Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Speedy deleting files at AFD

Speaking of speedies, ISTM that speedying a file that's under deletion discussion, especially where valid reasons have been given to keep, AND there has been a prior restoration, is contrary to policy. The conditions of F8 were not met. Should the admin be admonished for deletion out of process? I didn't participate in the 14 Jun deletion discussion, but I was referred to in it. I'd like to see it restored and tagged with {{Keep local}}. There seem to be several involved users ignorant of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Useful_articles.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 00:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Elvey: Completely unrelated to this thread. Ask the admin or go to WP:DRV or something. Ansh666 04:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have speedy deleted files at AFD at least once per G10 and at least once per G7. I suspect that a hoax or a copyvio could also be spotted at AFD. If an admin deletes a file at AFD and someone thinks they may have erred then I would suggest going to them. ϢereSpielChequers 17:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I've already been to DRV. It was undeleted. But then it was speedied. AGAIN, "the conditions of F8 were not met." I'm not claiming that all speedying of files under deletion discussion is inappropriate. I'm claiming that it's not the norm, and this one was inappropriate.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 19:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

(I moved this my talk page; forked discussion inappropriate); Hi Elvey, I am not sure where you are going with this. The deletion discussion Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_June_14#File:XTC_energy_drink_-_from_Commons.jpg was closed normally and the bot marks it as closed when deleted. The image on commons is still there and has been decided to be freely licensed, so I had the choice of just deleting the file here ( as the conclusion to the discussion), or deleting as CSD#F8 as there is an identical image on commons. Are you disputing the deletion here ? If the image is deleted on commons it's a simple matter to undelete here and create a rationale. If it remains on commons it seems pointless to keep a local version - Peripitus (Talk) 06:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I was clear when I wrote, "the conditions of F8 were not met." What do you not understand? Yes, the FFD was closed normally. But your deletion action that led to the bot closing it was not normal. Must I copy and paste the conditions of F8 here to get you to address them? Please don't spread discussion around. Disputing? I think the answer is obviously yes, as I said, " I'd like to see it restored and tagged with {{Keep local}}." Yes or no: Do you dispute that what you did was bypass deletion discussion, and immediately delete, even though the conditions of F8 were not met? You deny it as 'pointless', but we have {{Keep local}} for good reason. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 19:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfair conduct in a deletion battle

There is a deletion discussion regarding History of the Jews in Nepal. In good faith, I tried to improve the article to spare it from deletion by adding referenced content. Another contributor, @Ubikwit:, persistently reverts my additions here, here, here, and here. When an article is on the chopping block, constructive additions should not be themselves chopped.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I've given Ubikwit a 3RR-warning based on the page history. Don't interpret that as me supporting the article, though, because it seems a bit "thin", so nominating it for deletion discussion was probably the right thing to do. Reverting any and all attempts to improve the article during the deletion discussion was IMHO not the right thing to do, though. Thomas.W ^talk 19:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm busy, will reply to this later. Thanks.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all, the four separate reverts over a period of several days pertain to four respectively different blocks of text, all of which were inserted in the article against the various policies cited, and do not represent history.

The material added by the OP was fringe, peripheral, or completely unrelated to the subject of the article, such as the material in the last diff, which relates to Bnei Menashe, a group of recent converts to Judaism in India surrounded by some controversy.

Though I informed him of WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED, as he doesn't seem to understand the concept of history, not to mention policies such as WP:RS, he continued to insert similarly unrelated, unreliably sourced, and fringe material in a tendentious manner, without discussion on the Talk page, subverting the BRD cycle.

The AfD discussion is here, and I have queried the closing admin in relation to his judgement as to the consensus. He closed the AfD as a "Clear policy-based "keep"".

Meanwhile, the OP also linkspammed the "Jewish diaspora"[1] and Ten lost tribes[2] articles. After that he added fringe material not even supported by this unreliable website or this blog, this ref, or ref. Every single one of those sources in unreliable for just about anything on Wikipedia, with the possible exception of the HP blog). They were added to support a promotional statement to which the OP apparently has an emotional attachment.

I have dealt with a number of similar editors on Ten lost tribes related pages over the past couple of years, but few as persistent as the OP.

Some of the material he added was offensive to other religious traditions, namely Hinduism and Buddhism. Some of it still remains in the article in slightly modified but still unacceptable form

Some legendary material links the first residents of Nepal to descendants of the concubines of Abraham, as well as legends that early Jewish influence played a role in the origination of the caste system in Nepal and India, and that the etymological roots of the word Brahmin can be traced to early Jewish origins.

, while another statement on Buddha has been removed, and is quoted in this thread at the fringe noticeboard.

Regarding the first statement, User:Ravpapa seems to suggest that maybe Birnbaum was being misrepresented here. And the original text of the OP was modified here by User:Smeat75.

I should note that the source in question is in Hebrew, and since I don't speak Hebrew I've no been able to evaluate it myself with regards to reliability, though I accept Ravpapa's use for noncontroversial facts.

Apparently he is here trying to complain about "unfair" conduct "deletion battle" in order to win a content dispute. His battle mentality is evident. The four reverts over a period of six days certainly do not violate the spirit of WP:EW policy, and I certainly didn't come close to breaching 3RR. Moreover, material offensive to Buddhism was removed, and the material related to Nepalese as descendants of "Abraham's concubines" and the etymology of the word Brahmin should also be removed as offensive to the sensibilities of Nepalese people and followers of Hinduism, and are exceptional claims. So is the claim about the caste system.

In this regard, I cite from WP:RS

Please keep in mind that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources, and this is policy.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:12, 11:30 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I note that you have now accused User:Thomas.W of possible "stalking" you. [3] is your "stalking warning" to that editor with whom you have had zero other interactions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that I was not aware of his comment at this AN/I thread when I left that warning. Meanwhile, there has been zero interaction between TW and me outside of AN/I, commencing with his first baseless accusation of WP:OWN against me in the thread I filed against you several days ago, as you are well aware. So what is your point? --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: Accusing me of stalking you is just a load of BS. I commented on the previous ANI-case involving you, correcting a couple of misconceptions you had regarding the process here, and then issued a 3RR-warning to you based on the page history of the article that this ANI-case is about, but apart from that I haven't interacted with you in any way anywhere on WP. So your accusation is totally baseless. Unfortunately baseless accusations against everyone who doesn't agree with you are a frequent part of your uncollegial behaviour here on WP, a behaviour that is totally unacceptable. And, as was pointed out to you in the previous ANI-case, if everyone disagrees with you, the problem most likely doesn't lie with everyone else, but with you. Thomas.W ^talk 11:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

One more comment: Claiming that the edits you reverted are badly sourced or fringe is no excuse for edit-warring, it's just a content dispute that should be taken to the talk page of the article. The only reverts that don't count against the three-revert rule are reverts of blatant vandalism, as defined by Wikipedia. Thomas.W ^talk 11:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Thomas.W: First, I did not accuse you, I warned you to be wary of engaging in such behavior, as at the time I saw your warning I was not aware of your comment here, so again you fail to assume good faith.

Secondly, I was not at 3RR on that page, having made four reverts over a period of 6 days. 3RR warnings are generally issues at 3RR.

Finally, your first interaction with me on WP was to level this baseless accusation of WP:OWN. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You had two reverts within 24h and one just outside 24h, and showed no sign of intending to stop. Also note that the AfD-discussion has just been closed as keep, with this comment by the closing admin: The result was keep. The article as nominated appears to have garnered sufficient "keep" policy-based discussion. Attempts to fix any issues brought it even more "keep", and attempts by the nominator to remove positive additions has been disruptive overall. Clear policy-based "keep". A comment that criticises your behaviour/reverts on the article. Thomas.W ^talk 12:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You are persistent, aren't you? With green text no less.

If you were a little more thorough in your investigating, you would have noted my comment above related to the close, and found this.

The closer has yet to respond to the query, which is standard procedure when the judgment of the closer of an AfD is called into question for possible review. Obviously I disagree with that close, as well as the accusation of disruption. The OP of this thread was tendentiously adding fringe and unrelated material to the article in an attempt to influence the outcome of the AfD. The close will be subject to review.

The assertion that I "showed no sign of intending to stop" is another baseless accusation by you. See WP:NOTBATTLE.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You seem to be very fond of wikilawyering, but you're not very good at it; in several cases obviously not even having read the policies you refer to. Because the only one here showing battlegrund mentality is you. Thomas.W ^talk 12:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Reference: User_talk:Ravpapa#Birnbaum_source.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • • Note to admins Tomwsulcer has now removed the contentious material from the article [4], which is an appropriate and welcome act, and I thank him for doing so. There hadn't been any real complaint about my conduct other than a weak EW claim, so I request that this be closed. Should Thomas.W persist in his demeanor toward me, I'll request a one-way IBAN be placed on him. I have never interacted with the guy on WP outside of this venue, when he leveled the above-diffed baseless accusation of WP:OWN against me. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously requesting an interaction ban against me for comments about your behaviour, made in two threads on ANI? Get real, dude. Thomas.W ^talk 12:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I prefaced that with "Should he persist", dude. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Since our only interactions ever have been here on ANI, and a 3RR-warning because of a discussion here on ANI, I interpret that as you intending to request an interaction ban against me if I continue making comments about your behaviour here on ANI, in a case filed against you because of your behaviour. That's not what interaction bans are for, dude, you're fair game here as long as the comments are civil,as mine always are. Thomas.W ^talk 13:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"Dude", you made a baseless accusation related to an activity that presumes an intimate familiarity with my editing: WP:OWN. Your second interaction with me was also in relation to a filing here at ANI, which I gather you are an avid monitor of. Although you are permitted to monitor my edits, comment on talk pages of articles I edit, etc., you are not permitted to make baseless accusations out of the blue without evidence. The next time you do that I will file a report about you here, and request the one-way IBAN. I find nothing civil about your tone. You are "fair game", too. And please don't call me "dude" again.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to file whatever complaint you want, but don't forget to read the page you quoted without having read it before you do. Thomas.W ^talk 15:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment by Ravpapa: Without attempting to excuse any improprieties that may or may not have occurred in this episode, I think it is important to understand the surrealistic editing environment in which it took place. The article History of the Jews in Nepal began its life as a coat-hanger to tell the story of a Passover Seder in Katmandu, attended by 1500 Israeli backpackers, sponsored by Chabad, an orthodox Jewish religious organization. In the course of the deletion debate, various items were added and deleted to give the article the appearance of a real article. Among the things added:

• There is no Jewish community in Nepal, and never was one.
• About 20,000 Israeli tourists visit Nepal every year.
• There is a legend about the ten lost tribes of Israel settling in various parts of India, but not in Nepal.
• An Israeli mountain-climber once gave up his dream of scaling Mount Everest in order to rescue another climber.

In the debate, the opponents of deletion - all of whom spend a not inconsiderable portion of their time editing articles related to the Chabad movement - argued passionately that this big Passover celebration in itself constituted an historical Jewish presence in this Jewless land. They took umbrage at some of the more pointed criticisms of the article, claiming they were "anti-Jewish" and "a mockery of Jews, Jewish Passover rituals, the Chabad people". The atmosphere was intense.

It is clear to anyone whose sight is not clouded by ideology that this ten tribes legend, irrelevant to Nepal, has no place in the article. But then, it is also clear that this article has no place in Wikipedia.

As I said at the outset, I don't attempt to excuse improprieties like edit warring, but I think that admins should take into account the surreal situation in deciding on any sanctions. Thank you, --Ravpapa (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think there will be any sanctions. The edit-warring and disruption of the AfD-procedure stopped, the AfD has been closed and Ubikwit's tactics, with repeated baseless accusations and attempts to stifle discussion by threatening to file complaints at ANI or whatever against anyone who disagrees with him/her, have been seen by more admins/editors than before. So all is well, and this discussion can, IMHO, be closed and archived too. Thomas.W ^talk 16:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• History of the Jews in Nepal is a triumph of flag waving over common sense. From the article: there has never been a Jewish community in Nepal; the Jewish diaspora has spread to many places, but not Nepal; Nepal and Israel have diplomatic relations; an Israeli tourist rescued a boy; an Israeli climber did not climb Mount Everest; an Israeli embassy has started the tradition of holding a Passover Seder for Israeli travelers. That's it! Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Problem is with the article title using the word history, not the content.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

There appear to be many articles titled "History of the Jews in..." In this case, it seems more like "anecdotes" than "history". Like if someone wrote an article called "History of the Maori in the Aleutian Islands". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Just when you thought things were "quieting down" along comes Ubikwit with #User:IZAK NPA, CIVIL, AGF, BATTLE, see below. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the things people invent!! That article is pure crap manufactured out of WP:SYNTH. All the section covered in notes 5-10 synthesizes original research by googling 'spikenard+Nepal' and 'spikenard+geniza'. That section is nonsense, like writing History of the Egyptians (or of the Sumerians) in Afganistan because lapis lazuli went out from Badakhshan, which however at that time was not Afghanistan, and found its way to Sumer and Egypt. Jeesus, or Yahweh! stone the fucken crows - the stuff that gets stuffed into a project that is supposed to be encyclopedic. I'm not going to read the squabble lit here: but Ubikwit is spot-on in saying some editors there have no understanding of history. And in lieu of that, you get policy waving over p's and q's. Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani old chap when the best you can do in a serious discussion is use filth like "pure crap" and "fucken crows" you should wash out your proverbial potty-mouth first before expecting any civilized response. There is also no need to invoke "Jeesus, or Yahweh!" because no doubt there are many users who would regard that as very offensive or worse. You denigrate yourself by that kind of "response", have some self-respect will you. By the way, did you read the entire article and not just a section that troubles your "sensitive" WP:IDONTLIKEIT taste buds?! Is there anything you like in Category:Jewish history by country, maybe from that we can understand what you are really trying to say? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not a serious discussion. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to chat in a social forum about the niceties of etiquette. I looked at the article. Whoever edited that section knew nothing of zilch about wikipedia's editing criteria, history, Nepal, anything relevant. It viollates every known norm of article construction. This is obvious at a glance to anyone with a tertiary education: it glares at anyone who is trained in ancient history and languages. All I see here at least is WP:AGF finessing. I didn't come here to twiddle my thumbs and listen to adolescent old ladyish chat about the decline in manners, or hear out precocious fogies plying the worrybeads over potentially frayed sensibilities - these remonstrations about the social niceties are all very well, but this is an encyclopedia, it needs people who understand the subject matter, not people who anguish over imagined or petty offences. Again, it is inane to speak about WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please note that I gave specific details as to why that jejune pastiche is rubbish in wikipedian and encyclopedic terms. What is your response? I must be animated by feelings of personal distaste. No. I did I degree in this stuff, and part of it consisted in reading Cosmas Indicopleustes's topography, young man. It's not distaste for anything but juvenile nonsense parading as learning. In the real world, i.e., a university seminar, you used to get booted for dropping dopey clangers like that into a term paper. Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, nice "peroration" but it's no excuse for using filthy language (presumably you learned that in "tertiary education"), oh and you forgot to insult "Allah and Buddha" while you were at it, or do you reserve your dislike only for "Jesus and Yahweh"? Anyhow, WP articles do not start out at the heights of academia to be acceptable, they must be written in good English, meet WP:V & WP:RS, preferably have WP:NOTABLE information and abide by WP:NPOV -- all of these criteria are fully met in this case and an AfD confirmed that. By your standards the four and a half million articles on WP would be reduced by about 90% or less if you owned the WP Foundation. Good thing you don't. Bottom line, WP:NOTPAPER and it welcomes all articles as long as they can be verified and are based on reliable sources. Even as a term paper this article would be a very good and get an A. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia becomes overrun with users who believe that what I am replying to is a useful argument, the encyclopedia is in trouble. The comment has nothing on the article content, just generic attacks on the messenger. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

alcohol (drug) and related changes to "over 100 articles" - User talk:David Hedlund‎

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

---

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

I am unsure this is the correct venue. However, I see at alcohol (drug) "The name of this article, alcohol (drug), will hopefully improve Wikipedia articles significantly by using a link that clearly states that alcohol is a drug." and "I replaced "alcohol or drugs" with "alcohol or other drugs" in over 100 articles." and this seems to be a clear statement of intent to pursue a specific point of view. Articles changed include Andy Rooney and Sleep, which by odd coincidence are both on my watch list. This seems incorrect. I tend to support the PoV but... I accept that it is a PoV. I noted on User talk:David Hedlund‎ that I was making this note to bring attention to the issues.Unfriend14 (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• It would help if you would provide some diffs of this alleged conduct. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Enjoy. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I have been looking at these and rolling back some. Others are adding links, albeit to the wrong target. At some point editors need to loot at all of the inbound links for alcohol (drug) and remove any that are not correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

{ec}This is probably an issue of WP:POV violations. I noticed one on my watch list which was totally inappropriate. I never thought that it was part of a mass change! Vegaswikian (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Spot checking a few of these, there are problems with the mass changes. We have alcohol (drug) which refers to any alcohol that has certain medical effects, and then we have alcoholic beverage which are specificlly about drinks that contain alcohol. Most of the changes that are being made are really pointing to the latter, people using the beverages, and not their medical use of such. A lot more care has to be done here. (BTW, did you notify David of this discussion?). I will note that alcohol (drug) seems properly named - it is about the class of medical drugs, but the careless linking to it instead of the beverage article is what is creating the POV here. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Notified. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• By the way, Unfriend14, have you been on Wikipedia before - under another name, perhaps? Because your talk page seems to indicate that... [5]. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just gone through every one of the additions of the link alcohol (drug) made by David Hedlund (as I discussed on User talk:David Hedlund#Alcohol (drug)) and reverted/revised several of them. Fortunately, most of them seemed to be OK, as the context was drug-related, medicine-related, or related to regional alcohol laws. Some links to alcohol (drug) simply added a link were none existed before, and for the most part those were harlmess and OK in context. Others, however, were clearly out of context or reduced precision, and I reverted those. I noticed I wasn't the only one reverting. I also saw some evidence of POV pushing with a couple of statements characterizing wine as a drug that clearly misrepresented the cited source, and reverted those too.

This was quite time consuming, but appears to be cleaned up now for the most part. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you went through all of them, you missed some. In may cases we have beverage articles and clearly the link should be to alcoholic beverage and not to a drug. I really love the one I just fixed where Alcoholic beverage was changed to drug and the next link to non-alcoholic beverage was left along. Clearly in context, the beverage link was correct. So more reviews need to take place. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Vegaswikian, actually I didn't miss those. I wavered in my temptation to revert those, in the sense that there is no need to revert "happy" to "glad" or vice versa. In cases many where "alcoholic beverage" was changed to "alcohol" (with a wikilink to alcohol (drug)), the sentence still made sense, if the point was to consume alcohol in general, rather than alcoholic beverages in particular. I have no opinion on what is better, so in most cases I left them alone. If you reverted them, that's fine too. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for going through them all. Because this complaint sounded familiar I did an AN search and found this fairly recent thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive787#Return to David Hedlund --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  00:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Which was in reference to an earlier thread, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#Copy-paste_tracking. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed Terry Kath has had the same thing happen ([6]) and I see he's hit a few hundred articles just this morning. Do we have communication problems here? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 and Nick: Hes death involved alcohol (a drug), not water intoxication. So whats wrong with putting alcohol in this context? --David Hedlund 12:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked David until he's prepared to engage with the discussion here. He was still hitting articles at quite some pace as I was blocking him, sorry I'm afraid there's a number of reverts that might need to be made. Nick (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

And now unblocked so he can participate here, on the understanding he won't make similar edits until he has discussed the issue. Nick (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The issue is not so much the content, which I'm welcome to discuss on Talk:Terry Kath, but rather you carried on making controversial edits after other people asked you to take time out and discuss them. As long as you discuss first, we should hopefully reach an agreement. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Ok, I have received both Thanks and Reverts. So I am not even allowed to edit medicine-related (eg x is contraindicative with alcohol) articles until you reach a consensus? --David Hedlund 12:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Why the interest in alcohol - it looks like you have a specific point of view that you're (intentionally or not) forcing upon the project. I'd also like to know what sources you intend to use for discussing alcohol being contraindictative with (presumably) pharmaceuticals. Nick (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nick: Because I'm very interested in medical writing. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 16:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Having had one of these pop up on my watchlist and having then examined and reverted several on an item-by-item basis, I have to say I discern a POV element that sometimes descends to the level of disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point. At Vínbúð (reverted by another editor), Sprecher Brewery, If-by-whiskey, Strip club, Drive-through, and Mpongwe people, for example, the context is very clearly that of beverages - explicitly in the title in the first three cases. In other cases such as Bridgewater State University I hesitate to point out other means of alcohol delivery that are without a doubt not covered, on grounds of WP:BEANS. At School district drug policies the editor changed the wording to include alcohol under drugs, at Drug possession the editor inserted an aside about this one legal drug into the lede's restriction of the topic to illegal drugs, and at Gateway drug theory the editor shuffled exposition and examples so as to present alcohol as less licit than cannabis. I haven't looked at the medical articles, where there might be a better prima facie case for changing the link from Alcohol or Alcoholic beverage or for adding a link to the Alcohol (drug), but the edits I have looked at plus the response above suggests to me that the editor cannot edit neutrally on the topic of alcohol. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir, Nick, Ritchie333, and Rhododendrites: I will edit more careful now after I've listen to you guys. Can you please give me a chance to add alcohol (drug) to 10 more articles so you can reevaluate if I can edit neutrally? I have 1500 articles left to read to make a decision if this term comes in context. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 16:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. The popular convention for disagreements over content is bold, revert, discuss. You made an edit, somebody else reverted, then you talk about the differences. So, what I would rather see is you opening one talk page discussion, resolving that content dispute, then moving onto the next. I've started a conversation at Talk:Terry Kath#Alcohol and drugs, which will hopefully resolve the dispute on that article. It won't, however, cover the other 1,499 articles you were thinking of looking at. Frankly, I'd give up on the idea of changing that many articles completely in any definite timeframe, because now it's been brought to the attention here, it's unlikely you'll be able to do it without somebody thinking you're being disruptive - and that comes with a risk of being blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I made this new edit[7] but wont make any further of this kind as long as you don't give me feedback on it. I won't add "alcohol (drug)" in non-medical articles from now on. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 17:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There is now an additional component to this. It seems that there are changes to the use of {{Psychoactive substance use}} and {{Alcohealth}}. In some cases this is being replaced by {{Alcohol (drug)}}. In some cases the order of the entries is changed giving priority to the new template. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the template to its original form at {{Alcohol and health}} and reverted Hedlund's edits to it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Also this is a bit circumspect.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering whether to bring up the fact that the article to which all these links have been made is a recent creation out of a redirect. It's been marked as non-neutral and there are a couple of relevant sections on its talk page. ... I continue to revert/change the links on a case by case basis and I see others are doing so too, with emphasis on the non-medical articles. Some I've left unchanged, as Amatulic mentions having also done. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The distinction between alcoholic beverage and alcohol (drug) is artificial, and I rather think that everything should be discussed in a single article. The only difference between them is the amount - surely this can be discussed in context (in terms of health effects and recommended limits). JFW | T@lk 20:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Systematically changing all internal links to alcoholic beverages, on a very large number of articles, to point to his own new POV article, alcohol (drug), without prior discussion, is clearly disruptive. Hundreds of articles today alone, ranging from breweries to BLPs. And not only changing existing links, but also creating new links in articles where "alcoholic beverage" was mentioned in the text. Showing that he has made a free text search to find targets to add his link to. Thomas.W ^talk 20:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't ethanol basically the same as alcohol (drug)? So, ethanol is probably the best link in many of those articles where alcoholic beverage is not quite right. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Vegaswikian: No, alcoholic beverages also contain significant amounts of 2M2B and isopropanol in certain drinks like beer and rum respectively.--David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 07:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't 2M2B a trace byproduct? If so, that's hardly significant. While not a chemist, I somehow wonder how significant that point is. Also, if these were important, why does ABV only measure ethanol? Vegaswikian (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Basically in these two edits [8] [9] he split the Alcoholic beverage into two pages creating Alcohol (drug). Alcohol is rarely used iv as a treatment for methanol toxicity but agree that they can usually be discussed together. These would be subpages of ethanol which is used for many none drug purposes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jmh649: I added Alcohol (drug)#Pharmaceutical_alcohols. Alcohol deserves to be mentioned as a chemical class of drugs as Benzodiazepine. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 07:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

As long as David is now in "discuss" mode and has held off changing any more articles, I think we're all done with any administrator action. We definitely need to continue the general conversation though about the content, whether that's at a project page (possibly Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer, Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and Drink or Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs) or at WP:DRN. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I added a Drugbox to Ethanol#Pharmacology for those who are interested. My goal is to create an article for alcohol that describe it as a chemical class (loosely called "drug family") in the category of WP:Pharmacology and/or WP:Medicine. WP:DRN redirects to WP:Pharmacology. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 14:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC) @Ritchie333:

Hmm. I can't help thinking there's still some confusion around here. You might be better off just going to Swedish Wikipedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: That is not an option at all as I'm only interested to publish it in the english Wikipedia. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 14:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Judging by comments on your talk page on sv-WP and an article you created there, your insufficiently/improperly sourced POV edits aren't very popular on the Swedish Wikipedia. An article that apparently has been speedily deleted once and might be speedied again. So what made you believe your POV edits would be welcomed here? Thomas.W ^talk 15:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the greatest confusion might be that over 90% consume alcohol and it is likely that many of them value alcohol as a social drink rather than a drug. "Ethanol, commonly referred to as alcohol in this context, is widely consumed for enjoyment, for recreational purposes"[10] --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 15:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place for crusades, or pushing a certain view at the expense of everything else. So if you were looking for a web site where you can push teetotalism, you've come to the wrong place. Thomas.W ^talk 15:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a need for the article Alcohol_(Drug), Alcoholic beverage and Ethanol were fine articles. In college, one of the professors said "salt is a drug." Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hedlund, this is irrelevant. The point of this whole discussion is that you had been improperly changing every single reference of alcohol as a drink to point to your recently created article that has an incredibly skewed point of view that you need to use Wikipedia to warn people of the dangers of alcohol abuse by explicitly referring to it as a drug which is a violation of the English Wikipedia's core policies. There is no reason that the information should have been moved to its own article, nor that it cannot be discussed under the topics of human consumption of alcohol, alcoholic beverage, ethanol, alcohol abuse, etc. Your split was unwarranted. Your edits to point to your split off page are unwarranted. Your skewed POV is not wanted on the English or Swedish Wikipedias.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

David Hedlund has just created Alcohol and crimes which I've temporarily redirected to Alcohol abuse. Can someone please make him stop making these articles? He's clearly showing he cannot have a neutral point of view here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've seen a few of this editors articles and was on the verge of nominating the POV fork for deletion but I think that we would do well to review all of their articles. I recognize a lot of good faith effort here I'm just concerned they don't meet the GNG guidelines or otherwise unacceptable. I'm sorry I really don't want this to come across mean I truly don't mean it that way. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Since he was conditionally unblocked, promising to discuss, and not continue making controversial edits, maybe someone should block him again. Thomas.W ^talk 15:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Some fo these may be old news..

• Long-term impact of alcohol on the brain
• Methanol outbreaks
• Alternative psychoactive alcohol use
• Alcohol (drug)
• Alcohols (drug)
• Alcohol (drug)
• Substituted alcohols Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• The creation of Alcohol and crimes after it was made clear in this discussion that the editor needed to stop this kind of edits is concerning. I think I have now checked all the remaining non-medical articles to which the Alcohol (drug) link was added and that had not been reverted already; please could someone with scientific knowledge check the scientific articles? I believe it may be time to discuss a topic ban from alcohol-related articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: He's still going at it, even trying to sneak edits through with deliberately misleading edit summaries. So could someone please block him again to prevent further disruption. Thomas.W ^talk 17:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I concur, he is out of control and not respecting any voluntary limits. He has made dozens of entries today to the original article "Alcohol (drug)" [11]. In one case he asked at the talk page for someone to add a particular infobox, and after two people said it was inappropriate, he attempted to add it himself.[12] [13] --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

He also seems to have created Alcohol and health during his spree of article creations last year. It seems he has been creating these POVFORKs for some time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That article almost seems reasonable. I'm actually tempted to convert Alcohol (drug) to a redirect to Alcohol and health unless someone sees a good reason not to. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Can someone look at the templates created as part of this push like {{Entheogens}}. I have no idea if they are correct or not. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Just nuke the template. It's a POVFORK of {{Hallucinogens}}.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to state that I don't agree with Vegaswikian changing every link of "alcohol consumption" to "alcohol," like he did here and here for example. I object because the Alcohol article is broader than the Alcohol (drug) or Alcoholic beverage articles; its primary focus is not on alcohol being consumed. Therefore, I don't see it as a "better link," as described by Vegaswikian in his changes.

As for redirecting the Alcohol (drug) article to the Alcohol and health article, a good reason not to do that is that it's likely to be contested (at some point anyway). I suggest a WP:Merge discussion or a WP:Redirect for discussion instead. Flyer22 (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

As to the better link, yes in some cases alcoholic beverages or ethanol could be the better links (and I have changed them as appropriate). But in only a few cases would it be best to leave the link to alcohol (drug). This an example of why POV forks are bad. I look at one article being about the substance and the other is about the pharmacology of the substance. I guess one could argue that a better edit comment would be 'rv POV fork'. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Vegaswikian, I think that when it comes to mentioning alcoholic consumption, the Alcoholic beverages article is the better link, unless there is some specific reason why the Ethanol article is the better link. Going back to the topic of redirecting the Alcohol (drug) article to the Alcohol and health article... Actually, discussion likely is not needed to do that, since it's a WP:Spin out article that David Hedlund recently created and others have objected to; furthermore, considering that David Hedlund is currently indefinitely blocked, I don't see who else would object to the redirect and/or merge. Some of that content should probably be merged back into the Alcoholic beverages article. Flyer22 (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I can use alcoholic beverage more often if others think that is the better choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

But I see that there is a discussion going on at the Alcohol (drug) article talk page about what to do with that article. So, yes, discussion first. Flyer22 (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Reblock recommended

See Talk:Alcohol_(drug)#Template:Drugclassbox.

1. David first asks that someone please add Template:Drugclassbox to the article.
2. I reply I don't think it applies to alcohol.
3. David then adds the infobox with the misleading edit summary "Adding/improving reference(s)". He is reverted, with a note from another editor "Rv edit with misleading edit summary; adding Template:Infobox (drug) isn't "adding/improving references"".
4. He then adds Category:Chemical classification, which I also believe does not apply.
5. Regardless of the above, he then continues to add more WP:POV items to the article, contrary to his promise when unblocked.

Given my response to David's question on the article talk page, as well as the many concerns noted here and on his talk page, and that he was conditionally unblocked by @User:Nick "on the understanding that [he will be reblocked if you immediately return to making the same edits [he was] making before]", I recommend a reblock. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I was going to recommend this as well. As I noted above he does not respect voluntary limits, so I suspect a topic ban would be ineffective. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I have stopped editing. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 17:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You previously promised to abide by the rules of your unblock, which you did not do. You've also not self-reverted your recent changes and additions, but have left it to other volunteers to clean up after you. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

He also claims to have stopped editing, which is not true.[14] Before he gets re-blocked, he should be compelled to do no edits of any kind until he has reverted the changes in question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, the edits he did after saying he had stopped editing were to his own userspace (where he has created a complete copy of the Alcohol (drug) page, presumably so he can keep working on it no matter what anyone else does) and on a talk page (where he attempted to justify adding the infobox that had been recommended against). However, it should be noted that he "stopped editing" only after this block proposal was made at ANI - and that prior to that he had made 70+ edits today and several hundred yesterday. --MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly, as an admin could revoke talk page access. The sequence of events should be (1) he reverts everything that violates his unblock condition; (2) he gets indef'd but retains talk page access ; (3) if he refuses to do option (1), then indef and remove talk page access. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Just trying to get back up to speed with this, Baseball Bugs - has David Hedlund reverted his edits yet and is the consensus still to reblock ? Nick (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nick: No and yes. He hasn't reverted anything, and there's still a definite consensus in favour of a reblock. Thomas.W ^talk 19:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

When it became evident he was not going to revert his questionable edit, an indef became inevitable. I think there's a way to mass-revert someone's edits, but I don't know what that method is (might required admin authority). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

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

New Account Using AWB to Remove Links to archive.is based "the RFC"

Hi, a bit puzzled. User:Spartay has lots of rapid contributions today which, according to the edit summary, are using AWB. The account was registered today and does not appear on the AWB/Check page - so how is it using AWB? In addition, the edits are bulk removing links to archive.is based on the RFC but as far as I can tell the latest RFC is still far from concluding. I've posted a question to the editor's talk page, but noting it here too because of the supposed AWB usage which is troubling if true. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked the account as a temporary measure until the issue of the apparent unapproved use of AWB is sorted out. Let's see what they say on their talkpage first. Black Kite kite (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• The user is saying that they are only removing the reference to archive.is from links that are not dead, which would of course be a useful edit; I am waiting to see what they say on the issue of AWB though. Black Kite kite (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Except they're not just removing the reference to archive.is from links that are not dead. They're removing the whole citation, publisher, title, date, etc etc, leaving the original url bare. And certainly in this diff, the links are dead. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• OK. In the one I looked at it was simply removing the archiveurl= section, and the link was indeed live. Regardless of the efficacy of the edits, a brand new account should still not be using AWB, and I am interested to find out why they are. Black Kite kite (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Probably a Joe Job trying to get me into trouble, or get more people to support keeping the links in the RfC, because I was removing archive.is links. Werieth (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• See also #Serious BLP violations by Kww, Hasteur, Werieth, and possibly others Werieth (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Granhil has also done a huge number of similar edits, also stating they used AWB and that an RFC is the reason to remove archived URL's. Wes Mouse 14:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've just blocked Granhil (talk · contribs) who has been carrying on the deletions since just a few minutes after Spartay was blocked.  —SMALLJIM  14:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Question Unless I'm being particularly stupid, how were Spartay and Granhil using AWB when they've never been authorized? I thought it didn't work if the user name wasn't on the check page? Obviously if it's available to anyone ... well ... I'll say no more. Black Kite kite (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think either user has used AWB to be honest. It is quite easy to write in the edit summary and make it appear as if they have used AWB. One only need to type AWB and nobody would be any the wiser. On another note, I have made a start on reverting all of Granhil's edits (if that's OK with everyone?) Wes Mouse 14:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've finished reverting their edits. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And now Magioladitis and I have finished Spartay's. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It is possible to make AWB run without authorization, but I'd rather not go into details. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

{{checkuser needed}}: I asked Werieth to stop removing links because every one of his edits had the perverse result of canvassing opponents to the RFC. To the best of my knowledge, he has complied with my request and seems to understand the reasoning behind it. It would appear that someone may be consciously attempting to use the same technique to manipulate the RFC. Comparing User:Spartay and User:Granhil to the participants in WP:Archive.is RFC 2 and WP:Archive.is RFC 3 would be in order. The use of AWB makes it pretty clear that this isn't an innocent new account.—Kww(talk) 14:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kww: correct, see above where I stated that his may have been a joe job directed towards me, or an attempt to influence the RfC. After you heads up I have stopped because of the points your raised, and will wait for the RfC to close before continuing. Werieth (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And I've just blocked Jameskine (talk · contribs) who had just started doing the same. This is obvious vandalism.  —SMALLJIM  14:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I find it weird that every article that is being touched is in alphabetical order. Seeing as Granhil had got as far as the J's, then could it be possible that there are multiple account that have been causing al these edits starting from the A's onwards? Wes Mouse 14:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And now Hamerzi (talk · contribs) who started doing the same without edit summaries.  —SMALLJIM  14:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• CU can't do much here. I found a related account out of luck MyOperaCom (talk · contribs) who appears a first glance (I didn't verify this) to be using 32 individual proxies. I'll be putting the information to the other functionaries, but this one will need an edit filter. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

AWB's code may have been modified and recompiled. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Question: English Wikipedia policy demands that you request approval to use AWB (by submitting a successful RfA or asking to have your name added to a page). Does AWB check if you have been approved when you try to edit pages using it?

The source code to AWB appears to be available. Would it be trivial to disable the functions which check if you are allowed to use AWB, or is this place in the source code difficult to discover?

I have never used AWB myself, and maybe the answers are trivial to other people. I realise that it would be easy to make a script using other tools (e.g. Pywikipedia) which uses AWB-style edit summaries, and you could add "using AWB" to the edit summary manually at the edit window. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Three more: Rabinquad (talk · contribs), Deankki (talk · contribs), Szikarim (talk · contribs). Should I report them here, or at AIV, or what? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Even more: ‎Wibawal (talk · contribs) and ‎McFrancfurter (talk · contribs)‎. Probably more around. This is getting kinda out of control... 2Flows (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• All blocked. Can someone mass rollback their edits, please? I can't on this device. Thanks. Black Kite kite (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And while we're at it: ‎Hablamekt (talk · contribs) joined as well. Can an admin maybe get at [15] and block all new accounts who start making such changes? They're obviously socks and should be quite easy to spot. 2Flows (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Berriozobal (talk · contribs), KanakKanak (talk · contribs), Gandyngan (talk · contribs), Prebyslaff (talk · contribs), Janewiche (talk · contribs), SashaKahn (talk · contribs)... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• All blocked. We need an edit filter. Black Kite kite (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I put in a sockpuppet investigation case before I saw this here. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 18:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Aaaand ... Maaaring (talk · contribs). Nothing more yet. Black Kite kite (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Also * Akosanay (talk · contribs) and ‎Inilabas (talk · contribs) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 18:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Aboliri (talk · contribs) too. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 18:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC) ‎ErgoPoint (talk · contribs) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 18:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned up all the edits made by the listed above socks. But an edit filter would be a very good idea. 2Flows (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Also Nowong (talk · contribs). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

In the user creation log, they appear to all be 'created automatically'. How is that different than just 'created'? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 18:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Lala Wigan (talk · contribs) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 18:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And they're undoing the Cluebot reverts. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 18:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, an account is created automatically if a user has an account on another wiki and logs in with it here. From [16]: "The unified login system combines the user accounts for all of these projects. The greatest advantages are single sign-up (you don't have to create your account again on each new project you get involved with; your account is automatically created at each additional Wikimedia project the first time you log on to that wiki with your existing username and password, or the first time you visit it while logged on to a wiki where you already have an account)" 2Flows (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I checked ten of the blocked socks, and found that one was created on the Japanese WP, three on the Ukrainian WP, five on the Chechen WP and one on Login-wiki, a technical site within the Wikimedia foundation... Thomas.W ^talk 20:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

KumarSatia (talk · contribs) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 18:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Qrococcor. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Saimankehru. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 18:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Urophora --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 19:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Filter 620 created. Protected from viewing for obvious reasons, but I invite other filter editors to review my work.—Kww(talk) 19:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Black Kite kite (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Urophora and KumarSatia blocked, reverted. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this situation, but Special:Contributions/Yestersafe seems to be connected: new SPA account, apparently automated removal of archive links, alphabetical list of articles. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be different as they are removing any citation linked to findarticles.com, a since-defunct service, and while the approach is the same, it's not the archive.is issue. Perhaps riding the coattails? --MASEM (t) 05:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Masem:: I can't begin to imagine this isn't related. Another detail: 12 edits, then the account was discarded. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Now with more examples showing, I'd agree that this is much more likely to be related. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm also not really familiar with the details of this situation, but I have the impression that this new single-purpose account may also have to be looked at: Special:Contributions/Obar_Kaib. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/GoFormer has, um, interesting commentary. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 15:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

More:

• Online Reputation Management (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Baseraviq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mrs Ghundi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wilok Colo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ballisrat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sharly Fiol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Box Office Watch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Leew Donn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vivificant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Cwobeel (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

These accounts are coming fast and furious. Two Three more:

• Ballisrat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Katheleen Dee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Griffiko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Cwobeel (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The MO is pretty consistent: Account is created, the bot makes 12 edits and then account stops. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Is this the work of a botnet trying to affect the outcome of the ongoing RfC on archive.is? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

One the the accounts tried to remove "http://findarticles.com" which is really defunct. Should we do something about it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Severe Uncivil behavior by User:Stoxxman

Stoxxman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s behaviour can be summarized just by this single edit alone: [[17]]

But other uncivil edits include - basically every single post after his third: [[18]]

Warned the editor[[19]] to no avail: He literally continued his attack seconds after my warning.

Sidenote: This edit [[20]] may/may not be a related spoof to frame another editor. But 2 accounts attacking this editor with a single purpose, without any common background beforehand is too suspicious. and I am inclined to lean towards WP:DUCK especially since User:Stoxxman isn't even apparently actively editing on the Kleargear article. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Stoxxman for 24 hours for the personal attacks; he had received a final warning. However, an IP has since posted to the user talk page, linking to an off-wiki attack post. Someone else may wish to semi-protect it. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

</facepalm> Will be up to Talkpage's user to request then... Zhanzhao (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Stoxxman is a clear SPA sockpuppet of 71.19.182.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who Gamaliel recently blocked. Can you semi-protect Talk:Kleargear? Ricky81682 said he would do so if the IP user vandalized the talk page again, but Ricky hasn't logged on since the vandalism really exploded. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I've since blocked 71.19.182.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who was the one continuing the personal attacks. I noted an old block notice on their user talk page, and both IPs have been previously blocked, with a slew of others, based on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/QuestionNadaAns/Archive. Callanecc did the blocking then; rather than prevent all IPs from editing the article talk page, perhaps this should again be treated as ban evasion? In which case an SPI on Stoxxman should be opened. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I would endorse any solution that reduces the amount of ranting, raving, and defamation on Talk:Kleargear. But, yes, these accounts are all clearly related to QuestionNadaAns, and they have all been disruptive since November 2013, when the article was first created. They use the same exact idiosyncratic language and continue the same arguments. These vendetta-driven IP vandals are incredibly frustrating. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

SPI case opened; those of you familiar with the situation may want to add further diffs. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Another IP is back at it [[21]].... look like the guy's running down his list of available IPs. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I see I already made his list now. I think it's time to list it again as a WP:BLP1E situation. There's no long-term significance to this story to me and it's just the toy on one particularly nasty POV-pusher. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I've listed the article for deletion. User: 70.71.146.230 should be attacking the AFD next if he's going with the pattern (my talk and the talk page so far). Please keep watch. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The talk page has been semi-protected (just for a week). I'll try to keep watch on my own talk page but if it continues, short protection may be warranted rather than repeated attacking. Hopefully that calms things down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

More trouble with Russavia

Banned user Russavia has created a sock, User:Diplomeditor, who is causing a ton of trouble at the newly created article Régie Malagache‎. Diplomeditor's first- and second-ever edits went straight to that brand new article, the second one naming Russavia explicitly. Related posts:

• New sockpuppet investigation that I filed.
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Russavia/Regie
• Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 July 2

Can someone put a lid on this guy, and protect the new article? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like quick work was performed by several admins. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Someone beat me to blocking him, but I went ahead and unprotected and restored the content. Even if the socktroll's claim that the content was CC0 licensed was true, you can't exactly violate the copyright of something that has legally been placed in to the public domain in most of the world. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Another sock blocked. It's amazing to me that an active commons admin is both socking on ENWP and doesn't know how a CC0 license works. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman: From an initial look, I'm a bit unsure about this page. Could you elaborate on how the text has been properly released under CC-0? Is there an OTRS ticket involved? Mike V • Talk 06:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No OTRS ticket, but if the troll is in fact Russavia (and it does seem to fit his recent MO,) then no OTRS ticket is really needed. However, without technical evidence proving that the person making the statement was actually Russavia it would not be a bad idea to be cautious and histmerge the original history in to the currently live article, which I'll do myself in the morning assuming no objections - hate doing histmerges when I'm tired. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if the contributions by Russavia were legitimately released to the public domain (which they were not), Wikipedia policy still requires attribution of the material to the public domain source. The material was originally contributed to Wikipedia under the CC-BY-SA license, and contributions under that license are still copyrighted by the author, and merely licensed to Wikipedia under terms that permit reuse with attribution. That is why cut-and-paste page moves such as Binksternet performed are prohibited, and by Binksternet doing so he was violating Russavia's copyright on the material. By his own statement at the MfD, he used part of Russavia's text. For Binksternet to editwar with a person he believed was, by his own statement, the original author of part of the material in an to attempt to remove a copyvio notice is beyond the pale.

Also, Binksternet's creation of this article was an evasion of the block on creation of Régie Malgache, and quite possibly used material from prior versions of that page as well. It's unacceptable for him to evade a block on page creation simply by using a different transliteration of the title.

In my opinion, at least, Binksternet should be sanctioned. Revent^talk 07:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA is pretty clear, if the content wasRussavia's than he needs to be attributed in the page history, even if blocked/banned. That being said, Russavia's actions by maliciously adding a copyright notice, socking, etc are more in clear violation of policy. Per WP:AGF I think that Binksternet was simply trying to create the article and had no intention of maliciously denying Russavia attribution, and as Kevin Gorman already said, he'll handle the history merge in a short while, solving the CC-BY-SA complaint. Honestly as long as the Russavia socks are blocked, and once the history merge is complete, this should be resolved. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 08:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that it doesn't matter what licence the content was originally released under originally. If the copyright owner has at any stage agreed to release them in to the public domain, or some other licence without an attribution requirement that is CC & GFDL compatible (while we only require CC for content from other places, we require both for content from contributors so this should apply to content even from banned editors), then there cannot be a copyright violation due to us failing to attribute, no matter what the licence of the original release. We do not have to comply with the 'original' (whatever is meant by that) licence, only any licence including if it's no licence i.e. a release of material in to the public domain.

While it's true we require attribution of public domain material for a number of reasons, including to help establish that there's no copyvio and also to avoid misleading indications about who the copyright holder may be and the licence the material is under, this is a policy issue and not a copyvio one. (Well there may also be legal issues in that it is potentially a criminal offence to falsely claim copyright, but that's still not a copyvio issue.) This doesn't mean it isn't important, but it does mean people (including banned ones) shouldn't claim it's a copyright violation since it's not. Such claims are harmful when untrue for a number of reason.

BTW, since there seems to be some doubt over whether the content was really released in to the public domain, I agree with Kevin Gorman that we need a history merge or some thing else to satisfy the attribution requirement. I'm also unclear if Russavia was the only contributor or there are others who may have a legitimate copyright claim to some of the material. In reality, we probably should do a hist-merge even if it's only Russavia and we have clear evidence of a CC0 release to satisfy wikipedia's attribution requirements of all material including public domain material, although there are other options which may satisfy our policy requirements. And let me repeat again whatever we do or don't do in such a situation, there cannot be a copyvio for such material.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:Plagiarism#Copying material from free sources. Category:Attribution templates contains {{CC-notice}}. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Nytend beat me to the histmerge - I would've done so last night, but still have some hesitancy to do them when I'm tired. Since I've interacted with Binksternet often enough I am not going to try to close the section myself since people have brought up his behavior, but will say I see no reason to sanction him. The blocked account inserting the copyvio template never even suggested that an actual copyright violation occurred, and although PD material should be attributed, there's not a 3RR exemption for "editwarring to remove unattributed public domain content" whereas there is one for reverting socks of blocked and banned users. Despite what Revent suggests, I also see nothing wrong with Binksternet creating the article in the first place - Russavia's original draft was written in 2009, wasn't G5able since it predated his block, and Binkster's statement at the MfD that he hadn't seen WP:RUD or hadn't had it actively in mind is reasonable. If we sanctioned every editor who ever copied text from one area of Wikipedia to another without fully satisfying our guidelines and the exact terms of CC-BY-SA, I'm pretty sure we'd sanction most people who have ever done a lot of work in articlespace - violations of WP:RUD and internal copying without attribution are ridiculously common and should be assumed to be good faith in the absence of strong evidence of malice. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In case I was not clear, the points that I was pointing out as 'sanctionable' were...

• Evading the block on page creation of Régie Malagache by creating the article under a different transliteration of the title. This was deliberate, Binksternet explicitly acknowledge that the block existed at the MfD when he noted that he had created Régie Malgache, and..
• Removing a copyright violation notice on material that he himself had posted. Regardless of if it was a legitimate copyvio notice, regardless of if he thought it was posted by a sock, whatever. Copyright violation claims REQUIRE investigation by third parties, usually OTRS. This is something where wiggling your way through the details of Wikipedia policy is irrelevant. It is an ethical and legal issue.

That being said, I think it's clear at the point that Binksternet has been adequately admonished in various locations, and he seems contrite about the copyright issue. As this point, I'm willing to step back from requesting that he be sanctioned... it's not as if it would serve the purpose of stopping an ongoing problem. I would like to suggest to Binksternet and the other regular readers of this page, however, that they take a hard look at Wikipedia's content polices, how those are different from guidelines, and ponder exactly why they are here.

We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to delete quality articles that meet the content policies merely because of who wrote them. The purpose of this project is not to be the "Wikipedia Online" social media game, where you score points by 'whacking' things. The 'rules' of the project are the five pillars, everything else is supposed to be an application of those through common sense and consensus. Revent^talk 20:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I performed the histmerge because it was clearly the best thing to do, regardless of whether we needed attribution for copyright compliance — having a split edit history is never a good thing. I acted on the request for sanction by giving a warning; we wouldn't block anyone for copyright infringement the first time around, unless it was possibly someone doing it on a massive scale, and this kind of thing definitely wouldn't qualify for a block unless the party in question had previously been warned for multiple copyvios. Nyttend (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Revent, bullshit copyright violation claims by sockpuppets of banned editors don't need investigation by a third party or OTRS, particularly when they claim an article is violating a CC0 license. If they did, someone could, say, an automated trollfarm to force all prominent ENWP pages to permanent semiprotection by writing a script to replace the contents of a page with a copyvio template with the name of the last user to edit the page.

Nyttend is correct that a histmerge for attribution is clearly the best path regardless of the validity of the CC0 release, but it doesn't make sense for you to simultaneously complain that people aren't here to build an encyclopedia and then try to ask for sanctions of a user who created an article but made a hugely common mistake by copying internal content without adequate attribution. If we sanctioned every person who did so, I can guarantee I could sanction 90% of people with over 5k mainspace edits. You also misunderstand the purpose of the create protection (salt) put on the original title - it wasn't intended to prevent a good faith user from creating a page, and creating a legitimate article at an alternate transliteration of a page that has been salted is not block evasion in the same sense that, er, actual block evasion is. Articles are create protected when they're repeatedly created in a disruptive fashion, and any good faith user indicating that they wanted to create an article at that title could have gotten any admin to lift the salt. Creating an article that has had an alternate title salted is not in any way sanctionable unless the new creation is disruptive in the same way the old was, although it's a good idea to ask for the salt to be lifted and create a redirect so that people can find the article regardless of what title they type in. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The 'CC-0' claim is irrelevant. As I noted above, the 'posting' under CC-0 to Google Docs was not provably by Russavia, and thus invalid. Russavia's content was under CC-BY-SA, and unless Russavia changes that, not someone you think is him, then it's still under CC-BY-SA.

As far as your dismissal of it as a 'bullshit' copyright claim, that's just disturbing. Go read WP:ATTREQ, which makes it quite clear that reuse of material within Wikipedia without attribution is a copyright violation. TL;DR, "If material is used without attribution, it violates the licensing terms under which it has been provided, which in turn violates the Reusers' rights and obligations clause of Wikipedia's copyrights policy." Given that Russavia is socking heavily, and apparently enjoys trolling certain people, it seems quite likely that the CC-0 thing was a deliberate case of screwing with people. Regardless, it was a copyright violation.

As far as my perceived 'complaint', it mas more a request for certain people to take back and take a second look, and my omission of names was deliberate. I find it somewhat disturbing when people are doing things like nominating a banned user's entire userspace for deletion, regardless of if the pages contain usable content or not. In far more cases than this one, I've seen people taking it upon themselves to be the sole 'enforcers' of bans or blocks. The 'exemption' to 3RR for reverting such things should not be a hunting license....there are other editors perfectly capable of also taking action, and the 'hunter' could easily be wrong. In this case, Binksternet was wrong, maybe not about it being a sock, but about it being a copyvio. It was. The world would not have ended if the copyvio notice sat there until someone else looked at it. Instead, he was hitting revert so fast he reverted my edit to his user page. (He later apologized.)

As far as your 'strawman' about a trollfarm, go read WP:BEANS, though it seems unlikely anyhow.

Regarding the block on page creation, Binksternet could easily have contacted an admin, waited for a resolution to the MfD on the draft, or just edited the draft. Instead, as a result of his expressed desire to prevent Russavia from getting 'credit', he screwed up and created even more drama. Another point for my 'request' for people to take a step back above....this is not supposed to be about scoring points or getting 'credit', it's supposed to be about building an encyclopedia, and people are supposed to act responsibly. In the case of Russavia, I think some people, editors and admins, are taking action when they (at least to me) seem to be far too emotionally involved in the whole history. To be perfectly honest, given the 'whole' history of his involvement with Wikipedia, it's starting to make me feel rather uncomfortable to express my opinions even this vaguely. Revent^talk 09:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

An RfC initiated by a sock of a blocked user

The IP 101.0.** is a self admitted sock [22] of blocked user [23]. The sock started an RfC Talk:Race_Differences_in_Intelligence_(book)#RfC:_Length_of_summary in an area under ArbComs R&I discretionary sanctions.

What is the procedure? I was going to strike through all of their comments but that strikes through the RfC language. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say, since multiple other editors have already responded, just leave the question up as it stands, maybe with a note ("xyz has been blocked as a sock of ..."), and then hat off or strike out all further comments wherever they might otherwise be taken as valid opinions feeding into the consensus-seeking procedure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That's what I'd do too. It would unduly penalize the contributing editors in good standing by invalidating the entire RFC, but the IP's comments themselves should be struck and not given weight when determining consensus. -- Atama頭 16:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The RfC was closed by Kosh Vorlon. The closure had invoked WP:EVADE in its explanation. However, our blocking policy only allows for reverting edits by individuals evading a block, it does not allow for closing entire discussions when they are begun with block evasion. I also don't see anything at WP:RFC that suggests that an RfC begun by a blocked editor must be closed.

On the other hand, there are other factors to consider here. There is currently an AfD discussion for the article in progress. Having an RfC for an article undergoing AfD is a bad idea. It's very disruptive for an RfC to be ended prematurely in the midst of a discussion if the article is deleted or merged. So the RfC should probably not resume until the AfD concludes (assuming that the article is intact after it's over). Also, one participant in the discussion is also accused of being a sockpuppet. This is all a mess and despite my initial suggestion I think it's best for the RfC to remain closed, and reopened once both of these issues are sorted out, if there are still disputes to settle. -- Atama頭 19:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Request topic ban for Andy Dingley

I have had enough of the harassment, and personal attacks. His persistent support of the trolling and harassing sockmaster User:Formal Appointee Number 6 is getting old. Andy persistently throws veiled references/accusations whenever and where ever he can. Andy's most recent edit [24] has pushed me over the edge. At what point does this need to reach before its stopped? Werieth (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What topic are you asking him to be banned from? — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

He accuses you of being a sock of the infamous Betacommand, yes? Are you? If not, it would be best to deny it in some prominent place, such as the SPI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have repeatedly denied it. Werieth (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

And Andy has been warned multiple times to stop the harassment. Werieth (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Veiled? You are a sock of Betacommand. When detailed behavioural evidence for this is presented, your NFC-hardline admin friends threaten (and indeed do) block and ban those presenting it. This makes it impossible to resolve the issue.

Your recent behaviour in stripping cites from articles has been dickish in the extreme and many editors have challenged you on this.

To be absolutely clear here, my last comment was [Werieth's] refusal to either not remove cites altogether, or to at least stop whilst it's being discussed, is just the sort of behaviour that Betacommand was banned for in the first place. and I stand by every aspect of that. It's now at a point where I don't even care about the socking, your behaviour under the Werieth account alone is following just the same path as Betacommand did, and what caused his block.

Why is WP enforcement for socking so random and partisan anyway? Someone who's not a friend of Kww or FuturePerfect is blocked immediately, but if you share the same viewpoint as some friendly admins on another policy, like NFC, it's a free ticket to sock as much as you like. Even someone like Hengistmate, who has been trolling me for years, can finally shoot himself in his own sock by mis-posting, yet he's ignored at both ANI or SPI. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone please remind me what NFC is? EEng (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No foreign currency.--v/r - TP 19:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Funny. Besides "National Football Conference", here it's being used to mean "Non-Free Content". Betacommand was an extremely obnoxious warrior on the subject, and it took at least a year or two before a sufficient number of admins and other users got sufficiently fed up and saw to it that he got banned. That episode left a very bitter taste. It's understandable that seemingly similar behavior by a relatively new editor would raise yellow-to-red flags. But I say again, it's the behavior of the current named user, Werieth, which Dingley should focus on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I thought it was funny. EEng (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

As always, canvas early, canvas often Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise TLSuda Black_Kite. Future Perfect has (as predicted) jumped to your command and has started blanking content from the SPI [25] [26]

If we cannot discuss your behaviour on the ALLCAPS pages, we cannot address the question of your socking behaviour. Future Perfect has been warned for this in the past. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Didn't you yourself just mention me in this thread? It would have been your own duty to notify me; be thanful for Werieth for helping you out in your own failure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What I did was notify those administrators who have already warned you about this harassment, and the need for it to stop. Since you failed to take their advice Im taking the next step to end this. The harassment either needs to stop or Im going to leave. I cannot be a constant target of harassment. And yes since the request I have not removed cites. If you look in the related section above I noted a change in methodology to reduce the number of cites that would need removed (which is hopefully just a bare handful) and I havent run into any of those cases since. Werieth (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall TLSuda having been involved in this before. But what the hell, he's hard-line on NFC and I recently dragged him to Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Recent_discussions for File:Fredcopeman.jpg, so no doubt you're hoping for another helpful admin from that angle. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess you dont remember your own talk page. Please see User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Accusations_of_WP:SOCK Werieth (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There is indeed a pattern of harassment here, and it needs to stop. There is a long-term sockpuppeter whose agenda is to harass Werieth through throwaway socks, always raising that allegation of him being Beta. However plausible that suspicion may be, the repeated use of throwaway socks for no other purpose but casting aspersions on a user cannot be tolerated. Andy Dingley has for a long time assumed a pattern of enabling and supporting that harasser, by re-posting his rants after they are removed, defending him with spurious claims of "lack of evidence" on SPI reports (all the socks are so easy to spot on behavioural grounds that they are always quickly duck-blocked), and by echoing and multiplying the complaints against Werieth whenever the sockmaster offers him an opportunity. This, too, is harassment, and I am quite willing to block Andy over it if it continues. As for the suspicions against Werieth, people repeatedly had the chance to submit legitimate evidence to the Betacommand SPI; they were repeatedly closed as inconclusive. At some point, when you can't prove your case, you simply have to shut up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Topic ban from what? Do you mean an interaction ban? the panda ₯’ 15:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  Im not sure that a interaction ban would be sufficient, as Andy can and does make references/accusations to others about me. A complete ban on the topic would cover that. Werieth (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  An interaction ban does include talking about the other party to others, so that would be covered. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  However there are times and discussions (On different notice boards and what not) where we run across each other and nothing happens. In those cases where Andy doesnt take shots at me, there is constructive results. I also dont want to have an issues where we accidentally cross paths on a noticeboard or article and dont notice that the other has done so recently too. Because this problem is isolated to a topic I went that route, as the least disruptive method. Werieth (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• What I don't understand is why we tolerate Andy's reposting and enabling of this material. I don't see why the block would only happen if the behaviour continues. Andy has been around long enough to know better. If it weren't for some long-running content disputes between Andy and I, I would have indefed him long ago. This seems like as good of a time as any for someone to pull the trigger.—Kww(talk) 16:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• SPI and harassment issues aside, I am curious about why Werieth feels the need to canvass completely uninvolved admins on this issue.[27][28][29] Inappropriate. —Dark 16:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  @DarkFalls: They are not uninvolved admins. All three of them have warned Andy about the same behavior before and told him it needs to stop. Werieth (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  Since when was it common practice to notify admins who have warned the editor in the past? ANI only requires you to notify the reported party. Also, just because they have warned the editor in the past does not make them involved. And naturally since they have warned him previously, they would be more inclined to ask for sanctions. Hardly a non-partisan audience, and a blatant violation of canvassing guidelines. —Dark 17:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  @DarkFalls: I just consider it common curtsey. I could have gone to any of them and requested that a block be placed (Something I dont feel the need for when a TBAN or IBAN would be a better solution) and it would have happened. However I tried to take the less drastic road and maintain a collegial editing environment by coming here and requesting a TBAN. Given that the user in question is persisting in behavior prohibited by three different admins notifying them of the breach and my intended route to resolution would be considered common curtsey. I did not want to create the perception that I was trying to go around them, or "over their heads" as the term is. This is similar to notifying arbcom in cases where arbcom prohibits an activity. I guess its just a perspective issue. Had I wanted to canvass I would have picked better targets, and I wouldn't have worded the notice as neutrally as I could. Werieth (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  A similar case can be made for when an admin discusses a block with the blocking admin prior to unblocking. Its not required, but more often than not the simple curtsey results in a better understanding of the situation and a better conclusion to the problem. Werieth (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  I don't think its necessary common for this practice, but some of us have been mentioned in this discussion anyways, so I don't see the problem with it. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

As I now see Andy Dingley had a very explicit warning about administrative sanctions in this matter from TLSuda less than a month ago [30], and his present behaviour is quite clearly in contravention of that warning, I have gone ahead and blocked him for a week. I'd very much recommend we place a formal interaction ban on him too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for that. This has gone on for years, and has gotten way out of control for such an experienced user. Andy is very skilled and has many things to contribute here, but I feel he has let these petty disputes get in the way of his positive work. I would support an interaction ban for Andy in this situation. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think this whole situation is going to end well.--v/r - TP 18:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be easy to either point to (if it exists) or create (if not existing) an SPI that collects the evidence of Andy's accusations? Then, that collection could be adjudicated as being acceptable or not acceptable. This wouldn't be the first hard SPI report every done, or reviewed and ultimately decided (I'm thinking of the recent one by DrMies, et.al., regarding a particular long-term prolific banned editor). Repeated (and strident) accusations of socking without evidence is a form of PA, or so I thought. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@JoeSperrazza: such an SPI has already been filed, and closed. Andy isnt happy with the results thus this persistent harassment. Werieth (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. For the benefit of others, here's the link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Betacommand/Archive#09_December_2013. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I was not involved in the Betacommand case nor have I interacted significantly with Werieth, but I can see that the SPI case accusing Werieth of being banned editor Betacommand has never been proven one way or the other, the trail being too cold for checkuser. Instead, the case was closed as inconclusive—twice. In March 2013, the editor LessHeard vanU came briefly out of retirement to say Werieth was Betacommand, and this report got the first inconclusive closure. Andy's report in December 2013 got the same treatment. Both LessHeard vanU and Andy Dingley continue to believe that they are correct, that a banned editor has returned, which explains the anger shown by Andy. I think the two SPI cases were poorly submitted rather than incorrect. LHvU and AD should have included more diffs and other forms of proof. If they had, we would not be at this juncture now. Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I looked for more when this first came up, and I'm satisfied that they did about as good a job of digging up evidence as could have been done. I can understand the good-faith belief that Werieth is Betacommand, because I'm on the fence myself. The evidence is interesting without quite being compelling. What I have real problems with is the continuous allegations that I'm engaged in a conspiracy to enable Betacommand to evade blocks.—Kww(talk) 22:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

And I am in exactly the same position. If one looks at the behavioural evidence presented in the ChildofMidnight SPI above, that was enough to effectively prove a connection even when/if the CU came back negative. If the level of evidence in the Beta/Werieth SPI came up to that standard, like Kww I would block Werieth myself. But it simply isn't, and when Andy repeatedly enables a banned editor to repeat the claims after being told multiple times to stop it or face a block, I don't really see what other outcome there can be. However, after Andy's block expires, a TBAN/IBAN would be the way forward here, I suspect. Black Kite kite (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• I was pinged because I previously warned Andy about this behaviour. This will end happily for everyone when Andy Dingley either (a) stops enabling a disruptive (and almost certainly banned/indefblocked) editor whose only raison d'etre is to harrass Werieth, or (b) comes up with some conclusive evidence (we're not even in DUCK territory yet). If he doesn't, he needs to be prevented from doing so; an interaction ban would seem easiest. Black Kite kite (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It's possible the OP is victim to the unfortunate coincidence of having been created a few weeks after Betacommnd's final edit in the spring of 2012, and from possibly focusing on some of the same issues that got Betacommand banned - hence the yellow flags. Were any socks of Betacommand discovered, and if so, during what time interval(s)? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, @Baseball Bugs:

• 5 February 2012 Betacommand's last edit to en.Wikipedia [31]
• 6 February 2012 Werieth commences editing Simple Wikipedia [32]
• 15 February 2012 Betacommand blocked [33]
• 12 March 2012 Werieth commences editing Commons [34]
• 4 June 2012 Werieth commences editing en.Wikipedia [35]

Also, notice how Werieth habitually skips the apostrophe in I'm and I'll. Now search this page and this page and see who uses those spellings. This is Betacommand.

As for socks of Betacommand, there may be other lists, but I just found Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Betacommand.

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Addendum 13:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[36][37]

If you have new evidence regarding the Betacommand suspicion that has not yet been submitted and deemed to be inconclusive at SPI, then by all means feel free to file a reopened case there. Failing that, re-hashing the same suspicions over and over again is disruptive, so don't do it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the earlier investigations. This is such a big fat loudly stomping around saying "I'm a sock" duck, that I don't need to. What I can't figure out is why you and User:Kww are protecting him. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, as I saw recently, simply claiming "this is a sock" without solid evidence can get you sanctioned (and that was on an account that's a really obvious DUCK). Black Kite kite (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Werieth is Betacommand. I'm saying nothing about whether anything should be done about that. His 12-month ban has long-since expired. If he's not being disruptive or breaking the rules, meh. Still, (a) I'd like to know why the socking is being ignored and (b) I think blocking productive users who point it out is harmful to the project. To be clear: Werieth is Betacommand. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if Betacommand's ban is now expired, he's still indef-blocked, and creating new accounts is against the rules. Werieth could demonstrate some good faith by e-mailing his personal information to a trusted checkuser, who might then be able to confirm or refute the question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • @Baseball Bugs: I honestly havent done that much research but beta looks to be a free content hardliner, and pushed for almost complete removal of non-free media. On the other hand I have a fairly moderate position and have uploaded about 350 non-free files already and am far from being done. I honestly have better things to do then play politics and investigate bogus claims that I am not myself. If people want to continue supporting Formal Appointee Number 6 (talk · contribs) and their style of behavior Ill be more than willing to avoid the toxic environment of this wiki and move to somewhere more inviting. But I do see where the claims from the media, and the loss of editors is coming from. Few people are willing to endure this crap. Ive been thinking for a while if its really worth it to continue to contribute to a project that fails to address toxic behavior? I guess Ill find out with how this discussion ends. Werieth (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• My two cents, it appears obvious looking at Werieth's first edits he was/is not a "new editor". No idea if he is Betacommand or someone else (even if the timing between the two accounts and a lot of behavioral affinities would strongly suggest it). --Cavarrone 16:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• To come back to the point: unless Andy (or any other editor) has enough evidence to open a second SPI case to put Werieth as Beta, we expect editors to AFG with the motivation of others. Since Andy has repeatedly not shown this, an interaction ban on him towards Werieth (at least, to prevent calling out Werieth as a sock, broadly construed), barring a formal SPI filing, should be placed. Andy should be free to question Werieth's actions as Werieth the editor, but to attempt to connect Werieth to Beta in this manner should not be tolerated. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• There's just no changing Delta... I slay myself. Well, Werieth is quite an editor, with 54,600 edits to WP since this bright-eyed newcomer arrived at WP on June 4, 2012. Im amazed that we managed to find such an energetic new face to take up the slack for the banned Delta/Betacommand. What are the odds? Carrite (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If you have new evidence to file against Werieth as a SPI, please feel free to do so. Until then, AGF must be taken by all editors, not just Andy. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

AGF refers to the necessity of assuming sound motivations of a person behind a bold edit, not a requirement that Wikipedians pretend that a buck naked emperor is fashionably dressed. The fact is that SPI does not have the ability to make concrete connections between every editor of yesteryear and every editor of today, even in the event that those are one and the same. All we can do is listen for the sounds of quacking and draw logical inferences about the probable existence of waterfowl... Carrite (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I think we are all wasting our time here. Why do we bother if Werieth is Betacommand or not? Betacommand was (I guess) quite the problem, but so far Werieth isn't and there has been no conclusive evidence that he is Betacommand. Actually, I don't care too much if he is or not Betacommand as long as his contributions are of benefit for Wikipedia. I really dislike these useless time-consuming unfounded witch hunts against editors just because "they might possibly be X, who is/was banned." → Call me Hahc21 20:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not obsessed with the topic myself. However, this particular useless time-consuming unfounded witch hunt wasn't started by Andy Dingley... Carrite (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm kind of surprised that there have been two SPIs and yet no one has ever noticed that there is a strong overlapping interest between the Betacommand, Δ and Werieth accounts in the Learning management system and List of learning management systems articles. List of learning management systems and Learning management system are Werieth's 4th and 7th most edited articles [38], while Learning management system is Betacommand's top edited article [39] and List of learning management systems and Learning management system are Δ's top and 10th most edited articles [40]. That's a little hard to credit as coincidence given the other commonalities. --92.4.162.106 (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Finally, a new piece of data to consider. I'm giving this one serious consideration.—Kww(talk) 02:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ahem. #Above, I pointed out that Werieth started editing the day after delta/beta stopped. I also pointed out that both Betacommand and Werieth habitually skip the apostrophe in "I'm" and "I'll" - this is a very idiosyncratic writing style, not typo's. I see that neither of these were pointed out at the SPIs. This is all new data to consider. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

If I were studying the matter, I would also look at things like evidence of previous experience at time of first edits, similarities or lack thereof in the use of automation or semi-automation, parallels in subject interest, average editing pace per day, estimated sleep cycle of the two editors to establish geographic coincidence, American v. English spelling and punctuation, and ideological content of the editing (Free Files enforcement v. Fair Use). But that's just me. Anyway, it's really good to have someone like Werieth to come along and pick up the slack like he did at that precise moment... Carrite (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Reports at the SPIs note volume, content (non-free images), attitude, sleep cycle, ideology and tool use parallels. The dialect and spelling match. Level of eloquence, ditto. I agree, we got lucky there. What are the chances? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Well, it's pretty obvious this Werieth is using some kind of semi-automation for non-free-content removal, for example a rapid-fire string of removals on the 2nd. That, of course is the kind of thing that Betacommand got into trouble for, because he was told repeatedly to stop, and wouldn't stop. Werieth's first edit on Wikipedia was on June 4, 2012. He edited sporadically for a while. His eighth edit, four months later, was about the issue of non-free content in lists,[41] which is not something a newbie would likely know much about. Another of his shared interests with Betacommand were/are the whitelist and blacklist, which presumably relates to the contentious subject matter Werieth has been removing. Archiving those pages had been one of Betacommand's regular activities, and Werieth picked up on the same activity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Werieth has contributed over 50,000 edits over the last two years, in the course of which he has essentially behaved well and made many useful contributions. Why should it matter a rat's arse whether or not he was previously banned? Unless the guy starts misbehaving significantly, leave him alone. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

How many of those 50,000 were accomplished via the Betacommand-like rapid-fire automation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm very sympathetic to this notion, and if he's behaved well then ArbCom should consider just allowing him to continue.

My problem is with the admins and possibly CU clerks who cannot but have known that he was socking to come back to en.WP 6 months early and that he had evaded discussing terms with ArbCom, which was required before he returned to editing. They're blatantly subverting ArbCom. What hubris. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This would probably take some effort, but it could be interesting to investigate which admins were enabling and arguing for Betacommand, two to three years ago, and see if it's the same ones who are enabling and arguing for this Werieth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Epi is endorsing a gross violation of the rules. Socking while indef'd is a bright-line offense which cannot be justified by allegedly "useful contributions". And defying requests to stop doing something controversial, and working to try to get a critic banned, is "significant misbehavior". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I suppose it comes down to whether you want to support building an encyclopedia, or whether you want to pickle yourself in self-rightousness. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't create the no-socking rule. If you've got a complaint about that rule, start a discussion about it somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Is there a new SPI about Werieth opened? We have two users with a very suspect timeline, who share a bizarre interest for learning management systems, with a common interest on non-free file enforcement, with a common interest for blacklists/whitelists, who both habitually skip the apostrophe in "I'm" and "I'll", with same (bad) interaction attitude with other editors, similarities or lack thereof in the use of automation or semi-automation,average editing pace per day. Frankly I consider the new evidences above by Baseball Bugs, Carrite, Anthonyhcole and the IP, blatantly enough for WP:DUCK. --Cavarrone 12:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• And this sudden retirement announcement, apparently an attempt made to avoid scrutiny, makes me even more certain about the sockpuppertry. --Cavarrone 12:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ive been debating it for several weeks. See my first public post, I just cannot support a project that continues to attack, BITE and drive editors away. Werieth (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Followup discussion about archive.is links

This sub-thread factored out from the above for clarity. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually if you look the most recent edits I was doing while removing archive.is I was recovering the original url's and hadnt been removing references. But yet again more attacks from you. Werieth (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"the most recent edits " means little. You're good at stopping for a moment, only to resume immediately afterwards.

Can you say (I know you can but is it true?) that you have not removed entire cites, since you were requested by multiple editors to stop doing so during the discussion? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The OP's talk page has a number of other users telling him to stop what he's doing with citations, so it's not just Dingley complaining. To me, the sockpuppetry question is a distraction. If the OP is going against consensus, he should be stopped, regardless of whether or not he's a sock of the infamous and banned NFC warrior called Betacommand. Dingley should focus on the OP's allegedly bad behavior under his own ID, and forget about Betacommand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Just because people complain isnt a valid reason to not do something. If that where the case admins wouldn't be able to delete or do anything. Just about every action that an admin takes makes someone upset. As an admin does more work the number of those who show up on their talk page to complain also goes up. It doesn't make the arguments for keeping articles on the user's pet rock any more valid. Find any admin who is fairly active and you will find a number of sections on their talk page or its history of people complaining. More often than not all that is needed is re-educating the user, not sanctioning the admin. Werieth (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Admins naturally attract trouble. It's part of their job. I didn't know you were an admin. Your user page doesn't have the "admin" logo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Im not an admin, however I do tend to do the cleanup/policy enforcement work. Due to the similar nature of what admins do I thought it would be a good analogy to present, that would be widely understood. Werieth (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I know you're not an admin. If multiple editors tell you to stop doing something, regardless of alleged "consensus", you should stop doing it pending further discussion. Continuing to take a controversial path leads to ANI - and with someone like Betacommand, ultimately to being banned. You don't want to follow in Betacommand's self-defeating path, do you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Werieth's removal of archive.is links is an action agreed to by the community through two (now three?) RFCs about the issue. Yes, there are editors upset with this, but the RFCs clearly have shown no acceptance for these links anymore. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If consensus were so clear, I don't think you would have multiple editors complaining about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There will always be people on the wrong side of an RfC/policy decision that disagree with it. Often those users continue to disagree/complaint long after the fact. Werieth (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple editors? Usually not. If a given RFC was closed in a way that seems fishy to the "losing side", it will continue to be debated and challenged. That's usually a sign of a poor closure and a lack of real consensus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The first RFC on the matter that included the removal of the archive.is was closed neutrally by User:Hobit (whom I would consider a very good judge of consensus/middle ground from past discussions despite numerous disagreements on other topics). Those that are complaining about that either weren't aware of this issue, or as Werieth says, didn't get their way are may be engaging in forum shopping to get that change reversed) --MASEM (t) 20:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing some, there's only been one RFC closed in support of removing archive.is links Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC. There was a second RFC which was closed as malformed Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 2. Obviously you can't read anything in to that other than that people have to follow proper RFC procedures when opening one (such as phrasing it neutrally and not canvasing). The third RFC is ongoing Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3. As a participant, I don't think I should comment on the likely outcome but I think it's clear it's not WP:SNOW. It's also worth remembering that whatever the community agreed to, I'm pretty sure we never agreed to the removal of legitimate citations in their entirety, when they didn't actually need a URL and the original still working URL could be recovered from the archive.is link which happened in at least one case. (In another case, the original URL was dead but the info that was removed about the citation was enough to find another copy.) I think Wereith has promised to be more careful, perhaps even ensure such cases never happen again (I haven't been following that well) but the fact it took so long to get there (if it's been agreed now, it was only after me and others saying many times that should never happen and getting ambigious responses in reply) is the main reason the whole thing is so distressing to me. Sure the archive.is links need to go and many of them can already go. But is our only choice for removal someone who's going to turn strong supporters of removal (like me) against their actions? And how much time have we already wasted on these silly discussions when we could be removing archive.is links properly? Nil Einne (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Threads refactored. The below was in response to the post of Werieth from 22:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC):

• • • • You have to decide what your priorities are. I've been hassled off and on by a particularly useless troll for the last five years, at least. I've stopped contributing pictures and mostly stopped contributing to articles. But I still think Wikipedia is worth defending. Wikipedia is a victim of its own success, and it won't change its rules to allow better prosecution of trolls who make Wikipedia look stupid. Your best bet is to find something relatively non-controversial to work on and let the warriors fight the battles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Doing the manual work that was mandated by a properly closed RFC to remove links to a highly questionable site seems like non-controversial work (granted, the issue of removing complete citations is a fair point but Werieth stopped to fix that), and we're here now. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
          • One might think so, sure. But as soon as something becomes controversial, that's a good time to leave it alone and go do something else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
            • How can someone doing the actions of a properly closed RFC be controversial, from the larger standpoint of WP? That would mean no work would ever get done on WP as long as someone raised a voice to complain. If there was no RFC, or the actions were not those described by the closer of the RFC, you'd have your argument, but we're talking something that is supposed to be the result of a consensus and yes, there will be people unaware of that result and will go "Well, wait...", that happens, but there's also people that did not like that result and want to challenge it further, but that's not how RFCs work, where you keep tossing things at a wall to get them to stick. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
              • If it was "properly" closed, you wouldn't be having multiple editors complaining about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
                • That's... not correct. If we have an RfC where 200 people participate (this is a big website), which ends with a result of 150 against 50, you can reasonably expect multiple users from the minority to go and complain. You'd be correct if you phrase it this way: you wouldn't be having many editors complaining about it, but multiple? → Call me Hahc21 00:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
                  • If there is true consensus and a proper close, the No-voters will usually see reason. If it looks fishy, or like it was ramrodded (which, believe it or not, has been known to happen), then you've got a problem. But the core problem is the amount of energy being expended on such a trivial matter as to whether to retain certain links. How does such a fight serve the average reader? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
                    • By reducing the number of links in Wikipedia to sites whose owners appear to illegally compromise other people's computers for their own ends.—Kww(talk) 01:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
                    • There's a reason we have DRV which often gets populated with "I didn't get my way" complaints. There is almost always negative response to how a RFC or the like is closed. That's fine. You don't take it out by trying to smear the name of an editor if you have a beef with them. --MASEM (t) 01:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
                      • That's why I say that Dingley should forget about Betacommand and focus on whatever he thinks the OP here is doing wrong. And looking at those RFC's, there was by no means a "clear consensus", and that likely accounts for the ill will it generated. There's plenty of speculation about the "legality" of whatever the archive guy is doing. The better approach would be to treat it as simple spam - and to retain the template that points out there could be dead links. Those two things would serve the reader better than this brute force "there's clear consensus because I say so" kind of argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
                        • I think we're against a problem akin to presenting highly technical evidence to a jury. Most of the people that actually do networking for a living or spend their time looking at proxies, botnets, and whatnot look at the edits and say that the chances of that being a legally obtained set of proxies is vanishingly close to zero. In the true Wikipedia way, we have people that say "I don't know anything about IP addresses, but no one has presented any evidence of illegality". Our opinion about whether there's a problem is weighted equally in the discussion.—Kww(talk) 02:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don'l think I;ve ever commented on the archive.is issue< & at present I have no clear opinion about it > But I consider the indiscriminate removal of the links while AfC3 is underway to be uncooperative editing' ; because it will take a good deal of work to undo if the AfC does not sustain the present position, and that clearly is at least a distinct possibility: I'd suggest that the removal stop for the present. (I will now go look at the RfC, so if I do express an opinion there, that's not a contradiction that I'm presently of no fixed opinion.) DGG ( talk ) 11:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  Everybody, can we please keep separate the issue of what to do with the archive.is links and the issue of what to do with Andy Dingley? The two are only tenuously connected. This here is supposed to be the thread about Andy Dingley. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It's also about the possibility that the OP is simply trying to eliminate a roadblock to the controversial activity he's engaged in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Bugs that the concerns of Andy regarding the overall edit patterns of Werieth appear to have face-value merit and the larger circumstances merit deeper scrutiny. Jusdafax 22:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

In that case Andy should be able to construct his SPI himself (indeed, if he'd done this, there would have been no issue). Whilst he continues to enable a banned editor, however, he's going to continue to be blocked whether his suspicions about Werieth are correct or not. Black Kite kite (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Sock

Will someone block this sock User:TryNotToFly/sandbox? Nil Einne (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Got it.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The irony is that, so I am told, the banned editor who is the source of all the socks against Werieth also has a good faith account here known to a number of admins, strange that I don't see them commenting on this if that is in fact the case. I'll say no more. Black Kite kite (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have information to that effect I suggest lodging an SPI, which is the correct forum for it. That applies equally to people who have accusations against the OP. On the wider issue, AndyDingley should be free to lodge an SPI against the OP if he wishes, and have the matter properly considered without blanking of his posts. But outside that potential SPI, he should drop the issue on other pages.Euryalus (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally I find the irony more apparent in that the same admins saying 'We cant block based on inconclusive CU/Need more evidence' have previously and routinely duck-test blocked on far less conclusive evidence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Are these comments (or those from Black Kite) directed towards me? I have no knowledge of the blocked editor TryNotToFly being linked to any legitimate account, nor did I block based on WP:DUCK. A check showed that the account was clearly socking and was blocked accordingly. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, mine were in reference to Kites, not yours. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Mine too. Your sock block was entirely correct. If there's evidence the sock also has a "good faith account" then that should also be published via SPI. Euryalus (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I meant to post my comment at the end of the previous section (editing on my phone); it was nothing to do with that sock or that block, which was entirely correct. Black Kite kite (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Retired

[42] The user name "Werieth" has been retired. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Herbxue again

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

---

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

Background behaviour on Herbxue:

Herbxue is well aware of the sanctions.

Herbxue deleted TCM is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments. The edit summary was No consensus - disputed statement, not a summary of body, under discussion at TCM talk page.

Herbxue deleted again TCM is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments. The edit summary was Undid revision 606451839 by Barney the barney barney (talk) Only not disputed if you are too lazy to follow discussion to build consensus.

Herbxue restored unsourced text that was not found in the citation.

Herbxue deleted while this simply is because TCM is largely pseudoscience, without a rational mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments; advocates have argued that it is because research had missed some key features of TCM, such as the subtle interrelationships between ingredients. He also deleted similar text at the Chinese herbology page.

Current disruption by Herbxue below:

Herbxue is a WP:SPA editing a very narrow scope of articles related only to acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine. Herbxue has a history of reverting experienced good faith editors such a User:Roxy the dog, User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV and User:Jmh649, For example, Herbxue reverted User:Jmh649 but he made a bad edit and was reverted for good reason. His explanation for his revert is lacking. For example, he claims in part: So I acted too quick and got one wrong. I have a hard time keeping up with Quack Guru. But not being able to keep up with QuackGuru was not related to his bad edit.

I specifically asked him about another revert of User:Jmh649's edit. Obviously he is refusing to give a specific explanation why he thought his revert was appropriate. For example he claimed: "I was restoring someone else's edit that had a good explanation on the talk page and a clear edit summary." But there was no good explanation on the talk page for the edit. It was explained that Surveys are not a great source of evidence. Thus we should separate these points into two sentence. Not notable enough for the lead. Herbxue's comment on the talk page made no sense, especially the part "You can't cherry pick only the parts of a source that you like.". He claimed he "misread Doc James' comment".

Herbxue wrote: "Not satisfying in the least. You're saying "my questionable skeptic buddy gets to undo ANYTHING he wants and its up to you to redo all the work he (Redacted) up" - I just can't accept that. You need to get support before undoing everyone else's work, especially when you are a previously banned editor with an ownership problem. And as far as being "used to" (Redacted), I have been since 2010 so don't worry about that, doesn't mean I'm not gonna call you on that dismissive and unhelpful response, or QG on his underhanded (Redacted).[43] After being told about his incivility he agreed to correct his comment and replaced the curse words. Earlier Herbxue wrote: Sorry Kww my beef is with QG and my recent comments were directed at Brangifer, not you. I was over the top, but I think he understands my frustration. His "beef" is with WP:PAG, not with me according to the evidence presented.

He has been uncivil in the past too. He replied to another editor and wrote: As an outsider you can CHOOSE to interpret that to mean it was an accident that had nothing to do with traditional theory, but people choosing to use that herb (the reason we want to know if it works) did so based on that traditional theory. His explanation for what he meant as "outsider" can be found here. Editor was informed of the ANI discussion here. QuackGuru (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed mandated external review of Herbxue

Proposed discretionary sanctions on Herbxue

Comments from Herbxue:

Most of the edit summaries QG presents above as evidence of my "bad editing" are quite clear - on the rare occasion that I actually edit in the article itself (as opposed to the talk page) I give detailed edit summaries that often refer to the current talk page discussion about the edits at hand. With a couple of recent exceptions, including inappropriate swearing at Brangifer (which I quickly edited upon Doc James recommendation), I stand behind 99.5% of my edits. I am often in the minority here, and when it is clear that an edit I am trying to make is just not going to be accepted by others, I back down. The closest thing to an edit war that I have engaged in lately is the issue surrounding the use of an editorial in Nature to justify saying "TCM is pseudoscience" in the lede at TCM. When I first removed it, my explanation was that it was inappropriate for WP to make a POV conclusion in an article lede. I was reverted, and on the talk page I responded to Alexbrn saying I'm "dropping it for now". Later, other editors noticed I was on to something important, and also removed the definitive pseudoscience statement, but for other reasons. So, I proposed, on numerous occasions, that it is a notable opinion and we should simply present it in quotations with in-text citation. This lead to extensive contentious discussion at the talk page, and while that discussion was very active, with no clear consensus yet, QG started inserting the language in other TCM-related articles. This seemed inappropriate to me as it was clear there was no consensus yet and the right thing would be to wait for consensus on the source and the wording. So, I reverted his insertion of that contentious edit at the other articles. That appears to be edit warring on my part because I removed the same text several times, but I stand behind those edits as good faith edits. At some point, QG did agree to my suggestion of in-text attribution and added it. I did erroneously revert him ONE more time, and when he pointed out "I did include the attribution" I responded with "mea culpa" and thanked him for the compromise.

Shortly after that he was topic banned, I don't remember what the exact issue was there, but I think now he is out for revenge or just making sport. Look at my talk page where he is clearly baiting me into… I don't know what. I scolded him on his talk page once when he started edit warring again, then he just relentlessly harassed me at my talk page. Not sure why, I think its fun for QG. I wish he could use his considerable editing skills and apparent surplus of free time for more productive edits instead of always starting drama. Herbxue (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Jayaguru-Shishya again

Jayaguru-Shishya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Background behaviour on Jayaguru-Shishya:

Jayaguru-Shishya is well aware of the sanctions.

On April 1, 2014 Jayaguru-Shishya added text to the chiropractic lede[44] that failed V.[45] He claimed the text passed V but the text was original research[46] and did not summarise the body. Jayaguru-Shishya removed part of a wikilink in my previous comment. Jayaguru-Shishya said "I'd like to suggest that I'll keep my hands off from those articles now."[47] Despite his assurances in his unblock request, he has continued with the same behaviour at CAM articles. Jayaguru-Shishya supports the proposal that is littered with original research and with text that does not summarise the body. See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 37#New Lede Proposal and Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 37#Comments. Jayaguru-Shishya claimed to have consensus to delete the text at Traditional Chinese medicine[48] where there was no consensus in the first place.[49][50][51] Jayaguru-Shishya argued on the talk page that there was consensus to delete the text.[52] See Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Deletion of text without discussion. Without fixing the problem Jayaguru-Shishya deleted the tags rather than removing the primary sources and falsely accused me of violating the 3RR rule.[53] Jayaguru-Shishya made a 3RR report but there was no 3RR violation. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User:Jayaguru-Shishya is not moving on and he is continuing his battleground behaviour.

Current disruption by Jayaguru-Shishya below:

Jayaguru-Shishya restored text that was outdated POV. The outdated source from 1997 has a warning in red that explains the source is outdated.[54] After it was deleted again then he agreed it was reasonable to delete it. See Talk:Acupuncture#This statement is more than five years old and is provided solely for historical purposes.

There was an objection to the misplaced text but it was restored against consensus by Jayaguru-Shishya. The edit summary was "Please feel free to revert if you feel like it: WP:CON "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections..." <- no objections so far, and I'm in support | Also: (talk page)"[55]

Jayaguru-Shishya wrote on the talk page: "I find Middle8's edits to improve this article. No complaints about those IMHO."[56] Jayaguru-Shishya commented on the talk page to support whatever Middle8 wanted to do to the article.

Jayaguru-Shishya also wrote on the talk page: "I still can't find any OR in Middle8's edits, and I have to disagree with QuackGuru here: I think the edits helped to improve the article."[57] Jayaguru-Shishya commented again on the talk page to support whatever Middle8 wanted to do to the article (without any specific explanation). Editor was informed of the ANI discussion here. QuackGuru (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed mandated external review of Jayaguru-Shishya

Proposed discretionary sanctions on Jayaguru-Shishya

Discussion

1st paragraph: It is well explained in my edit summary: "@Roxy the Dog, you didn't explain that "outdated pov view". Please discuss at the Talk Page. I restored it for the discussions | @QuackGuru, WP:POV, why? At the Talk Page you said WP:WEIGHT. Are you suggesting that it's presenting minority view?" After a decent explanation was given at the Talk Page, I agreed with the edit. So what's the problem? Isn't bringing such a single edit to WP:ANI misuse of Wikipedia Noticeboards?

2nd paragraph: As quoted by QuackGuru: "Please feel free to revert if you feel like it...", and indeed it was reverted. So what's the problem?

3rd paragraph: That's a false accusation, and I think a lot of attention should be given to that indeed. Bringing up such false accusations at WP Noticeboards without any evidence is not tolerable IMHO. Indeed, I have objected no matter who the editor is, as long as there has been reason to. The latest with Middle8, I have objected him with regards to the interpretation of the statistic material reported in the source, as well as his addition of self-calculated "death rates". However, this doesn't undo the significant work that Middle8 has been doing in the article.

4th paragraph: The same false accusation is repeated there. Any evidence to support such a strong claim? None.

What it seems to me is that QuackGuru is misusing the administrative noticeboards to defame other contributors that have disagreed with some of his edits. Taking into account the lengthy disruptive history of QuackGuru himself, I think something needs to be done to make him realize that collaboration with other editors is inevitable in Wikipedia, and that abusing WP's administrative noticeboards is certainly not tolerable. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Middle 8 again

Middle 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Middle 8 is well aware of the sanctions and is aware of the 3RR and disruptive editing for the acupuncture page.

Middle 8 added original research to the lede when he added the part "especially in developed countries" and "often"[58] He removed the FV tag despite not fixings the original research. I explained at the talk page that the part "often" was original research. The current text say: "Many of the serious events were reported from developed countries and many were due to malpractice.[5]" This is accurate and according to the source.

Middle 8 added original research to the lede when he wrote ...and therefore preventable with proper training. The current text says: "...it is recommended that acupuncturists be trained sufficiently."

Misleading text to the lede again: "an average of one death every two years was reported internationally."[59][60]

Misleading text to the lede about the numbers again.[61][62] The current text says: "Between 2000 and 2009, at least ninety-five cases of serious adverse events including five deaths were reported to have resulted from acupuncture.[5]"

Middle 8 added to the lede "but have not been reported in surveys of adequately-trained acupuncturists." Middle 8 also rewrote the text to say but not in surveys of adequately-trained acupuncturists in the body of the article. Middle8 ignored my concerns on the talk page but after User:Jmh649 commented on the talk page Middled8 claimed he misread the source. See Talk:Acupuncture#Original research in the article again. Rather than take full responsibility for his poor edit he partially blamed me because he thought my objection was vague and unclear. Editor was informed of the ANI discussion here. QuackGuru (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed mandated external review of Middle8

Proposed discretionary sanctions on Middle8

Discussion

I'm not particularly crazy about his responses on other editors' user talk pages to this ANI notice ([63] and [64]). It's not necessary to be running around making comments on other editors' motivations... regardless of how tense a situation may be. I would note that QG's summary above is fairly bland in that regard—perhaps too much so. As to the first paragraph (dealing with "often"), I would be willing to accept that as a misconception/mistake, depending on whether the editor in question had recently come across this fine distinction (such things can be forgotten). The second paragraph ("and therefore preventable") is possibly acceptable (depending on precisely what the source says), though I would agree it's probably better left as it was. An important point of WP:V/WP:NOR is that it is not a prohibition on summarizing sources, but on drawing conclusions that sources themselves do not draw. I agree the third paragraph is not good, and in fact that Middle 8's first edit summary suggests an almost POINTy intention; that said, I can potentially agree that it seems pointless to mention deaths at such a low rate... it seems unlikely that putting it so prominently in the lede rises to the level of due weight. The fourth paragraph makes my concerns of a POINTy intention seem more relevant... that is, that Middle 8 seems intent on minimizing the prominence given to the deaths in the lede through wording, albeit wording reflective of what a source says. As to what happened at the talk page... I think my position above jibes well with Doc's comment that the results of the survey data just aren't notable enough for the lede. In short, I think the meat of this dispute is that Middle 8 engaged in edit warring over the data in the lede. That's not acceptable, especially given Middle 8 is well aware that discretionary sanctions are available on that article.

As an aside, should the DS notice for WP:ARBPS be clarified to indicate that the definition for "pseudoscience" and "fringe science" may include topics that the noticed editor does not consider pseudoscience or fringe science? Or perhaps some other wording? I can see certain "true believers" not realizing (or arguing that they didn't realize) that the DS notice they got was in reference to a particular field. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe Middle8's editing ever went into the realm of edit warring. In the context of acupuncture and TCM, Quack Guru has been making contentious edits for a long time, to the point of getting topic banned recently. It is Quack Guru who seeks to perpetuate the weight problem with regard to the risk level of acupuncture. Several editors (including ones not being complained about by QG now, such as Kww) have noted that the lede should be more representative of the safety record, keeping it in proper context. If you read the edit summaries, Middle8 is not trying to whitewash the subject, but rather trying to present the data as accurately as possible. As Rexss pointed out, some attempts at presenting the data from the Ernst paper may have statistical issues, and may verge into OR. Middle8 acknowledged those concerns and is seeking to build a consensus edit. QG is, in my opinion, just making sport here. Herbxue (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: regarding your question about DS, you might find this recent discussion of help. I wouldn't bother reading the whole thing, just skip down to Sandstein's comment. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Middle 8:

1. I agree that my talk page comments[65][66] to the other two subjects of QuackGuru's latest spate of ANI posts were gratuitous. But I believe his posts here are themselves largely gratuitous: sincere to a degree, but unnecessary for content disputes and bruised egos. They're also WP:KETTLE-ish, given how hard it is to collaborate with QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is talented, but also has a long history of disruption (e.g. recent examples).
2. Here are my recent mainspace edits; ES's are descriptive. Edit warring?
3. My three four removals of QuackGuru's {{FV}} tags were in good faith and justified: [67] [68] [69]; plus [70], explained at talk[71][72]
4. Death in the lede: 5 known deaths from acupuncture in a decade, worldwide, is undue weight, IMO. We have a LOT of things that are, infrequently, involved in killing some unfortunate soul, but we don't mention death in the lede sections of those pertinent articles.
5. CAM wars, pseudoscience, all very contentious; more light and less heat is needed. "Civil POV-pushing" from the fringe side is a big problem but there's this as well, of which I believe QuackGuru's behavior is emblematic.
6. QuackGuru's last paragraph above is remarkable ABF. I made an edit[73], discussed it; a small edit war ensued in which I did not take part; I saw a critical comment (from Doc James)[74], realized my mistake, undid it[75] and left a note on talk[76]. That's how it's done, right? How else does one "take full responsibility for [their] poor edit"? QuackGuru is apparently miffed that I found Doc James's criticism persuasive but not his. Yeah, gotta take that to ANI.
7. De-escalation: I've made a lot of good-faith efforts to get along with QuackGuru, and I'm sure he doesn't like me because I've joined other editors in criticizing his conduct, which he probably perceives as WP:POKING. But when QuackGuru himself engages in poking -- e.g., sockpuppetry accusation[77][78]; and weird, oblique allusions[79][80] to my ES -- it's not very encouraging. IMO, this ANI post also has elements of poking.

Happy editing. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 13:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Allegations of admin Bgwhite

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

---

Admin User:Bgwhite accused me of lie and POV editing and restored totally unsourced text in Lesbian Association of India.[81] Article LGBT topics and Hinduism is tagged for multiple issues, neutrality and expert attention. I am not 'expert', but being an Indian I know about hinduism. I started cleaning. I removed unsourced text against unverifieble dead links. Users/anons have interpreted 'unnatural', 'pollute' words from translation of ancient text Manu Smriti as homosexual behaviour and have inserted in the article. I removed it as per WP:OR. This monk Amara Das Wilhelm's book 'tritiya prakriti' is extensively used in article. I didn't find any info that he is reputed academician. Text of unknown authors can not be used to analyse ancient religion like Hinduism. So I removed text against his book. Two other authors have also inserted their books as refs(which I noticed, but didn't touch it).[82][83] Admin Bgwhite accused me of POV editing, reverted my all edits and restored even unsourced text and clear original research.[84] I touched LGBT articles only 2 days ago and have edited only 3 articles. Admin Bgwhite is supposed to explain why he is accusing me of lie and POV and why he has inserted unsourced text in both articles. Abhi (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Abhi you blanked the article in question. This is totally incorrect use of the prod tag. You previously have blanked large portions of text. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Right away this argument can be discounted. Someone who says they "know Hinduism" can never call it a "religion". Hinduism is not a religion, it's a "way of life", and anyone who "knows" Hinduism knows that. However, the non-NPOV editing is astronomically apparent. The clensing of the article is a transparent attempt to whitewash academic discussions of certain sexuality in Hinduism the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear... it seems that the article Hinduism needs an urgent and radical rewrite. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

No, because the article maintains the "world view" that Hinduism is a religion. That's the goal of Wikipedia. Those not of a Hindu background call it a religion. It includes elements of faith, it includes elements of lifestyle, but to a Hindu, it's not a religion unless that's what the question on Census form asks the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure there are cultural, lifestyle, ethnic, political etc elements to living as a Hindu, and all of those aspects need to be understood to properly understand Hinduism. But categorically denying it is a religion is just plain stupid - and telling us what Hindus are supposed to believe about their religion and culture is arrogant. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

PS: See article in Hindi Wikipedia - Google translate of opening of the lede says "Hinduism (Sanskrit: eternal religion) in all religions of the world's oldest religion. It is a religion based on the Vedas, which serve in many different systems, not, creed, and boasts philosophy" (and the next bit is lost in the translation). — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to PROD article. But after removing unsourced text, article would have been blank. I was confused how to leave blank article behind. So I PRODed Lesbian Association of India. In other article, 'further readings' books were added by anon IP[85] 'Further readings' section is like external links which spammers often use for promotion. The list includes 2 authors who have edited article and I suspect third author Amara Das has also edited article using anon IP. So I thought it promotion of books by anon IP and hence removed that list. Abhi (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• I see none of the three references actually works. The CIA World Fact Book: India link is only to the main page and not to a page that says anything about lesbianism, the ref to the LIA home page gives a 404 - and the home page link in in the External links section gives something in Japanese, and the Cambridge News article link is a dead one and just gives the home page. Also, we cannot talk of "the intolerance, ignorance and conservative religious attitudes that remain pervasive in Indian society" in Wikipedia's voice, so I have removed that. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User:IZAK NPA, CIVIL, AGF, BATTLE

IZAK has repeatedly leveled personal attacks at me starting in an AfD discussion and continuing into a DRV discussion, becoming increasing vociferous, most recently accusing me of hissing and rampaging, and demanding that I demonstrate my "bona fides" by editing another article first.

Hi Ubikwit: Thank you for your attempt at a constructive response. However, the more you carry on the more confused and incoherent your responses become.
As for your critique of my post, you owe me an apology[86]

Cautioned about his rudeness by another editor here and here.

“you just want the Jews out, out, out of Nepal”
“Furthermore, since you are such a self-claimed "expert" about the History of Nepal...once you can show your bona fides over there maybe you will have some credibility here. But right now, all it seems like is that you are just being stubborn, not acknowledging the constant improvements to the article being made daily and just tiresome obstructionism that is getting to be a pain” [87]

For the record, I never claimed to be an expert on the history of Nepal, either.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

inadvertent omissions

“Oh yeah Ubikwit and when you hiss things about objecting to "any Jew that has ever had a tenuous connection to Nepal" [88]
“your rampaging against this article” [89]

• As will be evident from the below, separately implemented response section, IZAK has not responded to the personal attacks listed above, and has chosen to engage in a tactic of making recourse to previous matters that have already been discussed above on this page and on the page of the admin he mentions. The admin closed that discussion before I had a chance to even reply to his last remark to me. Hardly anything of note there.

I don't know if the response given below indicates that the personal attacks made today were a strategy to incite my post here or note, but IZAK has simply attacked the messenger without responding to the evidence. That is indicative of a battle mentality.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• User:Ravpapa mentioned in the related thread above[90] that among editors on the keep side of the AfD, a number were frequent editors of the Chabad article, so I just checked and found these results for IZAK [91]. Perhaps he has an emotional attachment to this topic that impedes his capacity to engage in civil, rational discussion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Response by IZAK

This must surely be one of the most egregious cases of the pot calling the kettle black if ever there was one. Ubikwit can be very trying on anyone's nerves as can be seen from the many complaints only in this series of AfD, ANI, DRV and now again ANI. I have never met User Ubikwit (talk · contribs) before until coming across his disruptive behavior at the c article and its related AfD and DRV, the guy just does not stop in his irrational war to blot out this article, and the more pressure he applies the more the article has been improving which just drives him nuts, can't imagine why? Seeing that he cannot get his way with destroying the article and harassing good faith editors, see the above ANI complaint #Unfair conduct in a deletion battle against Ubikwit "There is a deletion discussion regarding History of the Jews in Nepal. In good faith, I tried to improve the article to spare it from deletion by adding referenced content. Another contributor, @Ubikwit:, persistently reverts my additions here, here, here, and here. When an article is on the chopping block, constructive additions should not be themselves chopped.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)" and unwilling to see that the article has survived a previous AfD [92] and is being improved even as he has brought it to a frivolous DRV [93] and denigrating the decision of the closing admin, see User talk:DangerousPanda/Archive 14#Your close of AFD discussion on History of the Jews in Nepal. Ubikwit obviously does not see his own problems but he has been progressively engaging in and violating WP:WAR and WP:DONOTDISRUPT [94] [95] [96]. In fact, admin DangerousPanda (talk · contribs) goes so far as accusing User Ubikwit (talk · contribs) of "lies and attacks" [97] and that he "has been disruptive overall" [98] that added to his general unstoppable violations of WP:DONOTDISRUPT, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL should make him eligible for a quick block here and now. Ubikwit is simply continuing his WP:WAR [99] over content that has nothing to do with the correct procedures and policies followed by the closing admin, me or anyone else in his way, or the need for this good article. Ubikwit would be well-advised to follow WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:SPIDERMAN. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Judging by how often Ubikwit seems to show up at ANI, maybe it's about time to implement some sort of ban to keep them from posting here and taking up everyone's time. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Three of their most recent postings being Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#Repeated attempts to disrupt RfC, Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#Unfair conduct in a deletion battle, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive843#Re: bobrayner, Sairp. Anyone who wants to waste their time further searching the archives is welcome to: for the moment I'll just say this. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@G S Palmer: You are free to comment on my conduct here, as is anyone, but you are not commenting on my conduct. You again appear to be engaged in some sort of meta discourse against me. That demonstrates a failure to WP:AGF, especially since the only interaction I've had with you on this website is in this forum.

You are not required to comment on this thread if you feel it is a waste of your time. Making inflammatory remarks is not conducive to resolving disputes. Since you have only been on WP for less than a year, I wonder if you are familiar with this essay?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

User:G S Palmer, please drop the suggestion that three appearances at ANI deserves a ban. While some editors have been urged to stay away (although no names come to mind) I think it took double-digit filings to get to that point.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment by Ravpapa: I usually stay out of these things, but since I was mentioned, I feel it behooves me to make a comment. So this is what I have to say: It is astonishing to me how much vitriol this particular article about Nepal has engendered. Tempers have risen so high, and, I mean, about what? Who cares? Admins, if I were you, I would close this thread before anyone has a chance to sling any more mud. --Ravpapa (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I would have closed the AfD as "No Consensus" on the basis that very few policy-related comments had actually been made and that pretty much everyone had casted their !vote depending on their POV on the actual subject matter (there's a shock). Unfortunately that's the problem with AfD, those that shout the loudest get their way quite often (and if they don't they try DRV as well). But a NC close would still have kept the article anyway, so the point is moot. Black Kite kite (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Closing the AfD as "no consensus" might have facilitated a move to file a merge/move request, and certainly would have resulted in a less acrimonious editing environment. I (and I believe others, including an admin User:Drmies) would disagree that there were no policy based arguments made, though, as the article fails WP:N, but one has to actually look at the article to see that the content doesn't correspond to the container (i.e., the name). Maybe the policy needs some adjustment, but the "rough consensus" guideline seems to cover the issue insofar as it addresses "logical fallacy" and mere opinion in !votes. The point is that there is notable content, but not a notable article of that title, and not all of the content would survive a move/merge, while no viable renaming has been proposed that would meet WP:N. Material that supported the fact that it didn't meet WP:N was produced by more than one participant.

Meanwhile, the closing admin accused me of being disruptive in the close for removing fringe and other unrelated material that had been added during the AfD to "improve" the article. He then refused to explain the policy-based rationale, and accused me of lying on his talk page when I opened the DRV and stated that I'd queried the closing admin but was flat out refused an explanation of his reasoning. He has been described as being condescending and authoritarian on his alternate user's talk page[100] in the past day, and that is on the mark. Furthermore, in effect, the admins inflammatory comments provided fuel to IZAK, who'd been making personal attacks since the original AfD discussion, as demonstrated in his off-topic rant above.

I file a report against the personal attacks and not only is there no discussion of the personal attacks, I am besieged by political opponents on the other side of the political divide seeking to eliminate the competition, so to speak. On the other hand, Tomwsulcer files an entirely baseless report against me, ends up removing some of the illegitimate content he tried to foist into the article in order to unduly influence the outcome of the AfD, and is not called to account--or even questioned--by a single admin here.

This process is looking like it's seriously dysfunctional, and this is a primary cause why Wikipedia can't maintain competent content contributors.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit, you say "This process is looking like it's seriously dysfunctional, and this is a primary cause why Wikipedia can't maintain competent content contributors" so that now you are waging war against WP itself, and when you allege "I am besieged by political opponents on the other side of the political divide seeking to eliminate the competition, so to speak" -- what?! You are "besieged"? No one is "besieging" you and WP is definitely not a WP:BATTLEGROUND for your POV political battles. I am NOT your "political opponent" (whatever that means?) because you don't know me or my political views. You, like any good WP editor should strive for WP:NPOV and not to "defend" or "oppose" any so-called political views. Ubikwit, let me make it quite clear, no one is "out to get you", personally I have no idea who you are or what your POV views are, I never met you until a few days ago, and all I can say is, it is very difficult to work with you to gain WP:CONSENSUS because you use all the the rules of WP against its better interests, that is called WP:LAWYERING, WP:DONOTDISRUPT or worse. You have no compunction in impulsively reverting as many times as you feel like it, running to ANI as if it was your personal "bouncer", launching AfD's and DRV wasting so many users' precious time, and who knows what else on the drop of a dime when you cannot get your way, and then if you see the world around you crumbling you then blame WP! Grow up! WP is just fine, I have been on it for over eleven years and with all its ups and downs there is still nothing like it in the history of civilization. Be a team player and not a spoiler and above all enjoy Wikipedia, it is after all an encyclopedia we are building here coming from so many divergent world views we all have to learn the art of give and take. I look forward to more positive contributions and behavior and lowering of the heat. Take care, IZAK (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"Running to AN/I", etc., your personal attacks just keep coming, even at AN/I. You are the disruptive editor at issue here, regardless of your attempts to divert attention from that fact. After 11 years, you should know better, and the fact that you apparently have supporters here at AN/I doesn't phase me. You are wrong for maing personal attacks, and they are wrong for not holding you accountable for the personal attacks.

For the record, the 'besieged by political opponents' comment referred to the following AN/I ban proposal launched by Marek.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit, please don't let your imagination run away with you when you allege that I "apparently have supporters here at AN/I" because, this may come as surprise to you, I have never met any of the people who have commented about your abuse of the services at ANI, and they are unknown to me. However it seems they know you too well. Take responsibility for your own disruptive actions. You are an energetic editor but you are misdirecting your energies in negative directions that does not help you and is not helpful to Wikipedia. Now I must take leave of you for Fourth of July, Shabbat Shalom. IZAK (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban Ubikwit from AN/I

Per WP:BOOMERANG. Regardless of the topic s/he is involved in Ubikwit treats Wikipedia as a battleground. And when s/he does not get their way on a particular article, they run here to create drama, or alternatively to other noticeboards, with the same end effect. Which is that they put a huge drain on editors resources and time. These endeavors regularly involve a gross misrepresentation of other editors' comments and behavior where any attempt to raise concerns about Ubikwit's behavior is transformed into a "personal attack". This is a textbook example of acting in bad faith nevermind failing to assume good faith. It also appears to be the case here as well.

It might very well be the case that Ubikwit has something to contribute to the project, although their (drama page participation)/(actual article content contribution) ratio does not make one hopeful. However, given their behavior so far, it might actually benefit the user his/herself to pull them away from the drama boards in order to get them to focus on content creation. Hence, I propose that Ubikwit is topic banned from starting threads or commenting on threads at AN/I for the next six months, after which they can ask for the restriction to be lifted. Enough already, if you're here to actually contribute then step away from drama boards and write some actual content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal modified below to include Volunteer Marek as well as Ubik together under the proposed topic ban based on their unhealthy obsession with each other and this noticeboard, with Volunteer Marek's edits representing more than twice as many as Ubik's. Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - as nom.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - seems like a good idea, would force him/her to find solutions of editorial problems on talk pages rather than solicit administrative actions. Obviously the discussions related to Ubikwit him/herself should be exempted from the ban Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for now (see below), though I support giving Volunteer Marek to reformulate the proposal to incorporate evidence that Ubikwit's participation here is so disruptive that Ubikwit should lose the ability to file a complaint here. ANI is an important forum to seek the correction of serious behavioral problems. I would have to see not only that Ubikwit's conduct here was disruptive, but that there was a pattern of vexatious behavior despite more than one attempt to correct it. I just see access to ANI and related fora as being that important. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Based on Ubikwit's behavior in this thread, I believe some sanction is in order. I am not connived an ANI ban is it, rather than a temporary revocation of editing privileges to prevent further incivility and BATTLEGROUND behavior. No comment on whether sanctions are merited for other parties: I specifically object to the changing of this proposal to include an interaction ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: What exactly is it that you find objectionable in my responses here? DO you assert that I don't have the right to defend myself against the baseless allegations being made? Some admins? It is not the case that I am unresponsive to criticism when the criticism has merit, so please explain your accusations of INCIVIL and BATTLE.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

See the commentary of my learned colleague Collect below. I was fully willing to oppose on the grounds of no evidence until you provided evidence of a civility and battleground problem yourself. I'm not saying I agree with an ANI ban; I do agree with Sphilbrick's reasoning, which I believe is reflective of my original comment. That said, and I'm sorry to say it, you need to take different measures to resolve this dispute. If you understand this I'd be more than willing to oppose any sanction on the grounds that, assuming you will go along with those recommendations, any sanction would no longer be preventative. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was accused of Wikilawyering and an inability to communicate, while at the same time the two admins making the allegations refused to address the communication problems at issue in this thread. That was all I meant by first repeating "Wikilawyering" and then substituting "sophistry" with respect to the same link. If peope don't agree that the comments I posted above are personal attacks, they should just say so--no one has--so it is not me that is failing to AGF. This report was filed in goof faith against straightforward, simple utterances that should be stopped. A warning would have sufficed. That said, I would really like to know what "different measures" I should have taken to resolve this dispute? I am not trying to be contrarian. Thank you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Yeah it is boring and unproductive to read same content dispute every time. Alex Bakharev is correct, Ubikwit should take some break from ANI, but he won't so it is better to provide him. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not familiar enough to comment with a decision myself, but I'd like to note that if a ban were placed, an exemption should be made for any topics involving Ubikwit (though that's probably a given). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's perfectly reasonable, and yes, the reason why it wasn't mentioned explicitly above is because it's pretty much a given. If someone else tries to bring Ubikwit here, Ubikwit would obviously be exempted from the proposed topic ban.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. There's probably quite a few editors who probably should stay away. What's not clear (because only three diffs of ANI threads have been linked to, and none by the proposer) why this user is particularly deserving of this restriction. AFAIK, being banned from ANI has only happened in pretty extreme situations. DeCausa (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The drama boards can be addictive and I think Ubikwit needs to go cold turkey for a while per this (thanks G S Palmer for pointing to that useful tool). The username is presumably a reference to ubiquitous, and I always have that association when I see Ubiqwit's sig on this page here: "Man, that guy is ubiquitous on ANI". It's true that access to ANI and related fora can be important, as Mendaliv points out, but IMO it's only really important for responding to complaints about oneself, an exemption which is obvious, see several comments above. The ability to ask for administrative action against opponents can be withdrawn if it's used to excess and becomes an annoyance to the community. For the individual, it may divert attention from more collaborative ways of solving content conflicts, especially talkpage discussion. Also it's not like Ubikwit wouldn't have other recourse, for instance appealing to an individual admin or going to dispute resolution. Bishonen | talk 09:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC).
  • I thought the user name was a homage to Philip K. Dick's Ubik. As for the "useful tool", it shows 221 edits by Ubikwit to ANI, but it also shows 466 edits by Volunteer Marek. In that case, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and considering that Volunteer Marek appears whenever Ubik shows up, I propose that per WP:BOOMERANG, both Volunteer Marek and Ubikwit should both be given a topic ban from ANI, not one or the other. Viriditas (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Nice try there Viriditas (I'm assuming this is payback for me having the nerve to disagree with you at the RS/N discussion). Let's see. Ubikwit: 229 edits to AN/I out of a total of 3,842 edits [101]. Myself: 466 edits to AN/I out of a total of 45,891 edits [102]. So I might have about twice as many edits to AN/I than Ubikwit, but I have twelve times as many total edits. That actually sort of shows the problem. If Ubikwit spent the same proportion of his editing time at AN/I as I have, he'd have... 37 edits here. But he's got more than six times that amount. Oh, and about 60% of my edits are to actual articles, whereas Ubikwit barely scratches 15%. Again, that's sort of the problem right there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    • That useful tool sure is fun. I suppose my topic ban from ANI is in the mail. Also, someone pinged me to come here, but I am on vacation! There are too many words here and too few paragraph breaks for me to read this. I am with Ubikwit in the narrow matter of that ridiculous AfD and the invented history of Jews in Nepal; besides that, I really don't have an opinion and I wish you all happy ANIing. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Comment by Ubikwit Marek's complaint amounts to an attempt to smear an editor that has been on the opposite side of the partisan divide in a couple of content disputes directly or indirectly related to the Ukraine crisis, and because I introduced evidence at the American Politics Arbcom case against him misrepresenting a source.

I've never interacted on an article with Alex Bakharev, so his unsupported characterization of the complaint I have made here against explicitly personal attacks as "editorial problems" is an incomprehensible imaginary concoction. OccultZone is another editor I've not interacted with before, and maybe he'd care to elaborate on what exactly it is that s/he refers to as "the same content dispute". It seems that they are trying to claim that I repeatedly bring "the same content dispute" to AN/I, but they present zero evidence of such implicit allegation.

AN/I is not a venue for targeting editors perceived to be on the opposite side of a given content dispute. It is a venue for addressing conduct problems that interfere with the ability to resolve content disputes by civil discourses on Talk pages, etc.

Personal attacks are obviously one category of conduct prohibited for that reason. Not one of the admins commenting on this thread has addressed the personal attacks, and one has apparently characterized them as an "editorial problem", so the hypocrisy seems to be getting extremely thick here. Quoting from WP:NPA

Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.

I challenge you, admin @Alex Bakharev:, to deny that the above-quoted comments by IZAK are personal attacks. We'll take from there.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Although there was an edit conflict so you didn't have the chance to see my above reply, considering that it appears that you, too, are an admin, I'm going to have to query your failure to address the personal attacks posted at the top of this thread. You would appear to be yet another admin that is remiss in their duty and engaging in some sort of selective/targeted enforcement out of process against an editor that has posted a straightforward report of misconduct. Incidentally, User:Sphilbrick cautioned GS Palmer regarding his remark before Marek opened this subthread, and Palmer apologized for the remark, yet you--along with Marek--seem to be intent on using that as some sort of hook. What is the basis for your !vote? I mean, as in policy-based rationale? You are an admin, right? It seems that you are insinuating that my filing this report represents a more serious conduct violation than the personal attacks. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Any insinuations that you see in my post are in the eye of the beholder. I neither insinuate nor state anything about your "filing this report"; I do state that you probably need an ANI break per this. Did you click on it, or do you prefer to change the subject? Yes, I'm an admin. The remissness in duty that you perceive in my not addressing everything in this thread, or everything on ANI, or everything on the site, is predicated on the fact that I'm a volunteer like yourself, with Wikipedia as a hobby; I address what I'm interested in addressing and find the most useful to address, currently the proposal to ban you from ANI.

I've said everything I had to say on that subject (twice, now), and won't engage further, as I'm quite wary of being drawn into some some absurdist question-and-answer session with you. People are probably looking and considering whether ANI would be better off without your wikilawyering, so you might want to avoid giving too crass an impression of wasting time. "Policy-based rationale", after I wrote all that explanatory stuff? Bah. Bishonen | talk 11:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

So let me see if I have this right. You admit that you didn't even read the thread on which you have chosen to selectively comment on only one section because you don't have time; furthermore, you think that even if I raise legitimate conduct issues here I am wikilawyering? From where I stand the people that are making excuses for not addressing the personal attacks and instead looking for a way to stop filing legitimate complaints against people like IZAK, who just boasted about being on Wikipedpia for 11 years, are those attempting to engage in sophistry. IZAK the 11-year veteran Wikipedia! He should know better, and so should every admin commenting here without reproaching him for his conduct.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• The regular ANI posts that Ubikwit makes every time he comes into conflict with another editor is wearing down my patience. That is disruptive. If Ubikwit is unable to communicate effectively to anyone on this project without making allegations of misconduct/policy violation, then perhaps he should not be editing here. The posts themselves are spurious and merit no admin action. In answer to Ubikwit's query of "[him] filing this report represents a more serious conduct violation than the personal attacks" - Bishonen may not be insunuating as such but I certainly am. Your frequent filing of these reports are certainly more disruptive and detrimental to the project than any perceived infractions that you have listed. Your inability to assess your own disruptive actions or to take on board the criticism of fellow editors regarding your behaviour (instead accusing them of foul play and dismissing criticism altogether) is completely against the spirits of this project. I hope that you will reassess your actions and fix the communication issues. Your response to this post will probably be laced with hostility and cite a dozen policy violations, but at least I oould say I tried. —Dark 12:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

At least you are more honest in presenting your thoughts, Dark, though obviously I am going to disagree with you and take issue with some of your remarks. You are out of line to suggest that "Ubikwit is unable to communicate effectively to anyone".

Let's see if I can communicate directly with you, or if you will fail to hear me.

Are you claiming that the personal attacks quoted above are not personal attacks? Or that they don't rise to some unknown threshold that makes them subject to admin action? Let me point to WP:NOTANARCHY, and remind you that personal attacks are not a form of communication that is permitted on Wikipedia. Apparently I was mistaken to think that admins were tasked to enforce the behavioral norms when presented with a complaint. Thank you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"If Ubikwit is unable to communicate effectively to anyone". I am certainly not out of line to suggest a failure to communicate as you have demonstrated with your rather selective reading. "Enforce the behavioral norms when presented with a complaint". Certainly. I am seeing a problem in your behaviour and therefore I am voicing my concerns over it. And yet again you are demonstrating an inability to see fault in your own actions, confirming my point. —Dark 15:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we're communicating. I didn't mean to miscontrue what you said.

Let me try to rephrase my concerns. I've been sort of accused of abusing this forum by making "bad faith" report(s). There is nothing "good faith" about personal attacks, on that I gather we would be in agreement. So it appears that the failure to hold IZAK accountable for those personal attacks--everyone, including you, has refused to say that they aren't personal attacks--would appear to lie in the degree or some other as yet unarticulated variable related to the attacks. I assure you that I'm not here to waste your time or mine, just to prevent conduct issues from impeding the resolution of content disputes. The claim that my filing a report here is diruptive to Wikipedia is a meta-assertion that fails to address the personal attacks. Am I failure to AGF is seeing the matter as such? Your only complaint about my conduct seems to be that you find my reports here to be frequent and frivilous, when at least one recent report resulted in a long-term disruptive editor being indeffed.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You wish to hold IZAK accountable for his actions, yet you do not see any fault in your own behaviour. It is not only your frequent and frivolous reports that I find objectionable, but the way you choose to handle any criticism of your actions by deflecting blame to others and accusing them of foul play. You seem to be unable to grasp that your actions are the problem, not the solution. I am not here to comment on the nature of IZAK's activities, it is neither my obligation or inclination to do so (and since this is a thread on a ANI ban for you, it would hardly be the correct place either). I am commenting on your unnecessary and aggressive battleground behaviour, including your accusations of misconduct by casting dispersions on people who have criticised you, your wikilawyering as expressed by Bishonen and others above and your tendency to demand admin action at the first supposed indication of policy infraction by using ANI as the first avenue of complaint. Instead of expressing concern on IZAK's talk page, you come straight to ANI. You have done that 3 times in the span of 1 week, showing a clear tendency to antagonise others in times of disagreement rather than work collaboratively on this project. —Dark 17:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First of all, the above-related report was not filed by me, I only responded to it. That means twice in one week, in related to completely different issues.

Secondly, I appreciate your advice to bring up such concerns on user talk pages, which is a practice I generally follow, but in this case IZAK was warned during the original AfD thread by User:Gregkaye here, as mentioned in the parent thread above. The WP:IRS talk page dispute was indirectly related to evidence filed at the American Politics Arbcom case.

Finally, I have to defend myself and say that I flat out disagree with your characterizations of my behavior, and frankly, I'm not interested in your psychoanalysis. If you have specific evidence to support your allegations of "unnecessary and aggressive battleground behaviour" aside from claiming that my reports are frequent and frivolous, or that "my actions are the problem, not the solution" aside from claiming that my reports are frequent and frivolous, please don't hesitate to present it instead of making sweeping and baseless generalizations about me. As stated explicitly in the text from WP:NPA that I've quoted in this thread, there is a difference between criticizing an editors editing versus criticizing the editor. You can criticize my actions, but not my character.

I filed this report on personal attacks in good faith, and your assertion that my intentions were otherwise is wrong and offensive. If I'm warned that this report was deemed to be somehow excessive or unnecessarily litigious, then I will certainly reduce the number of reports I file here, and chalk it up to a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's DR process.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You make an excellent point that Ubikwit errs by coming to ANI before even trying to discuss an issue with the other party. Which is exactly why I am gobsmacked that some editors are doing exactly the same thing, jumping on the ban wagon before providing Ubikwit with advice or a warning.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: As stated (again) in the edit conflict edit above, IZAK had been warned about making attacks (against me) during the AfD thread by another editor.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick:, the difference is that plenty of feedback and criticism of Ubikwit's actions were presented in previous threads he had made. The problem, as I have specified many times, is that he has a tendency to accuse those that provide criticism/warning of bad faith and in general, dismiss all feedback presented to him. He has shown a pattern of attacking those that he disagrees with. That is extremely problematic. It's not as if we did not provide him with adequate warning. —Dark 18:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm a little too process oriented, but it is my strong view that when a editor is engaging in activity that could result in a topic ban, we owe it to the editor to state in clear terms - "If this behavior does not change, you might be banned".--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: It seems to me that DarkFalls is attacking my character as opposed to criticizing my filing of this thread (or any other specific "action"). Making attacks against an editors character is prohibited, I believe, even by admins.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

::sigh:: Now I know how user:Collect feels--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick:, I'm sure you can appreciate the difficulties of attempting to reason with an editor who considers any criticism to be an attack on his character. I am thoroughly unconvinced that providing him with a formal warning will elicit anything other than further contempt. From the evasive response to your warning on his talk page, I feel your efforts may be in vain although we can hope for the best. —Dark 09:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you are mischaracterizing my words, this time as being "evasive". Oh, but your just "criticizing" my actions, right?

I have repeatedly told you that I disagree with your casting aspersions on my filing this report as being "bad faith", etc., as with the OP of this subthread.

I understand that Sphilbrick can see how Marek might be able to characterize my filling this report on personal attacks as representative of BATTLE, but that is not the case. Other editors have characterized Marek's opening of this thread as representative of his BATTLE mentality, but I don't hear you harping on him. You did mention that I was trying your patience, though. Well, WP:NOTCOMPULSORY applies to admins as well, I would imagine. You're a volunteer, right? So am I.

Incidentally, let me refresh your memory that I replied as follows, directly to you several comment above

If I'm warned that this report was deemed to be somehow excessive or unnecessarily litigious, then I will certainly reduce the number of reports I file here, and chalk it up to a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's DR process.18:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I trust you don't see anything evasive in that.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:20, 11:53 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Random section break 1

• Noting that the "modification" adding another editor was out of process and not relevant to this discussion
• Was going to oppose until Ubikwit accused everyone else of being Sophists - Support as a result Seems to cover it all. Ubikwit is engaging in battleground acts even where my usual inclination is to oppose all Draconian solutions as rarely working. Cheers, Ubikwit. You managed to change my mind here. Collect (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose I understand the frustration, but this is not even a close call. I perused the editors talk page, and did not find a single warning about actions at ANI. I wish I could say we do not topic band people without warning, but we have. The one case I can recall prompted me to consider walking away from Wikipedia. This case is not as egregious; Ubikwit should be picking up clues that some are unhappy with the way they conduct themselves here, but we should not ban someone without clear warnings. --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Thank you for the reasonable and supportive comment. Let me also point out that not all of my posts at AN/I can be said to have been counterproductive. Here is a recent post that resulting in action against a long-term disruptive editor [103]. When you edit in contentious areas, there are going to be disputes, and when conduct problems arise, I believe it is better to bring them here before they escalate.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he has certainly been warned many times about forum shopping and harassment in the past. Going back less than a week we have [104] where Ubikwit is noted as having up to five simultaneous discussions. [105] shows a very interesting example of his civility (Fuck off!), etc. And where one editor makes 200+ posts about another editor in a single month, there is a strong likelihood that he knows dang well precisely what he is doing. As I noted, I was going to oppose draconian sanctions as I generally do - until I saw Ubikwit exemplifying the epitome of "IDIDNTHEARTHAT." Collect (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose -- this proposal is merely a tactic by an editor who is battleground-oriented himself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Question - Supposing that a user has been banned from ANI, and then has a legitimate complaint to register, what is the user's alternative option? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would say a more specialized noticeboard, or to directly ask for an admin's intervention. But how about WP:AN? Hmm. Well this generally goes to my concern mentioned above. What they do in federal courts when they deny vexatious litigants access is usually to require prior approval of the suit by a licensed attorney. So maybe here the solution would be akin to a mentorship-like relationship: ask an admin to file the thread on behalf, and make that a specific exception to WP:PROXYING in the ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support as per nom.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. Thomas.W ^talk 16:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nomoskedasticity. The disputed page is a disgraceful potemkin village of pseudo-stuff which belies the ostensible (see parallel pages) purpose of registering historical bonds to a territory with recent religious and touristic interests. Ubikwit noticed it, and is paying the penalty. As the recent tendency has it, tweely promish and yuppie p's-and-q's-ism is prevailing in disputes over serious content and scholarly editors.Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

This is about Ubikwit's battle-ground behaviour, not about the content of an article. A content dispute over a badly sourced, POV or whatever article does not excuse bad behaviour towards other editors. Thomas.W ^talk 16:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Do any of those rushing to judgement here know the field where this absurd accusation arose? This is about complaints made by his obligatory cancellation of four trash edits. I'm a trained orientalist, and have now examined the details. Tomwsulcer, I am certain in good faith, googled "stuff" that any orientalist would chuck out at less than a nanosecond's glance, and then complained earlier of Ubikwit's reverts. The battle-ground here is between commonsense (and scholarship) and editor's personal sensitivities about being reverted for foolish edits.

• the first cites Arutz Sheva four times. It is highly disputed as a source at RSN. The additions appear to be promotional, for Chabad and Israeli tourism. Viva Sarah Press is a Facebook page. Everything is screwed up there.
• (2) The second revert is correct again. Moshiach com is a bizarre non RS site for history (WP:Fringe) was infringed. This is an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground for anything a google search throws up (like the laughable (and mendacious):” Most Kashmir researchers are of the opinion that many inhabitants of Kashmir are descendants of the Lost Tribes who were exiled in 722 BCE..".”(b) Ellen Frankel's article has no value for ancient history (because there is none); Alan Silver’s Jews, Myth and History: A Critical Exploration of Contemporary Jewish Belief, p.2 is falsely cited for an irrelevant comment, about the ‘hippie trail’ that leads to the ‘almost secret kingdom of Nepal’ (confusing Nepal with Tibet, Sikkim and Bhutan). He’s talking about his wanderings in 1972, not about ‘accounts in literature of Jewish persons migrating to Nepal and the Himalayas’ (under Ancient History) (c) Destination Yisrael is not RS for anything but its own non-notable existence in the blogosphere, and not even for for the bizarre speculation that Ezekiel got past the Caspian Sea to Nepal!!! That is extreme weirdo fringe belief. (d) A certain Robert Mock from the same insane website speaks of speculation that the Buddha is of Jewish descent. Hey folks, wake up and read what the plaintiff got upset at, Ubikwit’s deletion of the idea that the Buddha was actually born from the genetic loins of the Lost Ten Tribes of the House of Israel,’ which is never stated in the vast body of historical Jewish literature. The idea arose among Telegu Jews who got it from modern Christian proselytisers. (e) there is no historical literature connecting the Kaifeng Jews with Nepal.
• (3) The revert was correct for the same reasons as above. Stuff like ‘However, there is speculation that links the first residents of Nepal to descendants of the concubines of Abraham (a myth, not an historical figure), as well as speculation that early Jewish influence played a role in the origination of the caste system in Nepal and India, and that the etymological roots of the word Brahmin can be traced to early Jewish origins.( name=Birnbaum)' is worse than WP:Fringe fantasy: it's drunken trash. Jews did not exist as an ethnos when the caste system, which developed from the tripartite Indo-European ideology the Aryans brought to India, was developed and the idea that the word Brahmin has a Jewish origin defies the precise results of the science of philology.
• (4) Again, correct and obligatory. There is nothing in the Bnei Menashe traditions (whom genetics rules out as having any gene-markers with high frequency in Jewish populations) that identifies Nepal as a transit point. It was a clear WP:OR sviolation.

Worst still, behind all of these edits, unwittingly or no, lie the arguments of Rabbi Eliyahu Birnbaum, who has a direct interest in promoting conversion in those countries. It may be a coincidence, but objectively Ubikwit was reverting blobs of material directly or indirectly associated with the wild fantasies of figures like Birnbaum, ideas that have no place on an article dealing witn Nepal, since they are proselytising, and their presence here consists in self-promotion. Proof if ever that wikipedia is increasingly a control society where face and etiquette and avoiding stepping on toes is far more important than scholarly content.Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• That's still just a content dispute that should, and can, be handled through the proper channels. It doesn't matter how fringe a theory is (and I've seen lots of really fringe theories here on WP...), it is still no excuse for behaving the way Ubikwit does. Thomas.W ^talk 20:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Your comments above, here where this started some days ago, are all radically indifferent to the fact that Ubikwit was absolutely correct in his removal of trash and blatant POV-promotional pushing. You do not appear to be disturbed by the presence of trash. You appear to have an eagle-eye for 'good form' apropos Ubikwit, who is being singled out here, but not for the obvious elephant in the room. Content is not written by Emily Posters. It's written by people with some understanding of both commonsense and scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Fighting POV-pushing is what I usually do here on WP, so your comment is as far off the mark as it could be... Thomas.W ^talk 21:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Idem, and I have specific competence in both these areas. I identified flagrant POV-pushing, inadvertently or otherwise, in several edits on the page which lies in the background of the complaints against Ubikwit, and showed his defence of the neutrality of the encyclopedia by his reverts was perfectly policy compliant, both commonsensical and informed by an eye for nonsense. It would appear this counts for nothing. Examine everyone's contribution, in a POV- issue, which, in this regard, requires some basic understanding of the subject, which is not apparent in the many comments in this thread, where one editor's behaviour (WP:Boomerang) is focused on, to the exclusion of the absurd material he rightfully expunged, in what was not edit-warring, but the application of encyclopedic criteria.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment To those who has expressed support after I pointed out that the user has never been warned, are you really supporting the notion that someone can be banned without being warned, or did you see someone warning I have missed? Isn't it generally accepted than when an editor engages in "bad" behavior, they are warned first, and stronger measures enacted if the warning isn't heeded? Has that general approach been changed?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment to Sphilbrick. Ubikwit's talk page is Warning City. here, here, here, here, here, here, blocked from editing, generally for disruptive editing, 3RR, wikibattling; the Wikipedia community has been more than patient with her/his behavior. Was the warning specifically about AN/I? Not sure.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't explicit enough. I see some warnings, but I haven't seen one stating, or even hinting that a topic ban might be considered. And while your list of seven diffs looks long on the surface, did you actually read them? The first was from me, posted AFTER this thread started, because I felt we owed a warning. That doesn't count as a warning before the ban consideration. The second and third are warnings from someone who was blocked as a result of a report by Ubikwit. One is a friendly 3RR warning, one not so friendly, but violations of 3RR can lead to a block, not an ANI topic ban. And so on. --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a bureaucracy. When you get warnings repeatedly on your talk page. And when you generally have a focus on one area its not hard to imagine you wont end up topic banned from that area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I generally agree with this. Editors can reasonably be expected to read the atmosphere and conclude from the total failure of prior ANI threads that starting another in the same manner will not end well. If Ubikwit cannot or will not do this, it is entirely reasonable to consider sanctions to prevent the sort of repetitive disruption that will surely result otherwise. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: As mentioned above (twice now?), a recent report I filed that resulting in a long-term disruptive editor [106] being indeffed. It is simply not the case that my participation here is no more than disruptive. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• I honestly don't have the energy to read all of this but I would advise anyone to making decisions to have a good open minded resd of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/History_ of_the_Jews_in_Nepal . I am about to leave my comments.... IZAK as you must be completely aware there were many polite and decent comments on both sides of the argument yet you consistently used derogatory language and then with unabashed hypocrisy criticised others for the very actions that you were guilty of. As for red herrings, you sure know how to fish. Please look at the others that were supporting the keep argument. You could learn from them. Gregkaye (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose seriously a ban from ANI? Unworkable and unrealistic. If you're going to ban someone for something then do it, essentially telling them they're banned from administrative functions is way out of order. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  "Unworkable"? In what way? BMK (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - The comment is made that Ubikwit has not been warned. He has been criticized. No thread filed by Ubikwit here has been closed with a warning because his constant threads alleging personal attacks and abuse (which often have some merit, but do not rise to ANI) just tire everyone out and we just want the noise to go away. In this particular thread, whether the consensus to keep was right or wrong, there clearly was no consensus to delete, and Ubikwit's immediate reopening was tendentious and forum shopping. If Ubikwit really identifies an issue that requires ANI action, I am sure that he can get someone else to file it. I am not proposing that he be topic-banned from commenting on ANI threads, but only that he be topic-banned from starting them (or subthreads). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The assertion that my opening a DRV discussion "was tendentious forum shopping" is baseless, and I request that it be struck.

First of all, I contacted the closing admin and asked for an explanation of his reasoning, then I asked him again a day later after he failed to reply. After being denied an explanation, I filed the DRV request(thread here), according to standard procedure. The first comment by an uninvolved editor, User:S Marshall was

It's been re-opened absolutely bloody everywhere else. Those extraneous discussions should all be closed. DRV is the correct venue to dispute an AfD outcome, and Ubikwit is entirely within his rights to begin a deletion review, so this is the only place the discussion should be re-opened.—S Marshall T/C 12:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)(underlining added)

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 22:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• And that's how I feel about discussing whether History of the Jews in Nepal should be deleted. There appears to be a conduct dispute as well, which I think should probably take place at RFC/U. I'm afraid I'm not interested in the conduct dispute, although I do have a fairly strong view on the article.—S Marshall T/C 23:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not sure this is a good precedent. He should have been given a warning prior to the discussion of a topic ban, and I'm not convinced that his disruption is severe enough that it rises to the level of such a sanction. He has apparently annoyed a lot of people, but that seems more like an issue for an RFC/U. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: following the reasoning in the post above me by NinjaRobotPirate. There is contentious behaviour by more than one editor involved in the inclusion or exclusion discussion regarding this particular article on Nepal, but again that is just user conduct. I agree that we should not topic ban at this point because of lack of enough correct warning. Fylbecatulous talk 12:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Can someone uninvolved please sort out person with 3 accounts?

See Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Background info on me and the "Siduri Project" a well-meaning editor who is struggling with their understanding of how Wikipedia works. Thanks. The accounts are User:Wiki-proofer-and-tagger, User:Siduri-Project, and User:Gilgamesh-for-the-World. Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that editor is not so much that he has three accounts, nor that he's apparently been using some of them as shared role accounts, but that he is trying to use the editing of our Gilgamesh-related pages in order to advertise some bizarre personal program promoting an obscure passage of text in one Gilgamesh texts as if it was a religious piece of life advice for the modern world, trying to give greatly undue weight to that passage and maximizing the visibility of his external website in the process, all the while covering his campaign up with grandiloquent walls of text about what grand schemes of reinventing Wikipedia he has. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Future Perfect, I am indeed passionate about Siduri and Siduri's advice, bizarre as that may be, hence the primary goal of the Siduri project to improve Wikipedia's "Siduri" page with new multimedia (images, audio, video etc). The reason I am excited about the "Siduri Project" from a more general Wikipedia perspective, is that we may be able to use the same model and step-by-step user-friendly processes to improve other Wikipedia pages. Please judge me based on my past, current and future actions. I am here to: 1) improve the Siduri page (which I am passionate about) and 2) hopefully export these processes to other Wikipedia pages to improve Wikipedia. Every edit from every account (no they are not Role accounts) speaks that intent. I do appreciate your perspective on me and this project and will do everything in my power to alleviate your concerns. Best, Jim Siduri-Project (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the beta-testing account "Gilgamesh-for-the-World", I propose it is in Wikipedia's best interest to have this multimedia beta-tested on a non-public page before being integrated into the actual Siduri page. This way, if I, or any of our contributors, makes a mistake, it will not interfer with Wikipedia's publicly accessibly Siduri page. Perhaps "Gilgamesh-for-the-World" is not the best name for such a page, if this is in any way a concern, would "Siduri-Beta-Testing" be a more acceptable account name? Siduri-Project (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't need nor should you have multiple accounts for the reasons you're stating. You simply use a personal WP:SANDBOX for testing in non-article space like everyone else who read the policies and guidelines does the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Could multiple people see and modify this sandbox page, or would it only be limited to one account? The concept of the beta-testing page was to get feedback from Siduri Project contributors regarding bugs, improvements, copyright etc, before posting to the public page. Does this make sense, or should I elaborate?Siduri-Project (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, there is no 'Siduri project'. Contributors wishing to edit the article in question will have to do so as individuals, as with any other article. And sandboxes etc are emphatically not appropriate places to sort out copyright issues - if material is copyright, it must not be uploaded at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy:

1. Yes, you are of course right, I would never upload any copyrighted material that might hurt Wikipedia. My colleagues and I will make sure all copyright regulations are followed.

2. Yes, you are correct that no "Siduri Project" has yet been approved, we still need to propose this project (once the regulatory issues are resolved) at Wikipedia's village pump.

3. No, I don't think that beta-testing increasingly sophisticated multimedia and applications live on the publicly accessible Siduri page is in the best interests of either Wikipedia or the Wikipedia visitor. Personal sandboxes may be ok for text and images, but audio, video and other applications should we checked by multiple people before being integrated into the public page. This may not be Wikipedia policy, but it should be, in my opinion. Best, Jim Siduri-Project (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There is precisely zero possibility of any 'Siduri project' being approved by Wikipedia. We have no need whatsoever for projects based around a single article, and neither do we need projects clearly intended to promote the subject of the article in ways entirely incompatible with the objectives of the encyclopaedia. If you want to start a new religion, do so elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm more and more concerned that the editor doesn't understand the purpose of Wikipedia ... sounds like WP:NOTWEBHOST. Siduri: your current userid fails WP:U and can be blocked at any moment. Any other accounts that appear to be role accounts can also be blocked. No pages that you create on Wikipedia are "private" in any way - that's why we use WP:AFC and sandboxes to create new articles. Be careful about editing in concert with each other - we do have rules against that that can lead to blocks the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

My apologies if "Siduri-Project" was not an acceptable username. Would "Jim-Siduri" work?Jim-Siduri (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:FRINGE, etc.etc. Don't know where to start. Well, perhaps if I was an admin by blocking two of the three accounts. --cyclopia^speak! 17:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Shades of Tumbleman. EEng (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I wish now I'd done that. I thought I was talking to 2 editors at Talk:Epic of Gilgamesh, I can see now that I was wrong. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as article-fixing goes, I'm going through the contribs and removing/rewriting/reworking now. Feel free to revert if I'm stepping on anyone's toes. Woodroar (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed a number of copyvio links to sidurisadvice.com - these were to pdfs of copyright works. We shouldn't be linking to copyvio sites. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Off topic

Irrelevant sideshow Blackmane (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey Panda, how's your WP:SOCK account doing? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Do you really need to highjack this for your beef? Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Are you his lackey or another sock account too? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC) Always fun when someone refuses to read WP:SOCK#LEGIT. But hey, whatever the panda ₯’ 19:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I've read that. Several times. I'm just pointing out to people who may not be aware of your other account. Always fun when someone refuses to read WP:AGF. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

User name User:Siduri-Project

Question: wouldn't it be fair to call User:Siduri-Project a name that implies a shared use? Right now, it may be a single person but there's no reason why the project couldn't share the account. It's also arguably promotional but I don't think projects qualify under that policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe the editor is now going by the moniker User:Jim-Siduri. However, they are still editing the User:Siduri-Project userpage under some kind of impression that that is some kind of wikiproject or something. Hurts to think about it too much. Rgrds. --64.85.214.37 (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Fox & Friends IP Protect amid minor vandalism and BLP violation.

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

---

Apparently they told viewers to edit their page, and some are It would be a good idea to put an IP restriction on changing the page for a few days. Furthermore, the edits are using a derogatory attack of Steve Doocy's name in their addition. Arzel (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Arzel: You should mention that on the page, if they really asked. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Random IP editors don't go to the talk pages. It is more simple to just IP protect the page for a few days until they forget about it. Arzel (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of record {{press}} should be added to the talk page. EEng (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The page has been semi-protected by Dougweller for the period of two months due to (Persistent vandalism), Incidentally EEng's idea above is also good one. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 17:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Danks. I'da dunnit meself but I dunno duh details. EEng (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Copyright violation editing feud with Webdevelopmentfellow

I believe that Webdevelopmentfellow has been copying and pasting content from the web to Love Leadership:The New Way To Lead In A Fear-Based World and How the Poor Can Save Capitalism. I have removed some of it in the page history: [107] [108]. Additionally, he/she has uploaded two images to Wikimedia, which have been deleted for copyright violations.^{C.Fred fixed the problem} I have warned Webdevelopmentfellow and we have discussed the problems. However, he/she continues to add such content. What are the appropriate actions? Piguy101 (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's our discussion User talk:Webdevelopmentfellow#Copyright violation is a serious issue. If you need to take any kind of action, please let me know first, I'll see what I can do. Webdevelopmentfellow (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Webdevelopmentfellow, I'd like to point out a few things here. Using quotes in a Wikipedia article is allowed if you properly attribute the original text. Ideally this will include a link to the website where you found the statement in question, or mention the book wherein it was published. However, building an entire article on quotes as you did at Love Leadership:The New Way To Lead In A Fear-Based World is not acceptable. Non-free material must only be used to a limited extent, and apart from that, the review section in your articles makes it look like its only purpose is to promote the book.

When writing an article you should always describe things and facts using your own words instead of copying verbatim content from somewhere else. You should use such sources to back up what you write, but please try to actually write something like, "In his review in the Y magazine, reviewer X noted that the author was brilliant/awful/mediocre, etc. because..." Additionally, all articles must also be balanced. If there are negative reviews, consider mentioning them as well, and if there are only positive reviews you should limit the quotes to the two most significant and sum the rest up in a statement that is cited with a few links to those other reviews. De728631 (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for potential interaction ban or topic ban of some kind; or some kind of intermediate action

I am here to request an interaction ban and potential topic ban between myself and the user Cebr1979. Said-user and I just cannot seem to get along, despite my best efforts to avoid said-user and the pages they edit. However, we both edit articles of soap operas, etc., so a topic ban may be a bit complicated to pull off. But said-user continues to make accusations of Wikihounding and reverting just their edits, while I am merely following topics pinned into my Watchlist, articles I've had a large hand in either editing, maintaining or creating. It has become a complete uncivil situation, despite my best intentions to try and just avoid situations with said-user. Should be noted user was blocked for a period of 48 hours following Personal and harassment, something I feel they are still on-going in. This evening, I edited the pages of Kelly Andrews and Summer Newman, both characters of The Young and the Restless, to make their edits comply with {{Infobox soap character}}, which I noted in my edit summery ([109]) while the second on Summer Newman, I was under the assumption I was merely fixing disruptive edits of another user from the day prior, and was left with ou have been told by a site admin to stop following my edits. If you really feel that strongly, you have to take it to the talk page. No more reverting! and Again, you have been told by a site admin to stop following my edits. If you have a problem, take it to the talk page. No more reverting!.

Following, I was then accused of Wikihounding said editor and that I "continued on with my usual ways of just reverting", which is another assumption, which said-user was advised by an Admin to refrain from making assumptions on their talk page (and here and here) -- user ignored those warnings and posted this, which later resulted in their block. Assumptions continued being made again, and I went to User:DarkFalls, and inquired about it, where I was told to ignore them. The mere simply fact that the pages they choose to edit on are on my Watchlist is not me Wikihounding them, which I am continually accused of doing, as well as other things.

I am requesting the interaction ban for Cebr1979, as I do not wish to be part of the user's postings or editing any longer. As for a topic ban, that one may be a bit more complicated, as we both edit within the soap opera fields, and as a longtime member of the Soap Project (a project I have been with since August 14, 2011 and editing with prior to joining the project), I have had a hand in the re-structuring of several U.S. soap opera articles alongside User:Arre 9, User:Creativity97, and User:SoapFan12, and have several other articles currently in the process of creation/re-creation. I am over feeling like I myself am being personally attacked by said-user concerning any edits I may make, and am now editing in fear of being accused of things I am not doing. I have loved and enjoyed editing on Wikipedia, making it a more resourceful and notable place, especially for soap articles and music-related articles. However, this situation with the user in question has severely diminished my editing desires out of mere fear that my actions are being seen not in good faith, which they always are intended, while mistakes can and probably have been made in the past. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop bringing up former events, they've been dealt with by admins. Your own talk page states, "the past is the past." A site admin told you two days ago to stop following my edits. I never made that accusation, he said it first! He also told you that if you felt strongly about something I edited, you should take it to that article's talk page. You went ahead and reverted two of my edits without going to those article's talk pages. You ignored two things an admin told you to stop doing and continued on as though that conversation never happened. Me saying this to you now is not "making accusations." As I said to you earlier, I'm stating facts. A site admin told you to stop doing something and you didn't listen. Have a good day, livelikemusic. I won't be returning to this conversation either.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I can tell someone likes soap-operas. Howunusual (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• The only issue I have with an interaction ban between the two parties is that it would likely be ineffective considering the similar interests of the two - they are bound to edit the same articles and come into conflict in the future. However their interactions in the past has been rather toxic, something must be done before communications deteriorate even further. —Dark 11:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, something must be done, because no matter what I edit, or edit summary I use, I'm told I'm automatically reverting them and Wikihounding them. I simply cannot edit without the fear of being accused of things I am not doing, especially when said-edits I make are following template guidelines and requirements that have been implemented for years, yet now ignored because I'm "Wikihounding" and "bullying". It feels like a very personal vendetta against myself, and I an interaction ban and potential topic ban may diffuse the situation. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Metamodernism -- ANI thread archived without intervention

What's the next step for this thread that was archived without being resolved? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#Lots_of_issues_at_Talk:Metamodernism_that_could_use_admin_attention

It received semi-protection, but none of the problems have been resolved despite the talk page becoming slightly less chaotic. The protection will be lifted tomorrow and I will have very little time over the next several days to engage with it, nevermind put together a competent SPI or COI/NPOV report (i.e. with sufficient diffs).

I'll expand upon what I wrote last time, briefly.

As far as the content dispute: There are writers, academics, and artists currently producing interesting work under the heading "metamodernism." Several of them, it seems, are at the same time working in ways to stake some sort of claim to the term. The degree to which the different voices are included/prioritized in the Wikipedia article seems to be the primary point of contention (at Metamodernism and, to a lesser degree, at the Seth Abramson article).

When I first came to the article, it was primarily Festal82 and Esmeme edit warring and exchanging ad hominems and COI accusations. I wasn't sure then, but while I do now believe neither editor to be completely free of COI, I think it's possible there can be a productive [mediated, likely] compromise between the two that will yield a good, balanced article.

The matter was further complicated by several unusually bellicose additional parties (IPs and a few relatively new registered accounts) joining the discussion -- which was the point at which I posted the initial ANI.

Since then no new users have joined in and the only two of the new voices that remain are Inanygivenhole and Felt friend, to me indistinguishable from one another in tone and content of their edits, who began to edit on the talk page intensely on the same day. Though I haven't watched the discussion closely in the last couple days, my impression from those early exchanges was WP:NOTHERE, with far more interest in, effectively, bullying Festal82 (multiple times [perhaps accidentally] removing his talk page comments in edit conflicts, tagging his talk page comments with a citation needed tag, unwarranted warning/templating, coi accusations, responding critically to every post, some WP:GAME-type tactics, etc.).

I know I'm not including sufficient diffs to make any particular behavioral case, but I wanted to bump this and elaborate a little before protection runs out tomorrow, in the hope it attracts additional eyeballs. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want someone to do. Admins aren't supposed to be super-editors or policemen. If an individual editor is acting inappropriately, the remedy is reporting the user or a user RfC. If there is a significant content dispute (such as whether a source is reliable or not), then WP:RSN is available or WP:DRN ([[see here). If there is a split of opinion on the subject, then include both sides as long as it's not a WP:FRINGE view. The problem I see is the talk page has hundred word long vague arguments as opposed to "is this source reliable"/"what does the source say"/etc. The entire second paragraph here starting with "Van den Akker and Vermeulen defined metamodernism" has zero sources and is the main paragraph of the piece. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I take your point, but the problem is it's all of the above so I'm not so sure addressing it on the multiple different noticeboards/venues that apply would solve anything. There's the level of the content dispute, which extends to the reliability of certain sources, but it's not just a matter of finding consensus because all of it is obscured by the constant POV-pushing, possible socking, and personal attacks by nearly all those involved. I'm open to ideas and moving this elsewhere if that's what's appropriate, but I'm not so sure this is the wrong place. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  05:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I throw in some pieces to the talk page. Move one by one bit by bit. Frankly, the issue is people doing giant edits and not posting their reasons until challenged and then posting a flood of material in response. I couldn't even tell you what the editors are POV-pushing in a single sentence. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Throwing this out: the largest issue right now deals with the debatable reliability of using a certain webstie as a source, which I've opened a thread at RSN addressing here. felt_friend 16:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Problem with user "Factchecker_atyourservice"

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

---

It's Wikipedia editors like this guy (evidently, from his contrib history, one of the many, how shall I say....people of a right-ish, libertarian-ish disposition who especially haunt "controversial" article topics) that repel would-be contributors away from trying to help improve articles (especially folks who might actually know something about the topic.) This is in regards to just the Talk page for the 2013 IRS Controversy article. I had made a short note about of how none Tea Party Groups actually ended up getting denied a 501(c)(4) (an IRS tax-exempt certification at the heart of the matter, and one meant for social welfare organizations, and not political ones), when "Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs)" popped by to dismiss both my comment and diss one of my links. Since I don't suffer fools very well, you can probably guess what happened next. These are some somewhat self-explanatory diffs, plus a comment link (note the summary comments): Diff1, Diff2, Comment1, Diff3

And this is all I'm going to "contribute" on the matter. -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk)

Too bad WP:BOOMERANG does not work on IPs too well -- your post here is inapt, and not going to serve you well at all. Collect (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I only care enough to make as minimal amount an effort to very occasionally point out when articles on "controversial" topics are being gamed into anti-informational garbage, and maybe once in a while calling out one of the editors responsible. I tried being an editor in the past, but ended up spending 99+% of my time dealing with deliberately tendentious editors and their little armies of other likewise ICANTHEARYOU-type editors and an assortment of puppets and belligerent IP users. So pointing out an almost completely overlooked aspect of a politically sensitive article and then calling out an editor for dickish behavior is really all I have the time and energy to do. So this really is my last say on the matter. -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk)

This looks like an open and shut case of should never have been brough here in the first place. Amortias (T)(C) 17:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. BC? Uhm...oh never mind.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

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

David Horvitz

A few years ago, I had been part of a group who uncovered a campaign by David Horvitz to have photographs of himself looking at various beaches along the California coast posted on Wikipedia. This culminated in this deletion discussion at the Commons (there may have been a discussion regarding the photos locally but I cannot seem to find it). Horvitz then turned this into an art project when every single photo he had uploaded got deleted, but it turns out that he fully intended to reupload everything.

Binksternet recently uncovered the disruption had happened once more locally and on the Commons with a slew of sockpuppets that he has been documenting at his talk page. I also uncovered other photographs he had posted across the project and other language projects, as he did in his previous disruption in 2011. This has disruption occuring from the past 2 years, including photographs of similar quality taken of his international journeys including one of a beach in Hong Kong. I also discovered that Horvitz had been contributing to Wikipedia as early as 2006 under the account Rasputinfa, which he had explicitly linked to his own name. There was also some minor disruption late last year when he used an intern to get his article deleted.

I am proposing that we officially ban David Horvitz from the English Wikipedia. We should also attempt to coordinate bans on other projects, as he has uploaded his photographs for a beach in Hong Kong for which there is only an article on the Chinese Wikipedia as well as constant disruption to the Commons, but I am not as well versed in the means to get that sort of ball rolling.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I have found the previous discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive666#Something fishy on Pelican State beach and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive675#Attention Wikipedia - you have been conquered,,,.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The article Whale Beach (Nevada) has a photo of a naked guy facing, thankfully, away from the viewer, looking out to the water. The camera is not the same model as the ones Horvitz has used (usually a Canon EOS 40D professional or Canon PowerShot consumer model), but the layout of the photos and the physicality of the person is the same. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

So he actually created a whole new article just to host a selfie.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

And it's a crap selfie at that. Between the dust circles, sharpness, exposure settings, lens choice... while I agree with some of this guy's compositional and subject choices in some of the images displayed at that "art project" page, this is just dreck being passed off as fine photography. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Question I understand people are miffed, but I'm not sure I see the disruption. (I read the discussion at the time, but it's a distant memory.) If he is replacing pictures with worse ones just to have his picture included, then it's disruption, regardless of whether it's art, self promotion, or exhibitionism. If on the other hand the pictures are improving the articles, then we should offer a lukewarm welcome... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

He's using Wikipedia to promote himself and his work by only uploading photographs of himself at these various locations with his back turned to the camera, forcing editors who want to use the photos to crop them to where the subject is himself absent from the photos. Or his odd artistic photos like the one he had at melancholic depression for 2 years of him fake sobbing into his hands, the photo he posted at solitude of just himself standing on a beach with no one else, or this photo of himself looking at a sculpture. There is no point to any of the photos he has uploaded here or at the commons other than making sure that he is included in them.

He was not welcome 3 years ago when he was indefinitely blocked. He is not welcome now that he's spent the past 3 years using sockpuppets to discreetly reupload everything that had been deleted and then go out to more locations to take more photos of himself in the same manner and then post them to Wikipedia, making screencaps of them prominent in his artwork and his fame. If he wanted to be welcomed by the community his homepage would not have a screenshot of our article on the Irish coastal town of Howth with a photo of him looking out at Dublin Bay with his back facing the camera to gloat about how he's fooled Wikipedia again. He made it his full intention to disrupt Wikipedia after we gave him the boot, and immortalized our words in his gallery when we realized we had been had.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It's still not clear how we are "fooled", or how anyone is "forced" to crop his images (though go ahead if the results are better, it is a moments work after all). It's rather like saying one has "hacked" Wikipedia when one edits an article to improve it. And maybe someone should tell him about the "preview" feature if he just wants screencaps. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

He had his photos on the project for the past 2 years after we found out about his "Public Access" installation that he was using Wikipedia for and had them all deleted the first time around. Then his first act after whatever automatic block expired was to add back the photo that led to the discovery of his stupid art project in the first place. And no, screencaps aren't what he wants. He wants to have photos of himself on the various Wikipedia articles live by being in the photographs. That's why he added the photo to Howth. That's why when he went to Hong Kong, he took a photo on a beach there and then added it to the Chinese Wikipedia page as the top image on the article. He's not here to contribute. He's here to disrupt and have his backside across Wikimedia projects. The fact that we could not catch this two years ago means that there are an untold number of lovely photographs of beaches across Wikipedia and its sister projects that have the same man looking at the horizon away from the camera just because he wants to make a statement about web 2.0.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Question - Is there a policy reason why he was not notified of this discussion, or was that just an oversight? He should have been notified, and has been. It is important for anyone reporting a disruptive editor to be sure that they follow both the spirit and the letter of our policies and guidelines. Was he not notified for a reason, or by oversight? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@ Robert; as you saw, I directed his talk page to the conversation, but with the "gaggle of sockpuppets" Modus operandi he uses, creating a whole slew of accounts, often only using the account to upload 3 photos then its never used again, how do you really notify "him", he is Wikipedia:Gaming the system, an editor finds a loophole or trick that allows them to evade community standards. talk→ WPPilot  03:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Ban?

• Support ban. This guy is an outstanding example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. He has been socking for years now, with no indication of quitting. Let's get the proper leverage to rush his stuff out the door immediately in the future. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban per Binksternet talk→ WPPilot  20:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban. I agree with the two prior users on this question. Invertzoo (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Using Wikipedia for pranks or promotion is unhelpful, and it is obvious the user will never voluntarily stop—if they got one selfie on every article, they would then want two. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban as per proposer. Disruptive and narcissistic. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Question - Has anyone ever been banned from Commons? It's a real question, even although I think I know the answer. I think that Commons is a cesspool, but that is my opinion, and the WMF's problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  Yes. BMK (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, definitely. A user named Xanderliptak comes to mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  That was the name I couldn't come up with!! But I've heard of others as well. One was mentioned recently on AN or AN/I, where it was commented that they were banned for X behavior on Commons and now the editor was doing the same thing here. Can;t remember that name either. BMK (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Has he not figured out Flickr yet ... or even The Yellow Pages ? ... Anyway there's only so much rope one can offer till it runs out!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per Ryūlóng and Binksternet. Long term misuse of the project for self promotion and some sort of personal project using Wikipedia as performance art through years of socking.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban Horvitz is not here to improve this encyclopedia, but rather to promote his self-absorbed absurdist art project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I thought this was already done with, long ago. Close the book on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support The pictures should be the stars alone on Wikipedia, not be some artist's bizarre opportunity to insert themselves to make unneeded social commentary. Nate • (chatter) 07:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Repeated disruption on Jai Prakash Menon

A number of obviously related user accounts and IPs (with most IPs geolating to New Delhi, India) have for a very long time caused disruption on Jai Prakash Menon, a BLP about an Indian IT executive, first repeatedly adding promotional content, as if Wikipedia were a resumé site or social networking site, and then, since December of last year, repeatedly removing a properly sourced controversy involving Menon. The article has been through WP:BLPN ([110]), with no support for removing the content, and has been protected as a result of a report at WP:AN3 ([111]), which prevented edits by IPs and new user accounts, but instead brought out an autoconfirmed SPA, Theamigosinc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is now causing disruption on the article. Over the past couple of days that user has repeatedly added a BLPPROD-tag to the article, in spite of me equally repeatedly pointing them to WP:BLPPROD ([112]), with quotes and all, in an attempt to make them understand that BLPPROD does not apply since there are plenty of reliable sources in the article. I am now at three reverts today, and don't want to break the 3RR-rule, so I would appreciate some help there. Thomas.W ^talk 14:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

There seem to be some WP:CIR issues. There are more eyes on the article and the user now; the user has been amply warned and hasn't edited since. If they (or by any chance another newly autoconfirmed account) should return to make the same kind of edits, I'm pretty sure they'll be blocked. Please ping me if I miss it, Thomas. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

Will do. Thanks. Thomas.W ^talk 20:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Bishonen and Thomas.W

• thank you for the intervention. I have been raising following issues, however Thomas.W is not ready to discuss anything on rational basis
• Article Jai Prakash Menon is factually incorrect. e.g. It states He developed "the model of outsourcing network" used by Bharti and other companies in the industry. However, multiple sources confirm that He developed model for S1 IT outsourcing. REferences below. The author don't even know whether he was in IT function or Network.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/info-tech/jai-menon-quits-vodafone-heads-back-to-airtel/article1628493.ece http://www.informationweek.in/informationweek/global-cio/181177/dr-jai-menon

• WallStreet Journal/Mint is not considered a credible source, but others are single handidly considered a credible source.
• As junior editor in one of the most prestigious news organization globally, We have performed our primary research on the topic and failed to substantiate 2 facts:
• 1. there is no named statement on record confirming the rumors or allegations
• 2. No statement on record by Airtel (even after repeated requests by us, the mails were unanswered)
• 3. No legal law-suit in the court of law.

I requested Thomas.W to provide either of the 3, however he has failed to produce in any forum. However, in turn he is deleting any attempt to factually improve the article, which puts a question mark on his motives.

• Please refer my edits on June 2, 2014 on the article which included sourced content with valid references, however all were deleted by Thomas W. without any written explanation. I tried to reason, however he stopped responding on the talk page.

• Look forward to a rational hearing from all assuming that Wikipedia is not a collection of unanimous news paper articles.

User:theamigosinc9:35, 5 July, 2014 (IST) — Preceding undated comment added 04:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

An outburst of vandalism

Might need a bit of help with an outburst of vandalism to 492d Fighter Squadron, Jahanabad, Pilibhit etc, etc. from the range 78.85.... (Rostelcom). TIA  —SMALLJIM  16:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

78.85.247.195, 78.85.80.49 still need blocked. James^x12345 16:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Also 78.85.104.229 James^x12345 16:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I've laid down an inclusive range block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. James^x12345 16:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I knew someone could work it out faster than me :) I think that between us we haven't left anything in a vandalised state. Thanks, Jamesx12345 and The Last Arietta.  —SMALLJIM  16:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Full protection of article Yank Barry

Note; I am not here to judge the merits of the legal dispute or the dispute on the article. All I'm here to bring a discussion about is the protection type which is currently used on the article. On June 25th, 2014 User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry fully protected the article until August 29, 2014 and used this as the reference to do it in their edit summary; Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive201#Yank_Barry. Note that the discussion did not mention full protection the event of legal dispute, and only did the end of it actually link to an administrative noticeboard, which unfortunately I can't find the archives to at this moment. I went to the protecting administrator's talk page and they declined to unprotect the article, citing the possibility of editors becoming defendants. Then, I went to WP:UNPROTECT where I proposed that the protection be removed. It was declined, and was instructed to go to WP:ANI, so here I am. Yank Barry has been mentioned on multiple admin noticeboards as the subject has brought Wikipedia users to court for defamation, and is currently an ongoing legal proceedings.

My main qualms with the current protection is that there was seemingly no policy justification for it and that it creates a bad precedent. Chase me ladies used WP:LEGAL as the policy justification for on the article. There is no protection policy outlined on WP:LEGAL. I objected to the protection type and a few other editors have as well. The reason why it creates a bad precedent is that people will see the Yank Barry article and may just use legal proceedings to ensure that the article is locked. Full protection locks out everyone, including the valid contributors who were trying to ensure the article adhered to WP:BLP, WP:V and other content policies. As well, as outlined at WP:GOLDLOCK, fully protection is only warranted in degrees of content disputes and in case of 'history only review'. This article does not outline nor meet that criteria. I propose that the article be unprotected/reduced to semi protection due to the lack of justification in policy for the protection type and the bad precedant that it creates. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Perhaps pending changes would be more suitable. If we can review anything before its put up thats potentially libelous etc might be a way forward. Amortias (T)(C) 17:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure of the benefits of PP on this article, or in general. Speaking to WP:LEGAL there is little benefit, indeed WRONGVERSION constraints could make the protecting admin liable. However this specific article is pretty much only edited by consensus, so I don't see much harm either. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

Per "citing the possibility of editors becoming defendants", I doubt, from a position of ignorance, whether it is possible to sue someone for acts not yet committed, though of course additional defendants can be named, and indeed this is presumably the reason for the "Does 1-50" in the original application to the court. I would imagine the court would look dimly upon a plaintiff who had not taken the trouble to establish at least the user names of the defendants, but then I am not the court. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

Yeah, I added that back in due to the fact that I wanted to be fair to Chase me ladies and make sure that their side was accurate and told. Tutelary (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• While there are no policy-based justifications for protecting an article under these types of circumstances, I consider this a case of IAR and common sense. On the other hand as far as I know, the supposed legal actions are based solely on the conduct and comments of individual editors in the talk page, not the article content, and the edit war, such as it were, was between several Yank Barry-friendly accounts and some of the regulars there. There are also precedents to this type of admin action - Donald Arthur for example was stubbed and fully protected for weeks while Wikimedia Legal duked it out with the subject's lawyers and eventually bounced it back to us. So let's call this a bit of justified cautiousness, set up pending changes just in case and move on. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the primary distance with that case is that there was an OTRS ticket which I can speculate was a specific legal threat, and that the blanking and the stubbing was done by an WP:OFFICE action, which override consensus. If the WMF foundation sees it fit that the article be fully protected in the notion of the legal dispute, I will respect that, but not when an administrator sees it fit on their own thoughts and reasoning. I do support semi protection/pending changes as a solution. Tutelary (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• My concern is that a non-pseudonymous editor might be added to the suit for what we would consider to be a benign edit. I consider page protection to be a reasonable tradeoff between inconvenience and benefit, but setting up pending changes would accomplish the same thing. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• While I am neither a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, I consider the possibility of editors being unknowingly dragged into this ongoing lawsuit real and dangerous, not hypothetical and unlikely. I endorse protection per WP:IAR. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• BLP states: "As noted above, individuals involved in a significant legal or other off-wiki dispute with the subject of a biographical article are strongly discouraged from editing that article." This is like allowing the subject to choose who gets to write the article by taking legal action whether it goes to court or not. A straight across the board lock seems appropriate here for now. I endorse protection as well per the Foundation's Resolution:Biographies of living people which states: "Investigating new technical mechanisms to assess edits, particularly when they affect living people, and to better enable readers to report problems". When a subject is taking legal action against editors of their page, this may well be the best mechanism for this instance.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I am against pending changes as an option in this case. There is already a clear chilling effect and as a reviewer I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. Other's might be willing, but doesn't that just add potential issues such as a reviewer passing through content that then also becomes a legal matter and now we have two editors involved and not just the one?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - The real problem here is that the WMF has not said anything after the lawsuit was filed. They should have said something, as to whether they would protect the named editors or the Does, or would not protect them. Shame on them. They can cure the shame by saying either that they will defend the editors, or that they will leave the editors on their own. In the mean time, Shame on them. They should have responded quickly, rather than consulting for ever. That is my opinion. WMF: Can you say something to the sued editors, or do you really just plan to leave them hanging? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Robert, if the WMF has had any communication with the defendants (I don't know if they have), I'd expect it to be private. I wouldn't get worked up about this without actual knowledge. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I generally despise full page protection as many of the best content people are not administrators and protection is often used as a tool in edit wars to lock down a favored version over an alternative version. In this case, however, with a pending lawsuit which lists "John Does #1 to 50," I think full protection can be rationalized as a protective measure to prevent passersby from actually becoming embroiled in an ugly legal situation. Carrite (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Smallbones

User:Smallbones has reverted an article without an edit summary, and when then the editor has raised the revertion on Jimmy's talk page as part of a wider discussion (I think), Smallbones has reverted not only the raising of that issue, but also a post from another editor directly commenting to Smallbones on another editor, claiming that they are socks of a banned editor, and has also reverted an article with the same banned editor sock claim. I can see no report at WP:SPI on this, and it simply appears to be a case of Smallbones removing information from venues that he doesn't particularly like, and making unfounded accusations against others. I concur with Muhammed that his behaviour is not welcoming to new editor on this project. Smallbones needs to be reminded of civility and assuming good faith on this project. 190.25.100.241 (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just a note, you are both on dangerous grounds of violating Wikipedia's policies of three-revert rules. Please take discussion to talk page, and attempt to settle out the issue, instead of edit-warring. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Livelikemusic that is very advice thank you, I will follow that. I have suggested to User:Smallbones that he leave the article as is, but he has now reverted four times, throwing accusations around at numerous editors. This is not very inviting behaviour for Smallbones to be engaging in, and given he is a long-term editor I think a block might be in order as he has no intention of stopping with the edit warring, discussing issues, or stopping with accusations about people being banned editors. This is disruptive to the project, plain and simple. 190.25.100.241 (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you attempted to discuss the reverts on either the talk page of the article, or their own talk page? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I am unable to discuss this with User:Smallbones any further because he has told me to stay off his talk page. I fear that he will simply continue to attack myself (or anyone else) on this issue. I am saying this judging on his behaviour on Jimmy's talk page where he talks about other people talking "BS" (which I guess means bullshit?). He does not seem like someone who is open to conversation, only attacking. Should I file a 3RR report on his edit warring on the article? 190.25.100.241 (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I would not, only because he wasn't issued a warning until the past few moments, from myself. However, his actions seem to be more on the side of uncivil. I say ignore the page, for now, until more guidance can be given by the Administrative team of Wikipedia (a team I can not apart of), as continuing to edit-war with the editor will only provide more incivility on their part, and potentially lead the a block for the both of you. Best of wishes and luck with your future editing here at Wikipedia! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

There are about 5 one-time anons editing Education in North Korea and Jimmy's talkpage, and User:190... a new SPA quoting policy at me. User:Thekhoser has a very distinctive trolling style and loves to use it at User talk:Jimbo Wales. I revert him on sight and have been doing so for several months now. He's been banned for about 7 years now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Smallbones it would appear that you have erred greatly here. The initial editor from Iran who has posted on Jimmy's talk page, clearly mentioned that he was posting from a net cafe in his first post, and then from another (expensive) connection in his follow-up post. You said this follow-up post was from Thekhoser, but no such person exists. You have accused what appears to be a good faith editor of being a banned editor...this Thekhoser person. There is no evidence indicating this. The same thing with the person from Ireland who has responded to your accusation of them being a paid editor; their IP is different, perhaps due to a reconnection. Again, you accused this of being Thekhoser. The only connection between these two different editors is that they both made comments which don't portray you in a good light. And your comments here only further serve to portray yourself poorly, in addition to your blatant edit warring. I think you need to be blocked for disruptive editing and for making a hostile environment for others. 89.180.49.12 (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• It's just trolling. Close and move on. The best trolls are those which make plausible claims that editors can fight over, and it is plausible that Education in North Korea might have a factoid added concerning what Jimmy Wales said. However, the IP is also active on Jimbo's talk, and that rather gives the game away, not to mention that the article talk page has not been edited since November 2013. Johnuniq (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Stupid Question

Has anyone notified User:Smallbones of this discussion? I am not notifying him, because I am not persuaded that he was wrong. Someone should notify him, or I will NAC this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

He was notified, but removed the notice : Diff of User talk:Smallbones -- Diannaa (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

He has commented above. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi protect article, no action on editor I think that reverting obvious socks and banned users is justified under WP:3RRNO's #4. Indeed, I think that this ANI was intended to scare Smallbones to not proceed, but I hope he/she will stand firm in that regard. Tutelary (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)