to contribute that the editor is clearly uncivil and disruptive.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted, and the factuality of your statement questioned. You may also note that it's not getting anywhere. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, we've dumped 10,000 words on goethean here since the thread was opened. I'm sure people will vote in due course over what they think the course of action with him is.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Not in anyway condoning comments made to you, but this thread has already stalemated and my vote is to hat it off.--MONGO 16:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Haha! I tend to agree MONGO. These things usually end this way anyway.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Just start a list of new offenses against you and others for the next ANI. Surely they will come. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support remedy proposed by Justanonymous. Telling people to shut the fuck up and to stop spouting bullshit is not civil, and not conducive to thoughtful collaboration. And, ESL, I know that a typical panda will not eat shoots and leaves, and then curse out the other pandas. It doesn't matter whether the panda is Victorian or not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support remedy proposed by Justanonymous, for the reasons given by him and Anythingyouwant. GregJackP Boomer! 23:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support for reasons outlined above. This editor has a long record of being uncivil and disruptive on numerous articles. I also note he has an extensive block log already. ROG5728 (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Did he edit under a different name, or is this the "extensive block log" you note he already has? ---Sluzzelin talk 00:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support User should not be editing anywhere that he can't resist calling conservatives full of bullshit and POV pushing [150][151][152][153][154] and he can't resist tendentious editing [155]. This user has beef with American conservatives. He shouldn't be editing articles related to them.--v/r - TP 00:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose because I do not find Goethean's behavior to be any more problematic than that of the editor who proposed the ban. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I could support that, but I'd take it a step further and say all 3 of them.--v/r - TP 01:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Sold. a13ean (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Most of the comments TParis cites seem to have been provoked to some extent. Given the mutual talk of tendentious editing I am not sure I could support a sanction against Goethean alone unless there is some stronger evidence.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose obviously - and TParis, if you are seriously suggesting that there hasn't been POV-pushing in the gun control article, I can only assume you've either not looked at the talk page (and archives) in detail, or you are letting your own opinions sway your judgement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I haven't said that, in fact I've agreed "the article actually does have a POV slant". But again, you wouldn't know that because you haven't actually bothered to read what I wrote and you've been misrepresenting what folks say, Andy.--v/r - TP 01:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I have 'misrepresented' precisely nothing. Gaijin42 clearly accused a contributor of Holocaust denial. It may be convenient for some to sweep the fact under the carpet, but the evidence is clearly there. Using the phrase "If the shoe fits..." in response to a suggestion that Gaijin42 had previously implied that a contributor was a holocaust denier cannot possibly be interpreted in any other way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: Goethean isn't the worst of 'em. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Oppose this bullshit. SPECIFICO talk 02:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Charges against Goethean have been exaggerated to the point of falsehood. Drop the stick and back away. MilesMoney (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Goethean is a fair-minded editor who has made mistakes. There is little to no evidence in the way off diffs to support such a draconian measure. Until such evidence is provided, fair minded editors must oppose it. Steeletrap (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Another incident of template vandalism

on Pakistan. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)7

Might need emergency temporary protection on the entire namespace. Dark Sun (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Bit extreme... A Edit filter should suffix to root out the vandals. --Mdann52talk to me! 21:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Another Meepysheep sock. This time it was {{Native name}} that was vandalised. Only 14 minutes before it was reverted but long enough to generate 30 notifications by concerned users to OTRS. So whether it's edit filter or semi protect the entire template namespace, something needs to be done. NtheP (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Also World War 2.. Meepsheep again Pfalstad (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Somebody should put up an edit filter to block the usage of that content. Then, Meepsheep should probably be banned indefinitely (not just blocked). Epicgenius (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Autoblock needed, maybe also stop unconfirmed users adding images to templates with an edit filter and ask them in the message to request change on talk. Dark Sun (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate info box information

I found a series of potentially inaccurate edits today made by an anonymous editor, Special:Contributions/67.210.39.82 because that anonymous user had changed "largest city" for several counties in California which are on my watchlist. In each case, they changed the "largest town" and defined places by both largest in population and largest by area.

The only problem was for Humboldt County, California, they used an unincorporated area as the "city with largest area," left no citations to show where this information was found. For the other far northern California counties, I was unable to verify their contributions except by WP:NOR. My efforts in that regard were that I was unable to verify their contributions as accurate for five counties and so reverted those edits. Then I looked at their contributions and found they've done this to over 100 other counties all over the U.S., not just California.

After I reverted their edits, they replaced the inaccurate information back in the articles despite my notice to them on their user page.

I'm not qualified to determine if what they did is right or not. I only know for the counties which I reverted, the information added to the page was not correct. Another user left a short comment on their User talk:67.210.39.82 user talk page, as did I but so far no replies from the anonymous user. I have no idea why they're doing this all over the United States, or what their inaccurate reference book may be, but I can't fix all this and so I'm asking for help. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like an anon busily gnoming. Good faith editing. Unfortunately, they don't use edit comments, don't have an account so they can't be reached easily, and sometimes revert when reverted. The reverting doesn't approach edit warring.[156] Do we have a template for "You've been editing a lot lately; please sign up for an account so we can discuss some problems?" It's always difficult when an anon is making lots of little edits and someone has to check them. --John Nagle (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the West Bank and the neutrality of an admin

Horologium notified me of "A quick look of your recent contributions indicates that you are wandering into an area in which active sanctions are in place. You need to be made aware of this. I will be logging this at Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Log of notifications because many of your edits (especially on 17 December 2013) fall under the scope of the sanctions. Horologium (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)". This was after he wrote You have repeatedly tried to change the characterization of East Jerusalem in the BLP for Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. I have reverted you. Instead of discussing, you began an edit-warring to keep in your change, for which there was no consensus. If you make a change which is reverted, you are supposed to initiate a discussion, either on the article talk page, or the talk page of the user with whom you are having a dispute. You have done neither. A quick look at your user talk page indicates that you are pushing the same PoV on other pages, and have encountered pushback. Start discussing the issue and come up with a policy-compliant consensus, or you will find yourself dragged to the Administrators' Noticeboard for a discussion on your behavior. Horologium (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC).

I dispute this notice.

I had a discussion with Pluto2012 about my edits, who didn't agree and said that this view is more recent (the specific edit was this in an article about the war in 1948, when of course the issue of the West Bank and East Jerusalem was different to what it is today and have been since the occupation in 1967). Horologium, however, use other arguments (basing them on the annexation, which is irrelevant) and I still think it is the minority view that East Jerusalem is not a part of the West Bank/Palestinian territories. This is not my "POV pushing" but it is in line with the consensus, which includes the International Court of Justice's ruling in 2004, where they repeatedly refers to East Jerusalem as being "including" in the West Bank/Palestinian territories. This view is also reflected in the main article about the topic, which is the West Bank. I will cite som parts:

[...] The West Bank also contains a significant coastline along the western bank of the Dead Sea.[3] According to the International Court of Justice advisory ruling (2004), whatever agreements have been made between Israel and Palestinian authorities since 1993 do not alter the fact that these territories, including East Jerusalem, continue 'to remain occupied territories' with Israel 'the occupying power'.[4]

The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, has a land area of 5,640 km2 and 220 km2 water, the northwest quarter of the Dead Sea.[3] It has an estimated population of 2,676,740 (July 2013).[3] More than 80 percent, about 2,100,000,[3] are Palestinian Arabs, and approximately 500,000 are Jewish Israelis living in the West Bank,[3] including about 192,000 in East Jerusalem,[5] in Israeli settlements. The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.[6][7][8][9]

[...] Though 164 nations refer to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as “Occupied Palestinian Territory”,[14][15] the state of Israel insists that only territories captured in war from “an established and recognized sovereign” should be considered occupied territories.[16]

I also based my edits on the discussions here and here. So when I started to edit this on 17 December, which I have also done before but never had the time to correct all, I did it with this in mind. There is no "POV pushing" and I am just reflecting the consensus view.

Furthermore, I don't know which other actions Horologium means "fall under the scope of the sanctions". The vast majority of my edits are wholly uncontroversial where I just updated the links, names, correct spelling etc. My other edits are in line with the policies.

At last, I don't think Horologium is an "uninvolved administrator", as required. He was and is discussing the issue. Then after discussing it, he starts with threats (see above what he wrote 23:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)) and then suddenly jumps in as an administrator and a litte after, he issues a notice. I think that is remarkable. Some of his respective my last edits showing the activity are useful:

• 00:06, 19 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+262)‎ . . Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles ‎ (→‎2013 notices: added User:IRISZOOM.) (current)
• 00:02, 19 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+3,129)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (→‎Notice: new section)
• 23:37, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+1,039)‎ . . Talk:Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ‎ (→‎The West Bank: response.)
• 23:21, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+963)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (→‎Use the article talk page, and stop edit-warring: new section)
• 23:13, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-7)‎ . . Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ‎ (Undid revision 586709252 by IRISZOOM (talk) You are pushing your view on several articles; it needs to stop NOW.) (current)
• 22:54, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-7)‎ . . Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ‎ (Undid revision 586639823 by IRISZOOM (talk) Israel annexed E. Jerusalem; they did not annex the West Bank. E. Jerusalem is disputed.)
• 01:36, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-14)‎ . . Pink salmon ‎ (→‎Habitat: removed piping for outdated term; Just use "Honshu".) (current)
• 22:55, 17 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-7)‎ . . Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ‎ (Undid revision 586542408 by IRISZOOM (talk) East Jerusalem's status is disputed, which is why it is identified separately.)

• 01:20, 19 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-1,105)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (Not relevant here. I will take it to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.) (current)
• 00:36, 19 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (→‎Notice: Spelling.)
• 00:35, 19 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+477)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (→‎Notice)
• 00:13, 19 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+341)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (→‎Notice: New reply.)
• 00:08, 19 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+286)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (→‎Notice)
• 23:58, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+1,057)‎ . . Talk:Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ‎ (→‎The West Bank: Reply.) (current)
• 23:25, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (→‎Use the article talk page, and stop edit-warring: Grammar.)
• 23:25, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+372)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (→‎Use the article talk page, and stop edit-warring: My answer.)
• 23:18, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+564)‎ . . Talk:Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ‎ (→‎The West Bank: new section)

Best regards. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• The opening paragraph seems like a routine notification. The rest is very difficult to follow, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• The notice is a standard warning, issued not for the article on which we were edit-warring (Ileana Ros-Lehtinen), but rather for the many articles which IRISZOOM edited which are within the bounds of WP:ARBPIA. In regards to Israel/Palestine issues, I am uninvolved, as any of the many editors active in that area can attest. I have no more than a handful of edits to any of the pages covered by that arbitration (all minor or reversion of clear vandalism), and (after my extraordinarily unpleasant experience with WP:ARBMAC2) I actively stay away from all nationalism disputes. The warning I conveyed to IRISZOOM is simply to inform him that there are sanctions involved on many of the articles he edited on 17 December. There are plenty of admins who keep an eye on that area, and one of them could notice the tenor of his edits, which serve to advance a particular point of view. In any case, I would not block him, because I am clearly involved in a dispute with him on the Ros-Lehtinen BLP. Horologium (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• IRISZOOM, what do you think would be an appropriate administrative/community response? I ask merely for clarity's sake. It's not like the ARBPIA notice can be undone, so what should be done from here? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• IRISZOOM, since your updates affect several articles you could discuss the issue centrally at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues. On the notice, it's just a notice. Anyone editing in the WP:ARBPIA topic area should receive one of those at some point. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. I don't think the notice was warranted, as bescrived lengthy in my post above, and I think it's remarkable that an admin who have a dispute with me, including using threats, then suddenly starts issuing a notice when it got a little heated. But maybe it's just me and if so, then we can close this case.

• Furthermore, the notice is not really clear. Can I keep make edit like this, which surely can't be viewed as something other than a NPOV? In Church of the Holy Sepulchre, someone has just inserted that it lies in Israel, which it doesn't and have already been discussed in the talk page, but I am not sure I can revert that.

• Sean.hoyland, great link. I will make a post there soon. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you can continue to edit in the topic area. The notice is just to make people aware of the WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. That edit to Beit Orot isn't controversial, or it shouldn't be. It's referred to both as a settlement and a neighborhood and it's across the green line. I've removed the misinformation from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre article. That kind misuse of Wikipedia is common in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I think we can archive this now. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Inapt action by Admin John Reaves

The following discussion is closed. 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, sometime back Admin John Reaves cleaned up certain section of page Sajin Vass Gunawardena. Accidently I reverted his changes but immediately I corrected my mistake and posted a message on his TalkPage. Subsequently I noticed that he kept on blanking large sections of the page citing not a reliable source or remove statements that make no sense and are of dubious value etc where all the sections were properly referenced. Admin’s statement that certain section is of dubious value is merely his interpretation and not as per Wikipedia guidelines.

I repeatedly left messages on his TalkPage and also on the Article Talkpage, asking him to discuss first before blanking a section and that I have reverted the changes. To my surprise, he without discussing anything, engaged in edit-war and shockingly revoked my Rollback rights????

p.s. Just today, users from two IP have been trying to do what John has done; mass blanking and I had reverted their edits.

May I request this forum to look into this. Cheers AKS —Preceding undated comment added 07:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oh dear. To be kind to the OP, this should be closed ASAP. To be kind to the encyclopedia, the OP should be indeffed until acknowledging that edits like this are not appropriate and will not be repeated. Also, it is very inappropriate to spam a bunch of busy arbitrators with a request to investigate a minor disagreement. Next time, ask at WP:BLPN whether adding attack items to an article is ok providing the subject deserves it. Johnuniq (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no kindness in indeffing someone over a matter such as this. They may well be completely wrong about the validity of Reaves' actions, but if so, they deserve an explanation and a chance to learn from it. Wikipedia editorship is shrinking; this sort of bloodthirsty behavior on ANI is part of the reason why. There is no harm to treating this as a teachable moment, rather than an excuse to kick someone while they're down. In other words, back off and make yourself useful somewhere else. MilesMoney (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I was a bit hasty. I responded to this after seeing a complaint at OTRS by doing a quick clean-up before bed. I assumed that Arunsingh16, who has over 7,000 edits since 2007, would at least be aware of BLP and NPOV and what a reliable source is. -- John Reaves 15:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

See also: past rollback abuse. -- John Reaves 15:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@John Reaves: You were right to make the edit. I think, however, that Arunsingh16 should only be let off with a warning, not a block. Please do remove his rollback privileges, because he was using it inappropriately. Epicgenius (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Already removed. -- John Reaves 17:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Gentlemen, thanks for your feedback. I spent some more time researching on this subject & here are my two cents.

1. Messages to arbitrators / sysops: I did NOT ask anyone to interfere on this page (ANI). Instead I asked them to give me a feedback on the matter. In case of a doubt, if I don’t check with a senior & more experienced person then who do I check with? Please show when did I ask anyone to interfere / influence on this page / discussion?

2. Minor disagreement: If it was minor then why the harsh action? Like you all, I also don’t get paid to work on Wikipedia and then get an egg on my face for ONE Rollback; that too it cannot be termed to totally wrong?? Please don’t tell me that none of you people ever had a rollback or an action that was questionable. If everyone has to get blocked in ONE instance then I doubt any of you should be an Admin (going by that logic). As I said (and perhaps you did not read) someone was attempting to change contents of this page drastically and I had to rollback his edits also. Please see page history before you jump to conclusions.

3. Thanks to attitude like this, experienced editors like me are now shying away from Wikipedia and backlog is piling up. When you should be handholding, coaching and being fair to experienced editors, you are busy shielding a wrong & arrogant action by another admin. Well, no problem, you can take your Wikipedia Admin rights and be happy with it. Wikipedia is ONLY a hobby to me and does not get me ANYTHING is real world; perhaps it does to you but for sure not to me.

4. Why is this edit NOT appropriate? It has been mentioned in a newspaper article and it was referenced in the Wiki page. What’s the problem? If mention of three divorces was a problem then what do you have to say about this section? Should contents on this article not be blanked too? Your argument is inapt, unjustified and biased.

5. Following is point by point action by John, the reasons and my feedback;

a. John blanked some material here. You can read the reasons. What I want to understand is WHICH part of the statement did he not understand in the section? That the person in discussion was refused a political role due to his criminal track record OR that he worked in Dubai? Which part of the statement was NOT sourced as per guidelines; please show me.

b. John blanked this section citing allegation. News published in a leading newspaper has been referenced and quoted; what allegation did the contributor make when he used the word "it has been alleged that" and then news quoted? Is Wikipedia some PR agency for Sajin?

c. John blanked THIS section which I find most surprising. What does John mean by saying not reliable source & since when did a national news become not a reliable source?

d. Blanking here also says not reliable source? Since when did news in a leading newspaper become unreliable? If that were the case, more than half articles on Wikipedia should be deleted.

6. Every blanking on this page was properly referenced, citied and writing was clear. There were no vague statements made and the action take by admin John is not only unjust & biased but also abused his privileges.

7. WP:NPOV: Yes, I am very well aware about it and doubt that John knows about it. I want you to show to me which part of the article (except begging for forgiveness which I think was bit extreme) violated WP:NPOV. Please be kind and be specific and show me where did the contributor express his opinion as fact & v.v.? Show me ONE instance.

8. OTRS: I have NO insight on what comes on ORTS, what the contents are and I have no control over it. Why did John NOT mention this in any of the comments?

9. What has this got anything to do with what we are discussing here? Let me throw some light on this issue since you mentioned it. User Abhishek had a habit of picking up fights with me, provoke me (partially my fault also) and then gang-up. Check his account and you will find him in several such violations. Due to all this, I stayed away from Wikipedia for an year and just got back. Let me assure you admins, I try NOT to cross the line and respect admins, senior editors and encourage others to do it as well; check this. Whilst I mention this, I must also point out that even certain admins should not act tough and as if they own everything here. We all are here for a bigger reason and certainly not for unnecessary heartburn.

10. Rollback: I don't intend to fight vandalism or conduct patrolling and really don't care if you remove or add privileges. Be my guest.

11. User John has been totally biased and unjust in his approach on this subject. I suppose that his actions can be perceived as violation of WP:NPOV.

12. I am NOT the original author of the page in discussion.

13. As I write this, there are attempts by others to vandalize the same page. Be my guest and please attend to it now.

14. I am not sure who wrote to OTRS but I am assuming that it is either the MP or his aid. Whatever the case might be, let us ensure that Wikipedia is NOT a puppet in hands of certain people. News published in Sunday leader has been objected to by John. Check out what I found on the internet just now, this. So now Wikipedia is a further extension to Sri Lankan politicians and parliament. Is it so? Also, it is interesting & worthwhile to read this about The Sunday Leader.

I am awaiting for your feedback on this matter. Cheers AKS

@Arunsingh16: The reason the "article" that you're using to support your edits is not considered WP:RS is because it's an attack editorial that consists of allegations rather than a news article reporting facts. Please read WP:BLP. The author of the "article" is synthesizing conclusions based on speculative allegations and then you're presenting those allegations as fact. 205.166.218.65 (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

@Arunsingh16: Regardless, you should have used edit summaries and stopped reverting when you knew that you were going to get your rollback privileges removed. In fact, I think that John warned you about that fact on his talk page, that he would remove your permissions if you were going to revert again using that right. But you did so anyway, restoring the version of the article with BLP violations. Epicgenius (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Epicgenius, perhaps you did not read what I have written above. Meanwhile & whilst you do that, following (just to clarify);

1) You are wrong; John never issued a warning, instead he revoked the privilege straight away. All I had done is reverted edits made by anonyms user and issued level 1 & 2 warnings. Subsequent to that, I had an accidental Rollback, which I corrected with apt remark; followed by a Rollback on John's edits as he was using false & incorrect reasons to blank the page. I left him a message on his & article TalkPage to discuss before editing but it fell on his deaf ears.

2) Read again, I did NOT make any allegations; everything is referenced.

3) I am NOT the original author of the page, so please be kind to me in that regard.

4) Check the history and please tell me if I ever made any edits on that page that can be questioned.

5) John is a habitual offender & has been accused several times for abusing admin privileges, foul language and for harsh approach. Don't believe me, check this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this. I am sure you have already noticed another on-going discussion in this page about John. Discussion is about abusing his privilege.

6) What really surprises me is that how none of you are conveniently ignoring the fact that John violated and blanked contents that were properly sourced and referenced. Once again, I did NOT make that up. All I did was reverted edits by some anonyms users and issued Level 1 & 2 warning as per standard procedure.

7) Why John & everyone else ignoring the referencing. John blanked a section (attack on Ranil) citing not credible source. Seriously. Check this where the MP in discussion threatens to attack anyone, this article talk about apology to the leader of opposition. Want more, just Google.

I highly recommend: Before teaching me rules, please read my questions & points above.

I am shocked on the one sided approach of all Admins in shielding another admin and ignoring his mistake. Either it is a case of bias towards another Admin or WP:GANG or simply an error of judgement where all admins by default assume that another admin is right and they don't look into details. Whatever the case may be, I hope someone will look into this.

And since I have been taught about some many dos and don'ts, allow me to share a bigger picture with you. This biased behaviour and bad attitude will slowly scare experienced editors (non-admins) away with time and lots of edits and pages will never be checked for correctness. When that happens, Wikipedia as a site will start to lose quality and credibility. If is not the question, when is the question.

Keep the rollback privilege with my compliments, I don't need it. Block the account if you wish to (if you have a valid reason); I don't care BUT I will not surrender to this bullying. Cheers AKS

@Arunsingh: "7. Why John & everyone else ignoring the referencing." Because the references that you are citing are not reliable. Just because something is published on the internet doesn't mean it can be used as a source in a Wikipedia article, especially when the sources you are using are blog posts and attack editorials. You are not being "bullied," you are receiving a strong response because Wikipedia is subject to the slander/libel laws of the United States and so must be very careful with negative allegations against living people. Again, I ask you to read WP:BLP to more fully understand this. SEVERAL people are telling you that your references don't meet the definition of a reliable source. It isn't a big conspiracy being run by the politician that's the subject of the article. It is Wikipedia editors trying to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia by removing poorly sourced allegations of criminal behavior from an individual's article. 205.166.218.65 (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Dear 205.166.218.65. At the outset, may I please ask you about the process of revoking someone's access? Is it only not civil and common sense to atleast discuss, warn and then take an action? Once again, please let me remind you that I am not the author of the article, those are NOT my references and hence please don't blame me for it; at best I can be spoken to for ONE Rollback - that's it. The way everyone is calling the references, my references only shows that people are not even inetersted in knowing the facts.

This is NOT a blog; its called News. And by the way, I am sure you are well aware about WP:NEWSBLOG. It states quote "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process....continues....Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are not reliable sources." Unquote. These so called not reliable sources are either news articles of proper news agencies OR the blogs are NOT left to readers as sources. All contested sources are genuine and meets WP:BLP. If at all I missed out on some fine print, then please help me understand it by quoting that rule and not referring to an entire page where I don't know what the other person is talking about.

Have you read points 4 & 5 a.b.c.d above? Can you or ANYONE paste ONE link here that was used in the article, later removed by John and which is NOT a credible source. Let's not make open statements, I have made specific points and I request if someone can take the trouble of accessing those links / sources and then show to me the link that has dubious nature.

What are we running here, Legal department or we are working voluntarily on set rules to improve quality of Wikipedia? Why are people making their own interpretation & judgement about the authenticity of source? I would like to know WHERE in the entire original article an allegation was made by the contributor / editor? Sourced material from public domain was put as per Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia or any editor did NOT make any allegation against anyone; has it? Cheers AKS

This will be my last post here because you seem to be unable to consider the possibility that you are incorrect. There are several editors stating that your sources are not good enough for the information that you're trying to include in the article.

What you seem to be missing is YOUR responsibility. The moment that one, single person disagrees about the reliability of your source, then it's your responsibility to go to WP:RSN and either a) see if it's already been accepted before, or 2) try to gain acceptance of it - that's how the project works. Now, on another topic, nobody has to warn you before removing a tool from you if you abused it - never. ES&L 00:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Dear EatsShootsAndLeaves, perhaps you are unable to understand that these are NOT MY SOURCES and I am NOT trying to include anything in the article. Go talk to the person who wrote & included it; not me. I am the wrong person to be told about it. All sources are good, there were attempts by anonyms users to glorify the person in discussion and John played along.

Have you ever heard of something called WP:AGF? I just did a Roll back on John and invited him for discussion. What is abuse in that? As a matter of fact it is John who is abusing his Admin rights. If one instance qualifies for revoking privileges then you really need to explain to me as to how is he still an Admin after this & this. I am sure you are well aware of the fact that the person I am talking about has a very dubious and questionable record. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Cheers AKS

Anyway, I (and I believe John Reaves et al.) have a problem with this, "Meet Mahinda's Man Friday," the source that provides the basis for most of the negative content. The informal tone, the use of rhetorical questions and editorializing, the extensive use of the verb "seems," no mention of how the author acquired the information that he presents as facts, the author self-referencing the newspaper with a first person plural pronoun...these are all signs of a article that Wikipedia should not be using to source extremely negative content about a BLP. The writing style is more akin to an article in the New York Times circa 1860, a time when newspapers related the news in a way that directly benefitted the publishers of the newspaper as much as possible. But hey, that's my take on this. If you feel strongly that this article is a reliable source, take things to WP:BLPN or WP:RSN. 205.166.218.65 (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Dear 205.166.218.65, it does not matter what you, me, John or any other editor think or interpret of a source; if its a valid source, its a valid source. I am amazed to learn that not only people are making their own interpretation, they are also admitting it openly on a noticeboard. Is this not against the basic rules of Wikipedia (don't use your own judgement / opinion)?

Now you are questioning where did the news author obtained information from? I am sorry but you are walking ahead of yourself. Which journalist is bound to reveal his source whilst writing an article?

As a matter of fact, what you are stating does not comply to what is mentioned in WP:NPOV here. I quote "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems. Unquote. John being an admin should have known about this and has clearly violated the rules & abused his privileges.

For the love of God and for the 100th time, those are NOT my sources and I don't care what's written in there. My simple point is that Wikipedia rules were not followed and that privileges were abused by an admin. You people are going against the whole concept of Wikipedia by ignoring WP:AGF, not maintain WP:NPOV and then supporting someone who constantly abuses admin rights. Cheers AKS

Nobody says it's "your source" - but it's a source that you're claiming is reliable ... and just because you claim it is reliable, that does not mean it actually is reliable. As I said before, the minute someone disagrees that the source is reliable, you are required to act as if it's unreliable until you have it vetted through the reliable source noticeboard (or possibly even the BLP noticeboard in some cases). This is not optional - period. ES&L 12:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

SOMEONE NEEDS TO EDUCATE ME HOW DID I VIOLATE MY ROLLBACK PRIVILEGE. Just because I rollbacked on an admin once I am an abuser? Absurd. Cheers AKS

You used rollback on a possible BLP violation, when you'd already had the sourced refuted ... it doesn't matter that you rollbacked an admin, or a n00b. ES&L 12:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• EatsShootsAndLeaves, Yes, you used the right term, it was a possible WP:BLP violation and at the point when John took at action, the source was NOT refuted - as a matter of fact it is not refuted even now. It is just your view that a news paper article from a national media house is not credible. I have checked all related Wikipedia rules (as you have) and it does not violate any existing rules. Please read up where I have also exhibited why it should not be deleted. Cheers AKS

Have you taken a read of WP:Rollback? Rollback should only be used to revert WP:Vandalism and a few other similar things (like banned editors & mass reversion of an editor's edits where some discussion of this has taken place). Under no circumstances which don't fall in to those cases should it be used to revert good faith edits, no matter how much you may disagree with those edits or whatever other guidelines you feel they violate and no matter if they were made by an admin, registered editor or even an IP. And yes, using it for such purpose is generally considered misuse. Now if it was only one instance as you claim, I'm not sure if these was any reason to remove the privilege. However regardless of the rights and wrongs of the original removal, your comments here appear to have demonstrated you can't be trusted with the tool because you don't even understand why your usage was inappropriate, it's not even clear if you've bothered to look in to when you should use the tool despite it obviously being important to know now that you're contesting the claim. And in fact, your claim that there's only one instance doesn't even seem to be true, since very early on someone linked to a discussion from last year where you were warned about misuse of the tool. (And even if it's true that these two cases were the only misuse of the tool, that doesn't really help your case considering you still don't seem to understand when you're allowed to use the tool over a year later.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Very well Nil Einne, I take your point here. Now I have following doubts and help me with that;

a) Rule of rollback also says, quote "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." Unquote. Immediately after rollback, I left a message on the article TalkPage and also on user TalkPage but John did not bother to discuss.

b) Another rule of rollback says, quote "Administrators may revoke the rollback feature or issue a block in response to a persistent failure to explain reverts, regardless of the means used. However, they should ALLOW the editor an opportunity to explain their use of rollback before taking any action – there may be justification of which the administrator is not aware (such as reversion of a banned user)". Unquote. When was I asked or my opinion sought?

c) What has last year's discussion got to do with what we are discussion now? One rollback after 16 months and I am getting told by 10 different admins that its a huge crime? Give me a break guys, be kind & reasonable please. Remember WP:AGF? Cheers AKS

"Should" != "must". Of course, your horrifically non-WP:AGF title to this section pretty much solidified it too. You came here to ask advice if someone's actions were "inept" - you've been told they were not. What else are you looking for, to be blocked for WP:NPA and/or WP:CIR? In other words, you got your answer and then some. Take heed of the wise counsel you have been provided and go forth and edit properly. Someday, you may get rollback back...but not if you keep up this kinda crap. ES&L 16:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• I am done with my discussion here, as ALL admins who have participated seem to ignore the key point - Abuse of admin rights by John; authenticity of the article and source is a secondary point. I did not come to WP:ANI to preserve some links, I know there is a different forum for that. My complaint is that an administrator is blatantly abusing his privileges (check another complaint about the same admin on this noticeboard itself) and every time he gets support and gets away with it. There is a precedence to the behaviour and no visible improvements. I thank everyone for their time. Unfortunately I have to leave this discussion after witnessing bias, looking the other way and ignoring major violations for a fellow admin. I am confident that this forum is NOT capable of an independent review of this subject. Have a good one guys. Cheers AKS

p.s. I don't need Rollback or any other privileges. It does not add any value to me in my personal life. Keep it and be happy with it please :-)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Sounds like this thread should be closed then. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Semi protection of Talk:Rupert Sheldrake

User:JzG semi-protected Talk:Rupert Sheldrake, following this discussion on the talk page. As I said in my comments I definitely don't believe that semi protection is necessary or warranted, given that there has been one sock IP in the past week and I don't think we should be preventing people from editing a talk page because of one involved admin's belief that the IP contributors are falling afoul of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Could I please get another opinion as to whether the protection is necessary, especially a 2 week protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't intend to instigate a conflict between two admins. When I notified JzG that the page was not semi-protected, I only meant to contradict the assertion that it was already semi-protected.

Callanecc, you said "Not until it happens",[157] but it has already happened. There have been three block evasions by one person, and two topic ban violations by another. These SPIs take considerable time, and protecting the page would provide some relief. As I have mentioned elsewhere, the intense off-site canvassing from pro-paranormal sites has had the effect of exhausting the non-canvassed editors. vzaak 08:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

By "not until it happens" I was referring to the off-wiki disruption moving onto the talk page and there being a large number of non-autoconfirmed disruptive edits to the page in a short (ie a day) period. The protection policy states that talk pages "are only semi-protected for a limited duration in the most severe cases of vandalism". This is definitely not "severe" and 2 weeks is a long time for a talk page to be protected. Regarding the SPIs, given the evidence presented so far and the number of admins familiar with the regular sockpuppets on the article you probably don't need to go into as much detail as you have in the past. Pointing out that an IP in that range has previously been blocked and a similar edit (plus a quick explanation) from a blocked account or IP should be enough for the regulars on that page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I semi-protected it, due to sockpuppetry by a banned user and because, in the end, it's time to start managing this idiocy down. The Sheldrake apologists have had their day in the sun, but the soapboxing has gone on far too long. The role of anons on the talk page, according to my review of it, amounts to WP:NOTFORUM, and has done for some time. I'm happy to help any that are genuinely likely to help, but the disruption currently outweighs any productive effect. Happy to let others decide otherwise if they want, but I think we really do need to start knocking this one on the head now. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

of the things that would help the talk page become a more productive space, i am not sure that semi protection is the first item on the list, although it is on the list.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• This seems like a proper application of ignoring all the rules to better the encyclopedia. -- John Reaves 15:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

My very favorite pillar!  :-)   But that is not the justification Guy provided, he claimed the problem was anons using the talkpage as a WP:FORUM, which is what the most prolific contributor to mainspace nowadays accused a couple of anons of doing, back in November. Both of *those* anons have long since left the talkpage, methinks. But I'd like to hear more of Guy's policy-reasoning here, and in particular, if he is pulling out the big gun of WP:IAR, or is instead just using WP:FORUM as his guide. There were about 2% of the edits to the talkpage this month by anons, from what I can tell. Did those disruptive edits spark a significant portion of the other 98%? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I ignored the rule that says you must specifically cite WP:IAR when ignoring all rules in order to improve the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just wondering, why isn't the article itself protected? Shouldn't it be protected as well? Additionally, shouldn't only the ban evader's IP range be blocked, so that other, productive, IP users can actually discuss the article? Epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The article has been semi'd for quite a while. Ravensfire (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Since late October, by uninvolved Sandstein. See the tables and toolserver links here, User_talk:74.192.84.101#Data_on_BLP_and_BLPTALK_participation. Tumbleman is the strikethru#6. Callanecc recently (~Dec 7th) imposed 1RR on the mainspace, also. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Range-blocking won't help in the cases here and here. Tumbleman has a long history of trolling other sites, and Reaper has said that Tumbleman has "proven himself to be good at hiding" other accounts.[158] For instance checkuser didn't help with the Philosophyfellow sock, but the behavioral evidence is overwhelming. (There is significant off-site hoopla surrounding these accounts, including the conspiracy theory that the Tumbleman socks are really different users that were "bullied" off Wikipedia, an idea that was promoted in a recent failed ArbCom request.) vzaak 18:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by 216.66.110.131

The following discussion is closed. 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 IP user has been consistently vandalizing this month, and is already on his fourth vandalism warning. I just reverted two more vandal edits on Ben Stiller, and I personally think he needs to be blocked. Corvoe (speak to me) 18:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Done, but try WP:AIV first, next time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Topic ban violation (REPOST)

I'm not really sure how these works so pardon me (and ignore it) if Im wrong. But according to my understanding there is a violation if something is made (and especially reverted) in regards to that topic across WP right? It seems that User:Sopher99 violated this after he mentions that he is topic banned on syrian civil war articles till the 18th. It appears then that he made several related editss: User_talk:Kudzu1#Syrian_civil_war, an edit on WP about the topic (and it was a revert without explanation of a POV statement [159]), this, BUT it was self-reverted, this, and this. It seems the 2 week ban started on the 4 of Dec, btwLihaas (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sopher99's topic ban is the result of the general sanctions to which Syrian Civil War articles are subject. Anyway, the complaint here seems to be about edits to Portal:Current events that added or edited entries related to the Syrian Civil War. Whether that fits within the "Syrian Civil War articles" limitation (even with broad construction) is better left to those more experienced in these matters. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The use of the expression Topic Ban would suggest it is a WP: TBAN as such, any edit related to the topic anywhere on Wikipedia (other than appealing the ban) would be a violation. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually from looking at the background of this, what is the justification for the topic ban? --Kyohyi (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Have notified Darkwind of this thread, given he imposed the topic ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the limits of the topic ban are pretty clear, Darkwind: "you are topic banned from all pages related to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed, for two weeks" - I didn't touch any page related to the Syrian civil war. Sopher99 (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations have nothing do with the Syrian civil war even if the user being investigated has edited on Syrian civil war pages. As for Dylan Lacey, I casually gave him reasons on his talkpage as to why he should self-revert an edit he made - Dylan agreed to those reasons and casually reverted himself

None of this shows I edited on Syrian civil war pages. Sopher99 (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Upon asking another user to remove he warned that such mention would be in violation, and then the portal revert came.Lihaas (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hhe blatanly violated his topic ban (see bove for another user who did the same)...an there is no comment? no action?Lihaas (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Lihaas, you've shown me an inappropriate request made on December 11, an improper addition of Syrian Civil War topic to the current events portal that was smartly self-reverted as it was clearly in violation, but as it was self-reverted it doesn't count. Are you trying to suggest that we need to go back to an event from December 11 and impose a punitive block? We don't do punishment - although, if you'd brought it to our attention on the 11th (maybe you did?) it likely would have been blockable at the time. I mean come on, the TBAN expired 3 days ago, and the action was 11 days ago ... where's the logic? Sopher99 should be well-aware that they pushed the envelope way to far ... but as I sincerely hope we'll never have to impose another TBAN, the point should be moot ES&L 11:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Swdandap malfeasance

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

---

Swdandap (talk · contribs) is a longstanding detriment to Wikipedia. Editor has a long-term pattern of malfeasance including copyvio, sockpuppetry harmful promotional editing and spamming. Recommend strongest sanctions.

Copyvio

User has been plentifully notified of copyvio content on en.wiki and Commons starting in 2011 [160] and continuing for over a year ([161][162][163] etc.)

Promotional editing

Refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive760#Paid_advocacy for lengthy discussion and evidence of paid advocacy. Paid advocacy on non-notable topics like Corner Travel Index and Bahamas Habitat harms Wikipedia by drawing time and attention away from legitimate topics.

Sockpuppetry

Deep connections to paid advocacy noted above, implemented (sometimes) through sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry.

Apptivo sockpuppetry

• Swdandap: Final draft in Swdandap's sandbox, 10 May 2012: [164]
• Ariesdrink12: Article Apptivo created ex nihilo 8 September 2012 [165]
• Swdandap: Links added to Comparison of time tracking software, Comparison of CRM systems, List of ERP software packages 11 May 2012 [166][167][168]

Bahamas Habitat sockpuppetry

• Skywagon5 Article Bahamas Habitat created (since deleted) c. November 2011

Off-wiki evidence provided in prior ANI linking Skywagon5 to Swdandap either as an employee/contractor or as the same individual.

Corner Travel Index sockpuppetry

• Swdandap: Final draft in sandbox 23 November 2011 [169]; pasted whole into Matsonian's sandbox 23 November 2011 [170]
• Matsonian created article Corner Travel Index deleted 9 July 2012 (with admin comment "spam...paid editor"); complained about deletion 11 Jan 2012 [171]

Spamming

Extensive spamming including [172][173][174][175][176][177][178]

Failure to work with community

Warnings noted above received no response, in fact this editor has not posted to his own talk page with over five years of comments from other editors. Has not participated in AfDs of his own creations, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Children's Fund of Canada and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MTB Himachal. User did not contribute to his 2012 ANI case either.

Submitted — Brianhe (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support blocking as Not here. If a 2008 account is still adding spam links in 2012 and making promo edits that other editors are constantly having to monitor then it is disruptive.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support block no excuse for this sort of thing going on this long, especially with the added problem of refusal to discuss & communicate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not have anything to say against the allegations, however, I would like to present a request to not block my account since I would like to use it for genuine Wiki edits (I believe in the project) and would refrain from any other form of editing on Wiki. I hope my request is considered.

Submitted - Swdandap —Preceding undated comment added 04:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• • Since the 'allegations' are partially about your refusal to discuss issues with your editing, I think you really should say something about them. The Wikipedia community is largely built on consensus and discussion, it's a vital part of contributing here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to hear why you blanked the page on another corporate profile in your sandbox, hours after this case was opened. — Brianhe (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

From looking at this filing, I see two complaints that are potentially actionable, one is that you believe this editor to be Disruptive, and the other being a complaint of meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry. To emphasize what I see, I'm going to break down this filing. First is the Copyvio complaint. Everything there is well over a year old, if they aren't making any new copyvio's then I don't see the problem. Next Meatpuppetry/Sockpuppetry, It seems you've got some evidence, however I believe WP: SPI is better suited to analyze that information. Regarding Spamming, WP: EL has guidelines regarding external links, and I'm not seeing anything blatantly outside them. and finally his failure to work with the community, you link to two AFD's which I'm assuming were his articles which were coincidentally both kept, and one ANI filing. If I had an article go up for AFD, and it was already going keep I wouldn't comment on it. And ANI participation isn't mandatory, and I would say that generally it's a good idea to not participate in an ANI about you unless you have to. I don't really think there is enough in this ANI filing for something sanctionable. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Can't agree with this analysis. You're essentially hoping that the copyvio issues are in the past, with no evidence that they have even acknowledged the problem or shown the most basic awareness of US copyright requirements. Ditto for the sockpuppetry and transfer and misattribution of for-hire work, which undermines the chain of custody of intellectual property in a way that insidiously undermines the very ability of Wikipedia's content agreements to work. Your argument that lack of participation in ANI is evidence of good faith I can't even begin to address; non-communication or even attempts to wipe evidence away (which point I brought up on 12/18 still hasn't been answered) when being confronted with multiple accounts of wrongdoing shows just the opposite. Taken as a totality these actions show a clear lack of interest in the human Wikipedia community and Wikipedia itself, and a clear financial self-interest which we have no reason to sustain. This is a bad apple's second ANI case and we're here debating how much more rope to give them before they hang themselves? Absurd; the body is already twisting in the wind. — Brianhe (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless there are any new copyvio issues, then they are in the past. Actions from over one year ago should not be brought up now unless similar behavior has been established. You have shown no new Copyvio issues therefore it is old. For-hire work is not prohibited on Wikipedia, so you have no argument there. As I said you might have a meatpuppetry argument, but more investigation would be needed, and I recommend you take a look at the policy regarding meatpuppetry. You don't need evidence of good faith, you're supposed to Assume good faith absence of evidence otherwise. I don't really see evidence of wrongdoing, I see a user on a crusade, especially since they came to your talk page for a resolution[179] and you reverted their post. [180] Considering your hostility, I would recommend that they not reply to your post, especially since there was nothing wrong with them blanking their own sandbox. --Kyohyi (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

* @Brianhe What's the most recent policy violation that you have found from this user? --Pine^✉ 08:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Pine, I'll answer at varying levels of severity because there are several actions involved. The last questionable action I saw was blanking the user sandbox a few days ago (not saying it's an out-and-out violation, just hasn't been explained yet, and fit a pattern of behavior). The last minor violation that I see is [181] and [182] this past June and July, introducing blogs and a self-described "celebrity social media site" as citations in the biography of a celebrity chef. The last serious violation I see is a series of spam links in March 2012 including this one promoting Eurail passes. — Brianhe (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Brianhe I'm looking over the evidence you've provided and I can't reach the conclusion that this user is blatantly violating policy. However, his failure to engage in discussions about his conduct is a problem. I think if he would have explained or defended his actions that this conversation would be unnecessary. I am hoping that he will promise to be more willing to discuss his edits with the community, disclose any conflicts of interest prior to editing, and follow COI editing standards. --Pine^✉ 01:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

* @Swdandap What do you think is the appropriate remedy to this situation? --Pine^✉ 08:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I also disagree with Kyohyi's analysis. One is free to disagree with accusations, to argue against them, etc. But it's poor form to simply ignore them. Doing so once might be excusable, perhaps a vacation or internet outage prevented a response. But ignoring comments on one's own behaviour for years at a time isn't acceptable. Wikipedia is largely build on discussion and consensus, and that's an important part of contributing here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Talkpage 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.

---

User talk:86.148.106.245 keeps putting a bogus unblock request, which the blocking admin reverts, claiming that I was the one who started the "vandalism" of undoing his vandalism on my user page. He will only continue to change his own talk page to add nonsense. Ben^Yes? 02:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• John Reaves has taken care of it. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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

John Reaves administrative conduct

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

---

Erm. I think this requires a further look. The blocking admin should almost never remove unblock request from an editor's talk page, and I can't imagine why John Reaves did that here. I think he has some explaining to do.

In addition, there has been some serious edit warring by both Benhen and blocking admin, John Reaves there. Toddst1 (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

What? Do you have diffs? How is this discussion not a waste of time? -- John Reaves 03:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Further, look at this users contributions, they are abusive, disruptive and unproductive. By reverting myself, I insured that no more time was wasted with this user. Now there are three admins involved in what should be a cut-and-dry case. -- John Reaves 03:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course I have diffs. You removed the request not once but twice. Its pretty bad that you think discussing how you clearly abused your administrative privileges is a waste of time. The IP's conduct is cut-and-dry disruptive. Your conduct is very different, and simply inappropriate, but you're an administrator who is responsible for your actions.

Your explanation that the examination of your misconduct is a waste of time is egregious. Toddst1 (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not an explanation, it is a question. How does further scrutinizing of this issue not waste time? We, as admins, are trusted to do what is best for the project. Also, we are, as are all users, subject to review. Upon reviewing my actions, why do you feel that my actions warrant further discussion? Does allowing an obviously disruptive user continued access to Wikipedia somehow benefit the project? -- John Reaves 03:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue is there's a reason why we strongly discourage admins from turning down requests from users they blocked. Allowing an independent party to review reduces the risk an unblock will be turned down unfairly because of unwitting bias or worse, and also reduces the perception of unfairness or of being pursued by one admin by the editor who is blocked. While I don't think there was any chance of the former here and often editors will just start to think of all admins as being unfair, it doesn't mean we shouldn't uphold the fundamental idea independent review (and therefore allowing requests for them, no matter how bad).

I'm also not sure of the wisdom of edit warring over the removal of an unblock request. If the unblock request was really so bad that it should be removed rather than turned down, I would suggest if it's added back you should remove talk page access while removing it a second time if not them losing talk page access the first time they made their request. If the editor involved had repeated the nonsense that I guess earned them their block like [183], then removing talk page access as soon as they made their request would IMO be justified along with the removal of the request, but the IPs comments were childish but didn't fall in to that category. (Edit: Actually I think you did remove talk page access, still the rest of my comment stands. The requests were silly but they should have been turned down rather than being removed. If the editor had made another silly request, then perhaps talk page should have been removed after it was turned down.)

To be fair, if I'd seen this all myself, I doubt I would have bother to say anything, but since this issue has come up, I think it's worth saying this probably wasn't the best way to handle things. It's worth remembering that while the desire to reduce wasted time is understandable, bypassing normal steps can often waste more time because people have to investigate that nothing untoward went on. While it's understandable on wikipedia we prefer to concentrate more on outcome than on process, we should not forget sometimes the process is an important part of the outcome.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I assess all situations on a case by case basis with no exception here. I reverted the editor to keep the page out of Category:Requests for unblock, which is already backlogged with legitimate requests. This is an application of IAR that I believe would have ultimately benefited our already backlogged admin corp had it not been dragged here. -- John Reaves 04:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• If Toddst1 thinks there is a problem, why has no attempt been made to engage with the user who is clearly distressed and wanting attention? Perhaps the user (Special:Contributions/86.148.106.245) has a legitimate complaint, but all they got was a routine "No reason for unblocking presented" (diff). There is no difference between that response and the revert that John Reaves applied, except that the first ticks a box and the second might have a WP:DENY effect. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

No. "Since the purpose of an unblock request is to obtain review from a third party, the blocking administrators should not decline unblock requests from users they have blocked."' It's policy and how we keep from becoming dictatorial as admins. Toddst1 (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Avoiding oppressive bureaucracy also keeps us from that. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy. -- John Reaves 04:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

This is pretty easy. The IP richly deserved the block. John should have put a block notice on the talk page but probably didn't have time. John should have left the unblock notice for someone else to review. John should not have extended the block based on the battle between him and the IP. It's hard to have any sympathy for the IP, but there was no reason for John to deviate from the rules. He should own up to that, and then we're done.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, mostly what Bbb says, though I believe there is one reason to deviate from the rules and turn down/remove an unblock request like this one ("Ben started it"): one can consider that complete bollocks, vandalism. That's how I read it when I first looked at this (all-too briefly, in hindsight, I guess). But we routinely block for frivolous unblock requests and I don't see this as very different. John Reaves, will you please leave it for someone else next time? Nothing will be broken if you do since the IP's disruption is limited to their own talk page. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If I'm the blocking admin, I don't remove unblock requests unless they are truly outrageous (e.g., major personal attacks). I may revoke talk page access for abuse (although this particular unblock request wouldn't have risen to my threshold), but that's different from removing requests. I also would not extend the block for an unblock request except in rare egregious circumstances (e.g., significant block evasion, but that would normally involve the block of a registered account), which were not present here, at least not in my view. I'm now going off-wiki and leave it to the good people here, including John, I'm sure, to sort out.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

As a minor side, I think Toddst1 already noticed this, but it seems one of the things which annoyed the IP and perhaps lead to their unacceptable attacking vandalism was probably the reversion of their attempts to remove justified warnings from their talk page. They are of course entitled to do so per WP:UP#CMT, so I've removed that which they tried to remove earlier. None of this justified their behaviour. But hopefully if they ever come back this will reduce the chances they will continue even if their edit history doesn't exactly give much hope they're going to be particularly constructive whatever they do. I've also left a comment to the IP explaining all this. Nil Einne (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I have chastised users in the past for similar behavior at user talk pages, I didn't pick up on it in this instance unfortunately. As for disruptive unblock requests, I will defer them to other admins in the future.so that they may disrupt without disruption -- John Reaves 05:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• This was not the only time John Reaves disabled or removed an unblock request instead of responding to it (or letting another admin respond to it), which is what should've happened. I'm not saying you're being malicious, as it appears evident the unblock request was not going to be accepted, but I think everyone would be more comfortable if common procedure was followed properly and you let another admin reject the unblock requests; I think transparence in dealing with those is better than boldness in denying the chance for the block to be reviewed and an impression of obscurantism by dealing with everything yourself, John. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You're correct - which is why, I imagine, John Reaves agreed to leave such requests for other admins in the future. I think that's ultimately what we were looking for, isn't it? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was looking for when I first brought this to his talk page, then here. I recommend this thread be closed. Toddst1 (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Weird, aggressive non-English edits

This diff: [184] is one of several by 213.246.53.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Google Translate makes little sense of it other than it appears to be aggressive. I have temporarily blocked the IP, but can someone with the requisite skills please check this out for me. Feel free to unblock if I have misread the auto-translations. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You are quite right to block. It's undoubtedly related to pl:Wikipedia:Prośby_do_administratorów#Do_blokady, given the signature. (See, for instance, [185].) Seems to be Ukrainian, urging violence against the Polish. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, good, thanks. I was pretty sure (the text mentions Ukraine) but didn't want to bite someone who was actually trying to help and just being clumsy about it. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - @JzG: - Maybe you should remove the nationality you added to this section header? JAT - ^theWOLFchild 04:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I took care of that, and added an anchor for the original header title. Horologium (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

please protect and/or watch

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

---

List of Iranian people by net worth is regularly vandalized by anon IPs. Please protect this page or watch (they also tried to delete this article in the past). Thank you.67.87.49.102 (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Thanks for your concern. The best place to make this kind of request is that WP:RPP. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I looked at it the day this was posted and didn't see anything of obvious concern. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

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

BLP issue and 3RR (combining both here instead of those noticeboards) at Bishop Hendricken High School

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

---

Kawaiibentobox has five times now added a paragraph to this high school article about a former assistant principal who was caught by Perverted Justice (1/2/3/4/5). The references are Zoominfo and a scant mention in a local newspaper. I've tried to explain to the user about the relevant policies on his or her talk page, edit summaries, and the article talk page -- and was subsequently accused of being "in allegiance" with the school. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Have you tried bringing this up at WP:RSN? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I blocked the user for 48 hours for edit warring and partly for the content, which I believe he got wrong anyway as, according to the Providence Journal, which I had great difficulty reading because of their stupid cookie policy, it happened in 2004, not 2006. It wasn't a violation of WP:BLPCRIME, but it hardly seemed noteworthy, and it's the sort of thing that there should be a consensus on, and this user didn't seem interested in that. Indeed, he obviously had an agenda and stated he would reinsert the material no matter what: "I will continue to put this back up, stop removing it." By the way, despite the BLP intersection, I would have just taken this to WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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

SPA troll

The following discussion is closed. 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 IP is currently on a WP:POV and PA rampage and needs to be dealt with 23.241.10.115 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This is probably not a legal threat, but just evidence of a very imperfect understanding of how Wikipedia works, but it is an entirely exemplary edit from this editor. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

DYK Christmas nominations solicited

DYK could use a few more Christmas-related nominations this Christmas so if anyone thinks they can whip up a new DYK-compliant article or two over the next couple of days, your efforts would be much appreciated. You can add your nomination directly to the special occasion holding area here so it doesn't get missed. Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add nominations to the special occasion holding area; it specifically says not to in that section unless the article has been approved. Add them under the date the article was created, or the date your 5x expansion started. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Trfc06 - Possible "Sock" - Consistently disrupting Far-left politics & Far-right politics

The following discussion is closed. 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 editor, "Trfc06", is adding unsourced and POV content to both Far-left politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Far-right politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Some users have noted that he is likely a "sock", and he reverts any attempts to remove his edits. He's also posting disruptive editorials on the talk page, and is not responding to my templates and warnings. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

In fact he's edit warring at both articles with several editors. I've changed the links above so you can click on this history more easily. Needed a 3RR warning so I've given him one, but he's past that. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

trying to start a discussion re the guidelines on the talk page and --Bryon Morrigan just keeps deleting and saying his facts are right. He may be right, but help needed please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trfc06 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL. That's so cute, Sport! --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Based on this demonstration of cluelessness, [186], combined with this statement on his User page, [187], I'd say that in Trfc06 we have a classic case of WP:NOTHERE, and regardless of whether this is a sock, a swift boot to the nether regions as we show Trfc06 the door would be the appropriate course of action. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Do we even need to discuss this? Editor makes a few productive edits and then delves right into calling the far left Nazis? Just block and let's move on.--v/r - TP 18:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I just closed a case at DRN: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Far left politics --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

This Trfc06 is a funny guy. I added the examples of the Khmers and the Maoist and I removed them because a contributor made me notice we had not source (even if it seemed obvious). And he was right because there is nearly no match on googlebook between Khmers and "far-left". Anyway, Trfc06 is a troll and certainly a sockpuppet (finding WP:DRN after 3 days on wikipedia is quite... exceptional). I suggest he is just blocked. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TParis, a block is the only resolution here - I don't see a topic ban as appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The top of Far-left politics contains a tag which links Talk:Far-left politics. The top of that page has {{talkheader}} which states fairly clearly "For disputes, seek dispute resolution," which, in turn, links pretty clearly to WP:DRN. It is ridiculous to assume an editor capable of following in plain sight hyperlinks must be a sock. NE Ent 21:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Indefinite is not infinite, first of all. Second, there's disruptive editing, cluelessness, soapboxing on talk pages, edit warring, and a kind of incompetence that makes this a prayer without end, as the Dutch might say. It is well-known that left and right ideologies of the twentieth century shared certain characteristics, but no one of any education could call Nazism a far-left ideology. (The list of characteristics given on one of those talk pages also applies, at least in part, to the politics of 20th-century US politics.). So, an indefinite block it is. (Their behavior on Jonathan King doesn't help either.) Drmies (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
• Also, there is no evidence whatsoever of socking, and Bryonmorrigan should be much more careful throwing such accusations around. And if you want to accuse someone of being a sock, don't put it in quotation marks. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

If you noticed, I said that some other editors accused him of it. I can't remember which talk page it was on, but I was bringing it up here as part of the issue, since I have no idea how one would even check such a thing. I used it in quotes because it wasn't me making the accusations. They made the accusations, which I thought sounded "reasonable", but I'll leave such things to editors who know more about "socking". --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 01:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• I had the pleasure of reverting them on far-left politics twice. They may not be socking, but Trfc06 is definitely violating NPOV. Let's just block the editor temporarily for a repeated violation of that policy and for WP:3RR violation, and move on. Drmies blocked them indefinitely. Silly me. Epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Recorder (musical instrument)

Over the last three months there has been a persistant attempt to insert an unsourced paragraph concerning the abuse of the recorder. The vandalism has originated from a German IP, but the actual adress varies, hence making fighting the vandalism difficult. It seems to be the same person, but obviously this can't be stated as a fact. The change has been reverted by several editors, myself included. I am therefore asking for the page to be semiprotected to stop unregistered IP editors changing it for a while. nI-notice has been sent to the talk pages of all the following IPs.

IPs used:: 93.202.102.20, 93.202.96.240, 93.202.102.192, 93.202.123.172, 93.202.104.20, 93.202.106.154 and 93.202.127.145

Editors reverting: user:Just_plain_Bill, user:Michael_Bednarek, user:Tbhotch and myself Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Most of these attempted additions (describing the use of a recorder's head joint as a whistle or for other sound effects) are too far in the past to act on now. So I don't think the current situation justifies semi-protection of the page — we usually don't use semi-protection for an editing problem that only happens a couple times per month.

There is a possibility that the person doing this may not understand what the problem is with their edit. I augmented your ANI notice on the last two IP's to explain the main reason why the new material was unacceptable (lack of sourcing) — but this might not work: if the person is getting a new dynamic IP address every time they show up, they may not see talk page notices posted on their previous IP's, and they might not be sufficiently Wikipedia-savvy to be aware of an article's edit history page.

If this problem reoccurs once or twice more within the next 24 hours, I may be more willing to consider semi-protection. Or, if some other admin (after reviewing the semi-protection policy at WP:SEMI) feels I'm being too hesitant to use semi-protection on this article, I won't object terribly if they decide to do it even though I won't. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this. I hope you are right and that the extended information stops it. I'm sure you are right about the dynamic adresses, that's why I listed them all for you. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Why was my post reverted?[188] I had nothing to do with the edits to that article. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it was undone, as your edit appears in good faith to me. Here it is again:

(edit conflict) I'd AGF about vandalism. Anyone who ever played a recorder as a kid has probably done what that paragraph says. It doesn't seem noteworthy enough for that amount of space, but it wouldn't surprise me if it can be sourced, or even if there are instances of public performances in that "style". FWIW, the same paragraph is in the Simple English Wikipedia.[189] 50.0.121.102 (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the text from the Simple English article. Thanks for pointing that out.

The bit about whistling on a head joint may have been added in good faith, but until someone shows a reliable source for it, I will assume it is not notable, and should not be given undue weight. For now, the offending text has been removed in a timely way by several editors, myself included. Unless the pace picks up, I don't see a pressing need for page protection. Just plain Bill (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a possibility that the persons reverting don't know what they are doing.

What happened to marking obviously correct additions with "citation needed"? (In this case after editing them to remove weight.) Obviously it's hard to find one of the few sources which mention the practice among the huge amount of recorder literature which doesn't. But everybody who plays the recorder knows the practice, and in many countries (such as Germany) that means basically everybody. Just a very cursory search in German brought up this:

"Die Improvisation auf Blockflötenköpfen mit neuen Spieltechniken, sowie Einsatz der Stimme und des Körpers eröffnet einen direkteren Zugang zum Kern des Musizierens, zur Darstellung von Affekten."

Rough translation:

"Improvisation on recorder heads with new playing techniques, as well as use of voice and body opens a more direct access to the quintessence of music making, to the representation of affects."

This is from the abstract of a conference talk by Agnes Dorwarth, professor at the renowned Freiburg University of Music. (She has also published recorder head music in 4 voices.)

While this is not directly usable, surely a good source can be found for this standard technique in early music education.

That said, the addition of the earplugs nonsense to the user's most recent edit shows that you finally managed to turn them into a troll. Congratulations. Continued in this way, Wikipedia's trademark combination of incompetence and bad faith assumptions may manage to create another serious long-term abuser.

Or someone could simply write a single sentence alluding to play on the recorder head, and add it with a cn tag. Hans Adler 11:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The standard procedure with repeated vandalism like this is to ask for the page to be semi-protected. I took the liberty of doing just that at WP:RFPP, but nothing has been done yet, so the admin corps may be asleep at the switch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Bugs, you can PayPal me the five bucks. Hans, you are correct. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Bugs, don't bother. Hans Adler, I should have read your comments more carefully; I found your Agnes and added the content: please tweak or improve where necessary. I also unprotected the article since I presume there is no need for it now (I hope this doesn't change). Martin of Sheffield, I don't see why such whistling is misuse of the instrument. Using it as a dildo, sure, but just playing the head? Thank you Hans, Drmies (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• I was about to ask what size of antlers you wanted on those five bucks. "Misuse" of an instrument is hard to define. Johnny Cash evidently was able to play his guitar like a drum. I don't know that he was criticized for "misusing" it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Like a (snare) drum? Fo shizzle? I wonder how he did it--perhaps there also a German can show us the way. Nice to see you around, Bugs. Hope you're having a lovely Kwanzaa. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• User:Drmies:You do know that Kwanzaa doesn't start for another 2 days don't you? Joefromrandb (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. I was unaware of this until it popped up in ref desk question in the last week or so. It involved interlacing paper in the guitar strings somehow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I was also confounded with respect to the misuse part but after looking at the diffs, it appear to have to do with the ear drum injury that is said to be caused. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I've moved Hans' and Drmies' comments to the article's discussion page so that they are not lost when this section is archived. See Talk:Recorder_(musical_instrument)#Playing_on_the_head_section_only. I hope that meets with everyone's approval, perhaps any further responses ought to be there? Regards all, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Violation of WP:BLP on Jewish Internet Defense Force

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

---

There is a violation of WP:BLP and an edit warring (we are at 3 reverts whereas this article is on WP:1RR) on Jewish Internet Defense Force by user:Moscowrussia. See here. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I am requesting that this page be fully protected with recent edit of David Appletree aka David Brotsky being banned by Wikipedia in such protection be included. This page is being vandalized by [User:Pluto2012|Pluto2012]. [User:Pluto2012|Pluto2012] states that sourcing from Wikipedia is not reliable. Moscowrussia (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. This is an editor who has been blocked before and should know better, especially on a 1RR article. Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

repeat wp:blp violations

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

---

AmericanTruthSeeker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please see Talk:Ping Fu history, Talk:Bend, Not Break, notification of blp policy [190] NE Ent 02:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Confirming once again that the vast majority of editors who choose to use "truth" in their user names are here to push their POV, not to build a neutral encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Bambang Sukma Wijaya

I would like another set of eyes on Bambang Sukma Wijaya. it is an autobiography. The subject may be notable, but the article is a complete résumé and reads like advertisement. The subject and an IP have been removing templates without attending to the underlying issues. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Update The guy continues updating the article, using two IP addresses (suspected socks to hide the issue of the autobiography). He keeps removing the Autobio tag and adding sources to his own blog. I hesitate to bite a newcomer but I think he has crossed the line. Can somebody please give an opinion, add a warning or block if needed? I am inclined to offer a sterner warning and start removing spam and self-sources but as said I do want to give the new guy the benefit of the doubt. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Submitted to WP:AFD. Gamaliel (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Both IPs are the same user, but I can't guarantee they're him. There are so many warnings on his page already that I wouldn't try anything else unless he tries to remove the AfD tag or something. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 17:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Commented on AfD. Thanks for creating. IPs started editing the moment I warned him about autobio and added an autobio tag to the article, which he promptly removed because now he is not editing anymore; it is somebody else through and IP, see? Then he took a break and was issued a new IP when he returned. Same MO. I strongly suspect they are all one user and hear quacking sounds. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Blanking requested

The following discussion is closed. 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 blank this? [191] Thanks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Blanked, talk page access revoked. Zad68 15:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

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

59.41.252.226

I blocked this troll for classic Serbian vs Croatian nonsense, but noticed User:Antidiskriminator started to defend them. So I checked up on the IP, and it's Chinese. And it's listed in SORBS in the category "Exploitable Server", http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?59.41.252.226 as well as the Barracuda RBL, and whatever else I didn't check. Looks like repeat business (Velebit?), so I'm warning others to be on the lookout for copycats. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yerevantsi

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

---

Yerevantsi (talk · contribs) behaves aggresively and prevents freedom of speech. The free encyclopedia is for every living thing. This user makes hostilities and enters in arguements in habit.

• Especially anti Turkish articles are targeted by user. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Yerevantsi
• Any matter offenses to Turks ( even terrorism) gets support by the user https://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Kurdish%E2%80%93Turkish_conflict
• Any tought deserves to be talked. User just can't stand with this. And complains about talk pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Kafkasmurat

--Kafkasmurat (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Notability (people)

In a heavily disputed issue, several editors (including several admins) have been edit warring over the WP:PORNBIO guidelines. The ones who declaring consensus to change the guidelines have participated in the discussion. I am asking for an independent admin to wade through the mess on the talk page and determine if there is actually consensus to make the disputed edits. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I was just going to bring this here. I considered protecting to avoid a 3RR violation, but I'm involved. Now we have the 3RR violation so someone not involved taking action seems prudent at this point. There is no way we should have anything resembling and edit war on a project page. Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Was fully protected by Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for one week. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Mark appears to have protected it in the version which is clearly against consensus in the related discussion (not The Wrong Version, but an actual "wrong" version). This will inevitably lead to the last edit being reverted as soon as the protection expires, and off we go again ... Black Kite (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:PREFER says, "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus." I'll read the dispute and if there is clear consensus then I'll implement "The Right Version".--v/r - TP 15:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind. Someone started a formal RFC so I'll just let that do its thing.--v/r - TP 15:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Another instance of template vandalism

[192] caused File:Lua_barnstar_nord.png to be displayed on several articles with text as seen in [193]. The link at the bottom also redirected users to Wikipedia_talk:Advertising_program with the hyperlink text as "Add your thoughts about the new advertising program here". A deletion of the talk page, the image from commons and a blocking of the uploader [194] is required. Also, a possible block/rangeblock of the IP

Also, we might want to consider additional measures to make sure such vandalism is stopped/does not happen again as it tends to affect a lot of our readers and leaves us in a hard place while fixing it. Additional reports may continue to come in because of purge issues.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

On the off-chance that anyone gets sent to that same page by another instance of template vandalism, I've not deleted the talk page; instead, I've added a notice to the top of the page that they're being redirected there due to vandalism. In a few days, once we're sure that the vandalism has stopped, we can delete the page. I've already semi-protected the template that was vandalised, but I doubt this will do much as the vandal is unlikely to hit the same spot again. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Please remember to block them immediately, too. I just did here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

deskana, I have removed the rest of the sections from that page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, please note that the user on commons who uploaded the image is not yet blocked. [195] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Russavia blocked the user 5 hours ago. Nyttend (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I see. I was searching for the wrong logs. Should have added User: before the name. Thanks TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Redirecting talk page

I almost posted this to WP:AN, but I decided that I suppose this is an "incident" over time.

Essentially, an IP keeps trying to redirect User talk:KingsOfHearts to User:King of Hearts.

Setting aside the fact it is redirecting from user talk space to user space, there doesn't appear any indication that the two users are the same person, so such a redirect is contrary to navigation (the primary purpose for a redirect).

I am not the only one who has reverted them, but as it continues over time, I thought this should be placed on "broader radar" as it were. - jc37 17:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• I semi-protected the page. It's an account indefblocked since 2008 and obviously not linked to King of Hearts. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Largest organisms and user:Irishfrisian

On the 4th October 2013 I found a 9 month old split tag on Largest organisms (as part of an effort to clear the backlog of split tags). On investigation, I found a substantial concensus to split the article. I therefore agreed to split the article at some future date. I was able to do so on 14th December 2013, having found further support for a split: [196]. On 21 December a rather rude message was left on the article talk page: [197] and on my talk page [198]. A short time later, user:Irishfrisian added a further comment on the article talk page [199] and reverted my edits. I reverted his reversion with a link to where concensus was achieved and an explanation. He reverted again, claiming unexplained content removal. It should be noted that user talk:98.250.4.115 and Irishfrisian are the same (see sockpuppet investigations [200]). I have tried talking to Irishfrisian on his/her talk page [201], but I was reverted again: [202]. Another editor user:Apokryltaros very kindly reverted. Since then all has been quiet until tonight. He/she has now made this post to the talk page of the article. [203]. I am sorry to have to trouble you with this, but is there anything that can be done since his edits/demands appear to be running contrary to concensus and I cannot with a clear concience change my actions. Op47 (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

comment: User Irishfrisian appears to have an enormous grudge against Op47 for splitting Largest organisms, to the point where, after I warned his ip persona about harassing Op47, I was then accused of harassing 98.250.4.115, and of trying to protect a vandal (Op47) [204]. And there is the problem of how the only suggestions Irishfrisian gives on Talk:Largest organisms for improving the page is to incessantly and very angrily lament how Op47 ruined the page forever.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring, POV-pushing and lack of communication by IP

(Since this does not involve edit-warring alone, I am reporting this here rather than at WP:EWN.)

• 24.191.198.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• formerly 69.113.47.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 24.191.198.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — see editing patterns

Affecting articles

• Haym Solomon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — main target
• Rashi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Secondarily

• Ashkenazi Hebrew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• History of the Jews in France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

With some edits to Rabbeinu Tam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Tosafot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and List of Tosafists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as well.

An array of diffs relevant to the original POV-pushing and edit-warring is provided at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Please help with odd POV-pushing IP in my initial post there. To summarize, IP is pushing a somewhat Ashkenazi-supremacist view of several Jewish-related articles, without sources, with vague sources, sources not supporting the information cited, or very dated sources inappropriate for the relevant claims, and almost always irrelevant. The IP reverts all reverts without discussion and has ignored notices and warnings (see User talk:24.191.198.98).

After several editors (including myself, as enumerated here) reverted the IP's edits once more after apparent consensus at the WikiProject Judaism discussion board (see discussion there), IP has continued to edit-war and (partially) revert articles Rashi and Haym Solomon to their preferred version (Rashi: [205] and after another reversion [206]; Haym Solomon: [207]) The IP edits has not violated the 3RR, however.

Please note that the POV-pushing affects the Hebrew Wikipedia's article on Haym Solomon as well.

(If I have not followed procedure correctly, please be understanding; I have very little experience in reporting editor misconduct.)

Thank you, הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I blocked 24.191.198.98 for one week. The other IP addresses hadn't edited in too long to justify blocks. You may still have problems because the IP is supposedly dynamic. Semi-protection is an option, but the number of articles affected is rather large. Feel free to report any additional problems on my talk page and, if I'm not available, to another administrator (referring them to this report). As for following procedures, first, you should be happy that you don't report editor misconduct very often, and, second, you did a fine job.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 12:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Report a editor

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

---

I am reporting the editor of African American Literature Malik Shabazz. He has taken down my inclusion of African American Literature. I added a piece of literature by two African American published authors and he took my post down, unlawfully. Please investigate his integrity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosselld99 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

You spammed an article by including a shameless plug for an obscure compilation. Malik (one of our more esteemed editors on African-American topics in particular, and one of our volunteer administrators) properly reverted you. There was nothing "unlawful" about it; his integrity is unquestioned. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is all Malik's fault for inviting the user to come here. I've blocked Rosselld99 for one week for spamming (he's also incompetent). If another administrator wants to make it indefinite, feel free.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Topic ban enforcement needed re: ProudIrishAspie

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

---

• ProudIrishAspie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• original topic ban discussion Which resulted in a consensus topic ban "indefinitely from adding flags, icons, rank insignia, and other images to military biography info boxes".
• ProudIrishAspie informed of result

Diffs of ban violations are as follows:

Edits to William Lee Davidson, [208]

Edit to Henri Victor Roulland, [209]

Edit to Irvine Bulloch, [210]

These are just a few samples. There are likely many more in the User's contribs since December 6. ProudIrishAspie has been blocked, to my knowledge, on two three occasions for adding flags to military biography info boxes; this and other facts/background can be seen in the original topic ban discussion, link given above. This user has continued to persist in the same single-minded activity, despite users (including myself) trying to engage in discussion with PIA to determine a more constructive outlet for his impulsive editing. PIA has, to date, refused to directly engage in discussion. I will notify this user as soon as I submit this request. Cdtew (talk) 03:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

User has been informed of this discussion here. Cdtew (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I would weakly suggest a short block. I don't know enough about this topic to understand 100% what the big issue is with the flags (unless they're copyvios or something; and I did read the entire thread leading to the ban), but a topic ban is a topic ban, and he violated it. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) A short block won't do anything. The policy is fairly clear, and this is a true one/two-issue editor, one of whose issues happens to lead to the cluttering of info boxes with inaccurate flags. To my recollection, and according to the block log, PIA has been blocked for 31 hours, 60 hours, and 2 weeks for the same conduct. Also, in the latest ANI, a mass-rollback of all the user's changes was effected by an admin. The latest block came in the midst of the ANI discussion, when PIA was ignoring multiple requests for discussion. A small block won't cut it. Cdtew (talk) 13:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

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