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

User:Lobsterthermidor

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

---

I'm very much anti-drama and try hard to be a self-sufficient admin, but I've finally run out of steam in my interactions with Lobsterthermidor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Would someone have a look before I do something I'll later regret, please?

The problem involves his ownership of articles, original research, incivility, bullying etc. My attempts to explain these problems to him over the last year or so have resulted in him claiming that I'm obsessively stalking him. My belief, based on extensive examination of his edits, is that despite the superficial appearance of reliability exhibited by his work it is riddled with errors which he fails to acknowledge. This, coupled with his bullying behaviour means that he has crossed the line into disruptive editing, is not an asset to the project, and should be persuaded to leave permanently (he's already "retired" twice). I believed for a long time that he had the potential to be a valuable member of the team, which is why I've been so patient with him. But he's stopped listening to me so I've taken it as far as I can on my own.

Our latest exchange on his talk page is relevant as are many earlier messages on that page and my previous AN/I report. I'll happily provide any further information required if anyone is willing to help. Thanks in anticipation. —SMALLJIM  15:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This user has been engaging in edit-warring with me for at least 2 years. He attacks on many and varied fronts, OR is just one of his weapons in his continuing war. He is an interested editor in the sphere of Devon articles, in which sphere the warring generally takes place. His modus operandi is generally to spark pedantic debates about immaterial statements where I have "said it my own way" as required by WP, rather than parrotted the author's every word. Thus he argues ad infinitum about which parish a manor is in, even though I give him a totally unambiguous source, and calls my common sense reading of the source "OR". He has become increasingly obsessive about waging this edit-war (if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a Special:Duck), and broke his 2 month wiki-break specifically to rewrite, or attempt to rewrite 3 of my brand new articles submitted. That occupied almost all his time for 2 days, and counting. I feel like the victim of an obsessive. These total rewrites, in the middle of an edit-war were actions of further and continued edit warring, and amounted to effective reversion of my text, without any discussion beforehand on talk. That was bound to be inflammatory, and as an admin he should know that and be above it. He then tried to slap an official warning on me (mixing his role of admin with interseted editor) when I reverted his work for the reason of drastic editing with no discussion on talk. See Dunsland. He continues to give me his master-class of how to write for WP, which even involves him chasing me onto the talk page of persons in totally unrelated areas and suggesting I use more paragraphs in my talk page submissions.

He popped up when one of my new articles, nothing to do with Devon, was nominated for deletion due to copyright infringement, see List of licences to crenellate and fought tooth and nail to suppress it. That seems to me to be evidence of playing the man not the ball. He used every argument in the book, but lost. He clearly is in the long-term habit of following my contributions log and, it feels to me, of extirpating all trace of me and my contributions from WP. He has recently taken arbitrarily to deleting images contributed by me, even though well-sourced (see Thomas de Berkeley, 5th Baron Berkeley just because of my involvement. That was vandalism, it cannot be described as anything else. I have recently made positive suggestions to him as to how to end the edit-war, I don't know whether he will take the chance or persist in his actions. My talk page history, going back two years or more, provides evidence of the overwhelming mumber of critical messages I get from this editor. I should add I have never knowingly edited a single one of his own contributed articles, the traffic is all one way. A very fresh example of his modus operandi in Dunsland: Source Lauder wrote that the estate had been occupied continuously by the same family since 1066 to 1947 (paraphrase). I wrote in the article: "It is remarkable for having been occupied by the same family since 1066 to 1947". He accused me of breaking WP rules by not parroting the source. this is the sort of argument I am continually dragged into. If Lauder remarks on the fact in her article, it's remarkable. It's very tiresome. There are thousand of articles on WP with no sources at all. Mine generally have several dozen. But it's never enough for this person obsessed with "teaching me a lesson" and being "right", "better", "more in touch with the sources", and just generally a superior human being to myself. I ask him to step back and end the edit-warring now.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)) Hot off the press: a classic example of his edit-warring modus operandi, see Talk:John Arscott (1613-1675) 29 Oct. You can still sniff in the air the gunpowder of his last salvo. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC))

Anyone looking at this? I'll happily justify/correct any of those self-selected minor issues if anyone considers it would be helpful. The main points that are damaging Wikipedia remain un-addressed. —SMALLJIM  20:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not an admin, sorry, and I don't know either of you, but I saw your appeal at the beginning and have taken a look. A few things seem rather obvious to me:

@Smalljim: it seems perfectly clear from your recent contributions that you are following LT around. I'm not accusing you of hounding, because WP:HOUND says "with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor", and I don't think you have that aim. But you are having that effect, and it's rather easy to see why when you post things like this, which really reads as quite personally hostile, after unilaterally splitting off that content with zero discussion. You don't have the right to appoint yourself as someone's mentor against their will. Other editors exist, and you don't have to manage him single-handedly. And bringing this frustrated but good-faith editor to ANI after that isn't good.

@Lobsterthermidor: now that the above has been said, I think you need to cool it too, and to learn what can be learned from the edits that have frustrated you. Talk page section headers like "Reverted vexatious excessively pedantic revert" really raise the temperature. Above, you have accused SJ of vandalism -- I don't agree with the removal of those images without discussion either, but that comment is too confrontational. Some of the edits that SJ has made to your work are very good, and you could benefit from them. Please take more care over fact checking (between Woodbury and Newton Abbot there is Exeter), and if you're ever accused of OR, the right refutation is to add citations.

Good luck, both of you. --Stfg (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Stfg, much appreciated. Just a few points from my side: Yes, I've been watching Lt's contributions for some time. I feel a responsibility to do so because no-one else is correcting his errors, which is understandable considering the extremely specialised topics. The message at Talk:Manor of Bratton Fleming is one of a series of similar ones that I started posting after Lt had retired (see User:Smalljim/Pages I have tagged with OR). However, we'd already agreed that the split of extensive Manor details from articles about villages was acceptable (see here) – this was one I'd missed earlier. I must point out too that Lt didn't add 'Newton Abbot' to that article,[1] it had been there for ages.

It would be great if some other editors looked at the content that Lt has added, but I'm pretty sure no-one does, not in the depth needed to check the content. And I've found so many errors in the small amount of his work that I've checked, that despite knowing that he's working in good faith, we cannot accept, without checking, what he adds. That's too big a burden for WP to support, so, I (reluctantly) believe that he needs to be persuaded to publish his research elsewhere.  —SMALLJIM  15:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh and regarding my removal of images from Thomas de Berkeley, 5th Baron Berkeley, here (back in July, not "recently" as Lt claims), if you look at the footnote to the top image, Lt corrected the source he used (now found online here) which said he was the 4th Lord Berkeley. Well, despite this coming from a check of Monumental brasses of Gloucestershire where another cited source also says 4th and gives his date of death as 1392, I must admit that was not one of my best edits - a talk page query would have been better; but remember this was selected by Lt from dozens of corrections I've raised. He says nothing about these [2], [3] (see Talk around the collapse box of 9 July), [4], [5] (where he's accepted several of my queries), for instance.  —SMALLJIM  17:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Your edit-box comment on removing the well-sourced image of Baron Berkeley was "Rm graphics - appears to be OR that they are of this person". Perhaps next time don't guess. I only came across your edit when working on Baron Lisle, a related topic, and was surprised to find the image of the brass (which I travelled over 200 miles to photograph at great time, expense and some danger - climbing up and leaning off a 6 foot ladder - in order to donate under free licence to WP) casually deleted. Not one of your best edits, true. I accept your apology.

Let's understand what you seem to be asking support for here: to have me kicked off WP for saying "Arscott, now South Arscott Farm" instead of "Arscott, which Hoskins says is now called South Arscott" and similar. Hardly a disciplinary matter surely? Are you serious? I could explain why I added "Farm" (OK, because it's a farmhouse not a village or town like South Tawton, South Molton or a hundred others in Devon, which it would sound like to a non-Devon, even non-UK, reader: in Devon farms are often, if not generally, known by just the name, i.e. "Arscott", without the word "Farm" added, as is usual elsewhere), but life is too short. Blenheim Palace is generally known as "Blenheim". I never thought someone would nit-pick about that immaterial use of editorial judgement, but this person does just that, all the time. I'm not a copy-typist, and WP does not demand that, despite what Smalljim repeatedly tells me.

Thanks Stfg for the above "You don't have the right to appoint yourself as someone's mentor against their will. Other editors exist, and you don't have to manage him single-handedly". But he did recently inform me: "If your work was of an acceptable standard, I wouldn't have to keep correcting it: as an admin I feel a particularly strong responsibility to do this, since it's unlikely that any other active Wikipedian is in a position to be able to do so". From Smalljim Talk:Dunsland, 28 Oct. How smug: Only I can save the world! Only I read Devon history books like Hoskins (paperback available at Waterstones, sell like hotcakes I'm told). The classic attitude of someone who is becoming delusional. Remember he cut short his 2 month holiday just to spend two solid days, and counting, in heroically manning the barricades against the "threat to the project" of three of my brand-new articles. Where is the threat? Smalljim you are no William Pitt defending England from a French invasion. I think you are actually defending your self-appointed role as acting (and rather bossy) head of the Devon articles user group, which I have opted not to joined. How do I opt out of this person's smug master-classes? (Lobsterthermidor is having log-in issues) (212.104.155.43 (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC))

I'm sad that you've chosen to use what I said to him as a weapon against him, instead using what I said to you as a way to help you. You really need to avoid such inflammatory language. And I'm sorry that my attempt to pour oil on the water has instead added fuel to the fire. I don't know what you guys think ought to happen or how you plan to make it happen, but I wish you both luck. --Stfg (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think his post provides good evidence for why he should not be editing WP. Apart from the contempt with which he treats anyone who disagrees with him (his treatment of User:CaroleHenson was heading the same way before he retired for the second time [6][7][8]), he persistently ignores the main problems and tries to deflect attention into minor issues. The two issues I identified at John Arscott (1613-1675) are minor points in themselves which anyone else would either just let go or easily refute, but he's kept harping on about them [9][10][11][12][13] without answering them. Do have a look at Talk:John Arscott (1613-1675), someone and please tell me if I'm wrong. Yes, I know how trivial this example on its own is – the problem arises because this misinterpretation of sources, this failure to WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, happens over and over again in his contributions. And that's one element of his behaviour that neatly matches those listed at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. What I feel now is the same as when CaroleHenson and I posted on his Talk page when he first retired, back in June.  —SMALLJIM  23:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Your examples are indeed trivial. The "South Arscott" vs. "South Arscott Farm" one I've answered above, I hope. Not a misinterpretation of the source, but a clarification of the source, it's a farmhouse for pity's sake with a thatched roof and the house is in Ashwater parish, just within the boundary. Look at the OS map. I explained Hoskins's inaccuracy in a note. Hoskins sometimes gets things wrong, and I'm not going to parrot something I know is wrong. WP says I have to give a line ref for anything with "more than a 50% chance of being challenged". I did not imagine anyone would demand a source for that minor issue. You should have added a cn note, not reverted.

As for the Arscott family of Tetcott, they "epitomise all the ancient Devonshire squires" (p.493) for one reason, which would be familiar to someone who has understood Hoskins' point intelligently not mechanically. See p.79: "It was a matter of some three centuries or so; ten or twelve generations for the ancient freeholder to establish himself in the ranks of the squirearchy - Acland, Furse, Monk, Edgcumbe, Arscott, a whole host of them succeeded - and marriage was the greatest single cause of their advancement". What the Arscott family epitomised, the Tetcott branch no more than the Dunsland one, both were grand mansions on estates only a few miles apart, and near Arscott itself, was this particularly Devonian phenomenon of the rise from the humble mediaeval freeholder into the county gentry over time, which Hoskins describes. He takes the reader forward to page 493 with that point having been grasped. Unlike the Norman or French warrior class in Devon who were already members of foreign nobilities or gained nobility or gentry through martial deeds, the Fortescues, Bourchiers, Giffards, Dinhams etc. I understood Hoskins to mean this, a return to an earlier theme of his in the book, you thought he was talking literally about "wind-flung rooks on December afternoons" and "branch strewn parks"(p.493). I would guess that on a December afternoon there were as many noisy rooks at Dunsland as at Tetcott, and lots of branches on the grass at both places. That is to miss the real point he was making. The Arscotts were a family which all originated as humble freeholders at Arscott, now a thatched farmhouse. They rose to the gentry by this process so notable in Devon. That's what they epitomise. I think my interpretation of Hoskins's text is the better one than yours - yes you got the words right, but the true import and significance of Hoskins's insight escaped you. Perhaps it might have been better had I quoted as a ref p.79 instead, but passages like this one do need intelligent reading and interpretation. The Rothschilds in all their European branches epitomise something too, a certain forward progress, one successful branch of the family no more than another. It's similar with the Arscotts. I think that's what Hoskins was saying. Some passages in sources are black and white, i.e. "John Smith died in 1501", but others are not, like this one. Not a failure to WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, just a proper non-mechanical understanding of this unusually florid passage in this book. Lobsterthermidor (212.104.155.43 (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC))

Thanks for replying at last, though to have done so where these questions were asked would have been far better – people trying to follow this (if anyone has got this far) don't need to plough through such detail. Both explanations go far beyond what the sources say, of course, and your failure to understand this shows once more that you still don't get WP:OR, despite assertions to the contrary [14][15]. Or maybe it's an inability to say "sorry, I was wrong". Either way you need to publish your research somewhere else, where such constraints don't apply.  —SMALLJIM  08:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I think my above "Perhaps it might have been better had I quoted as a ref p.79 instead" comes pretty close to saying "sorry, I was wrong". Please take it as such. --Lobsterthermidor (talk) (212.104.155.43 (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC))

One other point that needs to be raised: According to WP:Administrators, "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist." Did you think it was wise for you to embark on a (very) BOLD edit to my new text at Dunsland, actually a series of rapidly consecutive edits which could not easily be unpicked, all amounting to a BOLD? It was so BOLD my text and format were virtually obliterated. I suspect you knew I would revert it as allowed under BOLD rules for discussion on talk. That's exactly what I did, but I had to revert as a block, as my main contention was not the additions, always welcome, but the complete change from the format I generally use for this type of manorial history article, as you know. Instead of treating my revert as a chance to discuss on talk you slapped an admin's warning for disruptive editing on my talk page and stated "reverting is not an option". Effectively you attempted to use your authority as an admin to impose your format and text on my contribution, and to set it in concrete. And then you called me disruptive for objecting. You are a significant editor in this sphere who has been engaging in an edit war with me for at least two years. Comments please. Lobsterthermidor. (212.104.155.43 (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC))

No. I refuse to get involved in further side issues, unless anyone else asks me to explain my actions. This is about you – I suggested five times that you could raise a DR process about me (three at Talk:Dunsland alone), but you didn't. I'll just say that I've very carefully avoided using any admin tools in my interactions with you. Templated warnings are not only for admin use, as most editors here know (another of your failures to properly interpret our rules), and I carefully weighed the pros and cons before issuing it. Oh and since you've repeated it so many times now, please provide evidence that I've been edit warring with you for "at least two years".  —SMALLJIM  08:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC) (I won't be here for the next 12 hours or so.)

Not a side issue. My revert of your BOLD to Dunsland (which obliterated in a consecutive series of inextricable edits my format and much of my content, including the very important Domesday Book section) was the issue which sparked this whole matter of your bringing me to this ANI. It was what you called "disruptive editing" - see your first post at the top of this section. (My wording explaining my action on the talk page may have been somewhat intemperate I now admit). You attempted to use your authority as admin to prevent me following the 3RR cycle. Slapping templates on editors who revert BOLDs for good reason is not part of the 3RR process. Did you or did you not follow up your warning template on my talk page with your own words: "Reverting Dunsland again is not an option". That sounds to me like someone wearing his admin's hat to kill the 3RR process. --Lobsterthermidor (talk) (212.104.155.43 (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC))

As for all the OR accusations you have made about my text stating that Arscott was now a farmhouse, you should instead just have requested a source. I give it to you now: [16], the authoritative listed buildings text for: "Arscott Farmhouse and Barns Adjoining at West and East, Ashwater, Devon EX21 5DL. Date Listed: 21 January 1986 English Heritage Building ID: 90703". I await your apology, perhaps we could then move on under more amicable terms and you could henceforth be persuaded to assume good faith in regard to my future work on WP. Perhaps you could also remove some of the dozens of defamatory banners you have posted to many of my articles, referred to above by Stfg. It has the effect of blackening my name in the WP community, which isn't nice.Lobsterthermidor (talk) (212.104.155.43 (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC))

Well, I must admit that from the map that place looks more like somewhere that would have originated in the time of Henry III than the South Arscott I found on the A388. But what should I apologise for exactly – for listening to you and wasting my time looking for a place called "South Arscott Farm" that doesn't exist? And must I believe that had I just added a {{cn}}, you'd have quietly corrected it instead of ranting on about "immaterial pedantry"?[17] And if you knew of this britishlistedbuildings reference before, why did you not simply add it at the time? And why did you revert my edit, which although incomplete was at least properly referenced, to reinsert wrong info that there's a South Arscott Farm in Ashwater parish? And finally I should now take it that your production of this one reference more or less invalidates all the questions that I've raised or might raise about your work? Wow!

Moreover, let's get the facts straight in your above post: I changed one sentence and a reference - I didn't make lots of OR accusations about this as you claim; and your article text doesn't state that "Arscott [is] now a farmhouse", it says "(today South Arscott Farm)". Further, although this looks like the right place, there's still no reference that definitively links it with Hoskins' South Arscott where the family originated, so there's still an element of OR here, though this time it's not an unreasonable inference. Maybe you have another undisclosed reference that fills that gap (I haven't checked this time).

Anyway, that's a great job you've done in distracting me into minor matters again. It's the last time here...  —SMALLJIM  00:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Nobody forced you to look "for a place called "South Arscott Farm" that doesn't exist"(sic). You took it upon yourself to amend the text submitted by me regarding Arscott, when you might have been better either taking my text as "good faith" or by asking for a source or by looking for your own sources before launching into your edit. Your action was typical of your habit over the last 2 years of following me around WP and changing minutiae in my text as part of your on-going "master-class" directed at me, to purport I'm breaking WP rules. I have to defend myself. South Arscott Farmhouse does exist. I've given you 2 sources now, Hoskins (1954) p.411, under the heading "Holsworthy" (sic): "Arscott (now called South Arscott) was the original home of the Arscotts..."; and the listed buildings text "Arscott Farmhouse and Barns Adjoining at West and East, Ashwater, Devon EX21 5DL". You need to use sources intelligently, that's not the same as OR or SYNTH. You now seem to be retreating from your original position, and now term my text "an element of OR here, though this time it's not an unreasonable inference". I make reasonable inferences elsewhere, which you constantly condemn as OR. It's OR infringements you've been accusing me of in the past, so this is something I'm going to respond to, its not "distracting (you) into minor matters again".

It is the place you have identified 2 miles to the east of the A388 road, situated 3 miles SE of Holsworthy and 3 1/2 miles due north of the village of Ashwater, in which parish it is situated. (A-Z Road Atlas, & Google Maps, esp the one linked from the listed buildings web-site). I trust the following will end this thread as you wish.

Speaking off-main-space I'll elaborate: Hoskins called it "South" Arscott because sometime before 1954 another house was built on the farmland north of the old house. Look at the Google satelite map.[18] That place now operates as a Llama/Alpaca? Farm visitor attraction. Hence for the sake of the postman and visitors, "South Arscott" (the old one) and "North Arscott" (the new one) were adopted as names. This is extremely common with Devon farms, when the farmer gets short of cash he converts a barn or builds another house on his land and sells it. Hence differentiating names are needed for practical purposes. As an experienced editor on Devon matters you might have known that. The farmer generally often however retains the main name for reasons of pride, and will often continue to give his address as "Arscott". It is confusing. I know of one case where a farmer has built a bungalow for himself, sold the adjacent grand "barton" (Devon manor house used as a farm) to someone else and then re-named the bungalow "The Barton". I dare say the Alpaca operation markets itself as "Arscott farm Alpacas". You need to have a certain basic WP:COMPETENCE in the subject area to write well, and some of that I do have in this geographic area. Not OR. In fact this operation repeated many times is how hamlets grow into being. Who knows, one day Arscott may be a big city. Watch out for a paragraph on this historic estate in page Ashwater some time soon. End of off-mainspace talk.Lobsterthermidor (talk) (212.104.155.43 (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC))

Enough of this bickering, more input requested

Well that's been useful, but it's gone far enough. We both know where we stand and there's plenty of evidence here now for some helpful advice from other admins to be given (which is why I posted here in the first place). Would someone please do that now and if it involves censure of me too, so be it. But please – no accusations of stalking etc unless Lt is found to be completely in the clear. I repeat what I said elsewhere: if I hadn't spent the time to look into his work, no-one else would have, and the problems would continue. I can understand why Lt is cross with me, but I don't think that providing enough evidence to show disruptive editing can ever be a friendly process.  —SMALLJIM  01:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

"Enough bickering"? You don't come to ANI enough ... this is the home of endless bickering, and attempts to steer the conversation back on-track are usually met with loud cries. By the way, you're right, there's plenty of evidence...for an WP:RFC/U :-) ES&L 11:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence for a WP:RFC/U, the basic requirements have not been met, please look at the guideline. WP is not the home of "endless bickering", "endless bickering" is destructive to WP. Your input is not helpful or constructive.

I think the mature thing to do now is indeed to stop this to and fro and to get on with building WP. If I have made any minor errors in any of the articles I have submitted, I apologise and I will try to do better. I think my work is constantly improving. But I'm never going to be the perfect WP editor, if such is even possible. I'm not going to provide line refs for every word, every fact or sentence I contribute where I consider, under WP guidelines, there is less than a 50% chance of one being asked for (anyone's still free to ask, and I will provide such of course). I'm not going to parrot sources, but "say it my own way", as WP allows and often requires. And I'm going to say it my own way in an intelligent manner, not as a robotic and mechanical rendering. As for my complaint regarding Smalljim's behaviour I do not wish to make an official complaint on the DR board, as he has urged me to do, I'm not a fan of litigation. The words Wikihounding and stalking may have been mentioned above, not by me, I can't guess at what burning motive drives him with such force and vigour to break his 2 month holiday to recommence chasing me all over WP, but I'd like to notify him here on this public forum that his actions are perceived by me as distressing, threatening and intimidating, which makes editing Wikipedia unpleasant for me, undermines me and discourages me from editing entirely. User:Lobsterthermidor User talk:Lobsterthermidor(212.104.155.43 (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC))

Thanks for making me smile, Eats - at least your touch of humour wasn't wasted on me. But Lt has highlighted my plight here, which I haven't previously spelled out to avoid his inevitable allegations of canvassing (so thanks, Lt for allowing me to loosen my tactful British reserve). Yes, I need another editor to help certify an RFC/U – will anyone take this on? I can make a prediction though: he'll apologise profusely,[19] claim complete understanding of our rules,[20] scrupulous adherence to them in the future,[21] probably disappear for a while, then return substantially unchanged. Like last time.

Please, Lobsterthermidor, accept the inevitable. Leave now permanently and save us all, yourself included, a great deal of hassle. I'm really sorry that I upset you: I've tried hard to help you understand how WP works, but it's evident that it's not the right place for you. You should go and publish your research elsewhere: it's too clever, contains too much of your own knowledge and opinion (and, I have to add, errors), for a mere encyclopedia.

I need another editor to help certify an RFC/U. Thanks,  —SMALLJIM  18:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

"My work's too clever". Right. If I'm nowhere near expert in the topics I write on, which I'm not, I'm just a keen amateur who consults a wide range of sources, I take it Smalljim will be calling for a policy of banning all history professors and phd's from contributing to WP history articles. "Sorry sir, you're a doctor, you're too clever to contribute to WP on medicine! You there Mr Hawkins! we don't want any of your sort tarting up our astro-physics articles!" That's actually what a lot of people involved in the WP project want to encourage, a dream scenario for many, more expert involvement and input. What a ridiculous accusation! "Too clever for Wikipedia", sorry only room for dunces here, we don't really aspire to excellence. Not only have you just insulted your own intelligence but also the intelligence of every wikipedia contributor.

There's not a snowball in hell's chance of me allowing you to bully me off WP again. Full stop. I think you should now consider whether your desperate appeals for outside help, the above is I think your third, constitute evidence of a lack of support for your position.User:Lobsterthermidor User talk:Lobsterthermidor((212.104.155.43 (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC))

I dunno, the tone of pretty much every comment you've made not only here, but in a random selection of your contributions has me rather convinced that you believe it's your way or the highway, even when shown that your way is incorrect. I don't care if Mr Hawking edited astrophysics stuff...he's not allowed to act like a) a jerk, or b) like he owns the place ES&L 11:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec) And furthermore, if Lt actually read what I wrote (it's a similar process to carefully reading and understanding a source document, actually) I didn't say anything about anyone's intelligence, I said his research is too clever for WP. He needs to correct his error in interpretation himself this time, since I'm not allowed to edit his comments :)  —SMALLJIM  12:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

My research (no quote marks required) before writing my article on the history of the Devon manor Dunsland (the location of what Smalljim called my disruptive editing) was nothing special. I informed myself about the subject, which involved finding sources, (4 or 5 I think, plus a map and a web-site, all permitted by WP), reading them, comparing them, assessing them. Then this research completed I engaged my brain to use the sources intelligently and wrote the article, often "saying it my own way", and provided several line refs where in my opinion there was more than a 50% chance of a source being requested, per the WP guideline. I made sure I was if anything over-profusive with line refs, often giving 2 in a single short sentence. The text was very well populated with line refs. I used two very standard works covering the history of Devon: Hoskins, still in print (reprinted twice in 1954, and again in 1959) and available today as a paperback in Waterstones stores in large Devon towns, which is the entry level overview book for anyone embarking on a study of Devon history. I also used as a source Vivian's Heraldic Visitations of Devon (1895), a standard work of a more detailed nature, a secondary, reliable, published work, comprising the exhaustive annotated research, presented in pedigree format, of Lt-Col Vivian into the descents of the armigerous families of Devon, from which pool of people were generally selected local government officials. Vivian is relied on heavily by very many Devon historians, and is available in paperback photo-reprints from the USA at very reasonable cost, and is available in original bound copy in the larger Devon free public libraries and also on micro fiche. I also relied heavily on Rosemary Lauder's "Vanished Houses of North Devon", a highly accessible but still authoritative paperback book which has proved extremely popular with the Devon book-buying public and has been issued in a 2nd edition. It is available, often in several copies, in Devon's public libraries. I also used Thorn's 2 volume paperback work on the Devonshire Domesday Book, again a standard work, perhaps requiring some more effort from the reader, but possibly the clearest and most reliable exposition of the subject available, clearly set out with notes. And I used the 1811 edition, with 1810 additions, to Tristram Risdon's ever popular and well known 17th.c work "Survey of Devon", a standard work still forming the essential basis of many Devon historical articles and works. I fail to see how my research based on a handfull of solid well recognised sources, an A-Z Road Map (Geographers' A-Z Map Company Ltd's 7th edition 1994, p.6, West Devon) and a couple of easily accessible websites was "too clever for Wikipedia". User:Lobsterthermidor User talk:Lobsterthermidor(212.104.155.43 (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC))

What's all that supposed to explain?  —SMALLJIM  23:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

What it says. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC))

You see that's one of the main problems. You veer from severe incivility to complete misunderstanding. I don't know why you think it's of any benefit here to list, with extensive commentary, all the sources you've used in one article. The problem has never really been about the sources you use, but what you do with them between reading them and using them in articles. I'm certain that the dozens of other interested editors who are avidly following this discussion (joke!) spotted that ages ago.  —SMALLJIM  15:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Between reading a source and writing a WP article comes an important stage: "saying it your own way" (unless quoting). That's actually a requirement of WP. That involves using one's brain. Your editorial style can be, in my experience, overly conservative in the extreme, which actually damages WP articles: in the Dunsland article (the site of your allegation of disruptive editing) you deleted the whole of the highly important paragraph on the Domesday Book, because some doubt existed. That was even though Rosemary Lauder (a source you are very familiar with), possibly the leading authority on this manor, said "The records of ownership are incomplete but it seems certain" (that implies 99%?) "that Dunsland passed in unbroken line down the long centuries from the days of William the Conqueror until it was sold in 1947". She said that for a good reason: the DB tenant was called Cadio (the only example of this extremely rare name amongst the many hundred Devonshire DB tenants (see Thorn, part 2, appendix "index of persons") and Risdon (c.1630) states (p.250, per my line ref) that the manor remained for 8 generations held by the family of Cadiho: "After 8 descents in that family Robert Cadiho, the last who inhabited here, left these lands to Thomazin his daughter wife of John Daubernon". Lauder accepted this (Risdon is a solid source and had access to documents and charters now lost and frequently quotes from them), and even added from her additional (undisclosed) source that "The name crops up intermittently and is last mentioned in 1428 when the male line apparently died out and John Dabernon, husband of Thomasine Cadiho, inherited".

Your response to this tiny bit of uncertainty (1%?): Delete the whole paragraph and make no mention of DB at all, generally the vital starting point for any manorial history. Thorn's note (part 2, 16:16) said of the DB entry Donesland: "probably in Bradford parish" (i.e. the subject of the WP article Dunsland). An intelligent and informed and WP:COMPETENT use of that source would have assessed the probability referred to as 99%, and hence would not have felt it worth mentioning in the text, maybe just possibly in a footnote, but your response: a total deletion of any mention of DB whatsoever. Overly conservative editing which destroys a valuable part of a WP article. And when I tried to use the 3RR process to revert your BOLD, inextricably tied up with a series other BOLDs in the same vein, to discuss your deletion on the talk page, you slapped a warning template on my talk page for "disruptive editing" and then warned me with your admin's hat on that "reverting is not an option".(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC))

Sure, miss the point and pick at a tiny spot again: anything to avoid looking at the open sore of your disruption to the project. I won't bother trying to reason with you about the above – your research both on the subject matter and the procedural issues is faulty. Just look at the edit page for Dunsland [22]. Did I leave myself a comment there? If you hadn't been so unreasonable I'd have got round to doing the necessary bit of research days ago and re-added something.

And since you've wailed about it several times now, the full appropriate quote from that level 3 warning (following on from the level 2 issued on 9 July) is "This templated warning sets out the things you can do now. Reverting Dunsland again is not an option." Though you reverted it again anyway...

You've quoted Wikipedia:Competence is required twice on this page now, apparently without reading or understanding it. I suggest you should read it carefully and see how it applies to you. Is that too forthright? No, nothing else is getting through.  —SMALLJIM  16:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And if you insist on discussing Dunsland, how about explaining your error regarding William Bickford [23]? And all the other issues that I sorted out and documented in the edit summaries, such as my removal of 9 level-two headers in only 700-odd words,[24] (a problem discussed here in our very first - and friendly! - interaction in July last year) and the time I spent cleaning up the referencing [25] which despite making some 15,000 edits, you still can't be bothered to do properly. So let's hear your explanation for why it was reasonable to revert all that.

And this is just one article. Look at the annotated version of Manor of Molland where I tagged as much of the original research as I could find (you can imagine how long that took). Or all the edits to Heanton Satchville, Petrockstowe and Annery, Monkleigh where CaroleHenson and I went to great lengths to clean up the articles. Then what about all the other articles that no-one's found the time to even look at yet (list here) - are we to believe that they are by some miracle free from error?  —SMALLJIM  15:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Shortage of third party comments

How are we going to resolve this? With no other input for three days, it's just degenerated into bickering between the two of us again. Hey, you can trust me - I'm an admin with an unblemished record: I don't make allegations lightly and without undertaking lots of research and making extensive efforts to fix things myself. Lobsterthermidor is disrupting WP - I reckon that he meets five or more of the eight main indicators in WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and its subsections. Sure, his damage to article space is confined to a subset of obscure and difficult to research topics that hardly anyone reads, but I don't think that's relevant.

This advice that I posted on his talk page back in June (which he has ignored despite being reminded of it) is relevant. Since I raised this report he seems to be treading carefully in what he's adding to articles (from what I've checked at least), but it can't last because he doesn't understand, or doesn't agree with, our policy on original research. He also persistently misunderstands or misrepresents all queries made about his contributions and other questions put to him (not just by me), as shown by his extensive responses above. And he's extremely tendentious and has extreme ownership issues. Apart from the photos he contributes to Commons, he's not a benefit to the project.

Maybe I'm not very good at pursuing this sort of action - we all have our shortcomings - but my concerns warrant more than being ignored, surely.  —SMALLJIM  16:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Your accusations that I am disrupting WP and not a benefit to the project are absurd. I am a good faith editor, doing my best to build WP. I think you know you are misrepresenting me when you say: "he doesn't understand, or doesn't agree with, our policy on original research". I had some issues in that area which you pointed out back in June/July, particularly with Manor of Molland, and which I took on board. I do understand the policy and I do agree with it. I have been extremely careful to stay within the OR policy since I recognised my issues in that area. You have recognised this yourself above by saying: "Since I raised this report he seems to be treading carefully in what he's adding to articles". Job done! Is that not a good thing, the expected response of a good faith editor, how the process was meant to work out? I've moved on in my work in that regard for the better. Yes I have been treading very carefully indeed. What was the purpose of your recent flurry of BOLD "corrections" to my most recent work when you recognise I have been "treading carefully"? How and why did this carefully trodden work so drive you to break your holiday to start chasing me around WP again? But you still seem to be accusing me of OR in my latest work, which is in my opinion unwarranted, and an accusation I must defend and am confident in so doing. That's the gist of all your BOLDs to Dunsland is it not? You are building your dossier and trying to imply that I am persisting in breaching OR, which I am not, I'm being scrupulously careful not to. Surely my efforts in that regard are apparent? Look how carefully I have referenced sources, look at the large number of line refs I have added. "Saying it your own way" is not OR.

I'm not tendentious (although my talk page section header in Dunsland was somewhat intemperate as I have recognised above) nor do I have ownership issues, I simply want the right to exercise the 3RR process in the normal way without being told "it's not an option". By the way you have clearly demonstrated above your antipathy to and disdain for the subject areas I contribute on. Is that maybe part of what drives you? Is that maybe why you try to stubify my contributions? (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC))

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

Sea salt

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

---

Tarhound21 (talk · contribs), apparently a single purpose account, is involved in an edit war on Sea salt. Several editors, including myself, have attempted to communicate with Tarhound without success, both in edit comments and Talk:Sea salt#Where sea salt comes from. Tarhound has been confronted with a number of arguments against inclusion, including reliable source, off-topic, original research, undue, and failed verification. I've posted a {{edit war}} warning on Tarhound's talk.[26] --Fama Clamosa (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, editor looks like a poster child for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Topic ban? --cyclopia^speak! 13:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest a short block for edit warring first with a stern warning. If that doesn't get their attention ... then more drastic measures. Vsmith (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Vsmith and Fama Clamosa have been reverting my edits. I have reached out to both of them on the talk page to discuss the edit which is backed by multiple references. This noticeboard discussion seems to have been prompted by Fama Clamosa reverting my edit and not discussing it. I have posted on his talk page in the past asking him to please discuss his objections to my edit and have received no response from him. --Tarhound21 (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Tarhound21, the objections are on the talk page, loud and clear, including mine, which you should take as a final warning. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I left a response to you on the talk page Drmies--Tarhound21 (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Talk:Sea salt#Where sea salt comes from. clearly shows that Tarhound21 is either incapable of or simply refuses to follow basic Wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:RS. I suggest a short block followed by an escalating series of blocks if the behavior continues as having the best chance of converting Tarhound21 into a productive editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • NE Ent is trying a different tack on the talk page, one with a better chance of success. Tarhound is not fighting over anything right now so I don't see any reason to block. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Edit war ended two days ago - a block now would be punitive, not preventative. Talk page discussion is (hopefully) now headed back toward the actual article content (thank you NE Ent for the addition of sources on the talk page). Suggest this thread can be closed as "no further action" at this time. Euryalus (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I can see no indications that Tarhound221 understands the "last warnings" forwarded to him/her. The last edit from this contributor is less than convincing. I fail to understand how this lack of edits or comments from this contributor is an argument for "no further action". --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Because blocks aren't usually punishment for past misdeeds. Tarhound attempted to insert material to the article, and then unsuccessfully edit-warred to keep it there when the consensus was for it to be removed. They could have been blocked at the time for edit-warring, but they weren't and the disruptive conduct has since stopped. What we have left is a content dispute, which is best resolved on the article talk page. There's presently no consensus for including Tarhound's California factoid in the article. If they argue their case and achieve a change of consensus on the talk page, good luck to them. If they don't bother with that and instead resume edit-warring to force its inclusion in the article, that will again be disruptive and action taken. In the interim there's no immediate action required. Euryalus (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. We're not going to block because an edit on a user talk page gives you pause. They haven't edited the article and now they know where the talk page is. I suggest someone close this, since there is no admin action required at this moment. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

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

JasonsSamuels / JewishRabbiInNY

A couple of days ago an IP editor/new editor (JasonsSamuels (talk · contribs) / JewishRabbiInNY (talk · contribs)) started adding names of what he considers to be American Jews who are "criminals" to the List of American Jews, apparently as a "tit for tat" retaliation against some list of Muslims that has criminals in it - see this comment, this edit summary, and these comments. When List of American Jews was semi-protected, he turned his attention to American Jews, adding the same material there. It's hard to communicate with this individual as he's used at least two separate IPs and three Userids to make these edits, and doesn't appear to respond to comments (as an aside his claim to be a "JewishRabbiInNY" appears dubious at best). Since he seems to hop to new articles when his original targets are semi-protected, I've brought the issue here, as I think the behavior is disruptive enough that it warrants more serious action. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC) P.S. His latest edit summary is Zionists can do what they want in the apartheid state of Israel, but not in the USA. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked the two and their latest IP, semi'd American Jews for a few days. I also plan to delete the "Crime" section of List of American Muslims, semi-protect that too, and will full protect it if someone adds it back before a thorough discussion somewhere. --Flo quenbeam (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
• Well done, der Floquenbeam. Jay--why didn't you put your magnificent 9-year old tool to use? Drmies (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not see cause for adulation. I am certain that the matter afore could have been done well, but I don't think it was.—John Cline (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Strat, I don't understand what your objection is, or what you think could have been handled better, and in which way. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what alternative would have been better. I think it was a good block—and the other measures were called for, were they not? The editor stated a specific purpose to their edits in contravention to editing from a neutral point of view. I would want to hear a clear reason from this user why they should be allowed to edit again. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 06:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, I apologize for the delay in responding to your question. My initial response was a bit "knee jerk", which I have stricken. I think I confused hoping for a better outcome with a better outcome being possible. An objective review shows that Floquenbeam did in fact handle this as well as possible in accordance with policy, and I retract the unwarranted criticism. Best regards.—John Cline (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

No apology necessary, Strat (if I may still call you that--we go back a long way, you with your Strat and me with my PRS). I only just learned that this was you; good to see you again. And I see you haven't given up on seeing the glass as more than half full; I'm only a half-full kind of person myself. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies, for lending kindness in your prose. Strat is a valid nickname for me and you are most welcome to use it whenever you like for referencing me. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I hope I'm not showing my ignorance, but are there any non-Jewish rabbis? EEng (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it all depends on who you consider Jewish. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Good point. After all (though I personally think he's a good guy) there are some people wondering openly whether the Pope really is Catholic. EEng (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks need to be redacted

• User:Writegeist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've been in a discussion on User_talk:Jimbo Wales about paid editing and talking to editors about my experience. This user has been spreading ad hominems. They've said that defending myself is a crime and then went on to insult me and assume some serious bad faith. It was pointed out to them that they've crossed the line and their response was to throw more personal attack at that user. Writegeist's comments should be redacted.--v/r - TP 21:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I note this paid-to-edit administrator takes my comments as insulting etc. I think my points were well made, I totally disagree with his pejorative labels, and it's absolutely no problem to me to strike the comments to satisfy him, so I shall now do so. I have already struck my reply to attacks--unfounded, in my view--by another editor, as that part of the discussion was off topic and threatened to become disruptive if continued. Writegeist (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It isn't "well made" when you assume bad faith about some attribute of them that you don't like, poke them about it, and they defend themselves. As I've already said, that's circular reasoning. You are the cause of your own conclusions. It is wrong to expect someone not to defend themselves and to assume that the act of, not even the content of but the act itself, defending oneself is in itself evidence of wrongdoing. If you have a problem with me, show a policy I've violated. Otherwise, keep the personal comments about me to yourself. You're not going to get a WP:CIVILITY free pass just because I got paid once to write an article for which even User:Smallbones, as one of my sharpest critics, said was a good article.--v/r - TP 22:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I looked for my comment, but the best I could find was "the article is ok." I might have said "good" somewhere, I guess but it would have been a somewhat inflated "good". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

...and yet Writegeist, you used the edit-summary for your post above to take cheap pot-shots? That's pathetic behaviour, and unbecoming of anyone on this project. Based on that, I think action needs to be taken - this BS has to be stopped for the protection of the project and its editors ES&L 22:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh please. The project and its editors don't need protection from paid-to-edit administrators being openly referred to as paid-to-edit administrators. The project and its editors need protection from paid-to-edit administrators. Writegeist (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice opinion, unfortunately the two relevant policies WP:NPA and WP:COI don't support it. When you use paid-to-edit as a pejorative, it is a personal attack.--v/r - TP 01:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

...and you do it again here? Wow, I could tell you what you are, but that would break WP:NPA ES&L 22:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The editing is indeed getting a bit hot over at Jimbo's talk page. The topic is naturally quite incendiary. Who would have thought up the idea that administrators should be allowed to accept pay for writing Wikipedia articles? It just astounds me that anybody would think this proper. But another admin is minimizing the practice, and TP admits it, and I'll say that he aggressively confronted me with the accusation that I was assuming bad faith by saying that this is improper. With such a hot topic, it is easy to see offense where none was intended. In 2 cases where I was involved, I was sure that the other admin was intentionally patronizing me, but TP pointed out the misunderstanding. Of course I noticed that TP had just been on the other side of a misunderstanding and had in effect done the same thing as I'd done. The only problem is that TP started waving around talk of banning, accusations of bad faith, NPA, etc. It's a lot worse when admins do it, and TP has been the worst of the lot, IMHO. I think if everybody calms down a bit, we'll all be ok. But I don't expect that this will ever be a friendly topic to discuss. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a hot topic and there are a lot of editors who are throwing around assumptions as fact because there is no "face" of paid editing. I'm arguably a paid editor, arguably not but I've taken the position that I am to demonstrate that the assumptions are far worse than reality. But being bombarded with those assumptions, which are actually quite poor and exaggerated, and being the only one defending a position (and then being told that defending that position is itself a bad thing, including by you) is quite a bit taxing. You've stated even here that "It just astounds me that anybody would think this proper" which to me says that not only do you disagree with me, but you don't think anyone should even be defending this. Which then begs the question, are you even open to discussion? You should expect that others, on a project as large as this, won't all share your opinion. You really shouldn't be astounded that some don't. There is no consensus against this and harassing an editor, by going around and calling me a "paid-to-edit administrator" at every chance like Writegeist is doing, is unacceptable behavior. That needs to be stopped. A lesson should be taken out of Jimbo's book. Jimbo does not always agree with everyone, but you'll never see him tell someone they arn't allowed to make a counter argument to his views. He gives folks' arguments an objective assessment before he writes them off. For example, in your earlier comment to me, you said "I'll then go over them and show you examples of what I think is wrong." That's a pretty bad assumption. Without even looking, you assumed you would find something wrong. (ps, when I said you said it was "good", I didn't mean the positive "it's a good article" but the more mild "there are no glaring problems, we're good here.") I want an objective ear, not a predisposed one.--v/r - TP 00:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I officially ask that his edit of "Um -- someone might point out that it's no surprise to see you swing by to misrepresent my comments. Someone might point out ignorance of a well-known Shakespeare quote; and further, that "parasitic practices" really rather clearly describes practices, and not any individual editor, as parasitic; and that the words "awareness of venality" do not, in fact, say "User:So-and-so is venal." So someone might point out your comments imply a level of comprehension that's on a par with the example already noted. But thank you for your contribution to the topic at hand. be actually excised instead of cutely struck out. WG used the edit summary of struck at the request of paid-to-edit administrator at 22:17 6 Nov, which I think is a bit beyond snarky. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yet another misrepresentation from this user. The edit history clearly shows that when I struck my response to the attack in which he recast and thereby misrepresented my comments to TParis, my actual edit summary said: "striking, as off-topic conflict with this user is unhelpful". [27] Writegeist (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the edit history clearly shows "struck at the request of paid-to-edit administrator" ES&L 01:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Read Collect's comments here again. They clearly refer to my comments to him, not to TParis. These are the comments he wants "excised". He misrepresents my edit summary on those comments by claiming I used a summary which in fact I used on comments to another user. That's about as clear an example of misrepresentation as I've ever seen here. I'm slightly surprised to see an administrator going along with it. I even gave you a link to the actual edit summary on my comments to Collect. "Wow, I could tell you what you are, but that would break WP:NPA" Writegeist (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No, Collect says outright that the edit summary comment was in the "22:17 6 Nov" edit.--v/r - TP 01:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The time and date were dropped in devoid of the link that would help clarify—to (most, I bet) readers who don't go ferreting around for the quoted summary in the edit history—that this summary, contrary to the clear impression given, was not the one used on the comments to which Collect devotes the entire preceding substance of his complaint. And by juxtaposing the words "...struck out", which close his complaint about my comments to him, with the words "WG used the edit summary of 'struck at the request...,' which open the sentence immediately following, the totally false impression is given that the struck comments he is complaining about carried the 'struck at the request...' edit summary. Smallbones's incisive comments aside, I'm finding this all rather tedious now, so I'll leave you to it. Writegeist (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I noticed something that is interesting (at least to me). I would normally think that a personal attack would need to require some negative element. However, consider the following in a hypothetical discussion whether some user should be blocked. user:xxxx Is opposed. In the discussion one editor remarks:

As we discuss this, it may be relevant to note that user:xxxx, who is opposing this block, has been blocked three times.

In contrast, consider the following:

Multiply -blocked user:xxxx is opposed.

In both cases, an editor is sharing the information that some has been blocked. Yet the second form seems more negative. Usually a term as a modifier seems a message that it is a pejorative, even if the underlying facts aren't all that negative. TParis appears to have admitted accepting pay for editing, and is an admin, yet in a discussion, I think there's a difference between:

As we discuss this, it may be relevant to note that user: TParis, who is making this point, is an admin and has received payment for editing.

Versus

Paid-to-edit administrator user: TParis, who is making this point

I'm no semantic expert, and it seems like the factual content is the same, but the second sounds like a personal attack. I don't think we should permit it, although I'm not sure it fits squarely into our definition of a personal attack.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If I said "aren't you fucking brilliant" would you take that as a compliment or an insult? It's all in the context, just like the second statement - it was intended to draw attention and belittle TParis as a leper. ES&L 00:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• In my opinion it is about time to lower the boom on individuals who taunt, bait, template, or unjustly block COI editors who are not in violation of NPOV. Already existing stalking rules should apply. Carrite (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE

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

---

I started an article on the recent mid air collision involving two planes carrying skydivers. Within a short while WilliamJE prodded it, and the prod was removed by another wikipedian. WilliamJE then sent it to AfD, and later removed a fact whilst I was looking for a good cite. None of this so far I have a problem with.

However after demanding everything be cited, WilliamJE is now removing cites that verify information in the article, e.g. the ownership of the skydiving club and its location[28][29]. . WilliamJE asserts that he has written many articles on crashes, but that does not excuses his editing and attitude to new articles. Removing cites after sending it to AfD and complaining about lack of cites is laughable.Martin451 22:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Having gone through the entire history of that article, I cannot fathom how it meets basic requirements to even have been created as a userspacedraft, let alone a live article ... no comment on the behaviours of WJE yet ES&L 22:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

How is this an issue for ANI, as opposed to, say, WP:DRN? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

This being brought to ANI is as preposterous as the two citations I removed neither of which have anything to do with the crash. Lets examine them

This[30] gives directions to an airport. What that has to do with the crash I don't know.

This[31] is a newspaper article from 2010 which M451 is using as proof for the 2nd paragraph of the article. It fails it on two points. First- Whether Chuck Androsky still owns the aircraft cited in the article but whether they are the crash aircraft is not known. I did a google news search Mr. Androsky hasn't been mentioned in the news accounts of this accident. The article says Mr. Androsky and the company operate the exact same two types of aircraft that were involved in the crash but it is WP:OR to draw the conclusion that they ARE the aircraft involved. OR reads 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.' M451 is taking news accounts of this crash plus a 3 year old newspaper article to come to the conclusion Mr. Androsky still owns the company and that his cessnas are the aircraft involved. That's OR and these are not proper sources and I removed them.

Lastly the first information I removed from the article was due to M451's edit summary[32] when he put it in 'tale number from facebook page. Company only had two Cessnas'. M451 should know that Facebook fails WP:RS. M451 isn't a newbie around here. He should know both RS and OR....William 01:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not preposterous bringing it here when you have asked me to take your removal of cites to another place rather than discuss them on the talk page. The skydivesuperior link cites the location of the club. The Superior Telegram cites the founder and owner, and yes the aircraft are still registered in his name. Removing sources, then removing text supported by those sources is petty, especially after nominating the article for AfD. I could add other sources saying the two Cessnas are those involved, but would WilliamJE then remove those sources?Martin451 07:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• There's no administrator action needed here. While it might be seen as poor form to aggressively edit an article that has just been created, I don't see particularly aggressive editing, and the deficiencies cited in the deletion rationale aren't ones that will be cured simply by finding and adding sources or allowing Martin451 a little time and leeway to finish creating the article. I would, however, suggest to William that after sending the article to AfD, his time might be better spent working on other articles rather than reverting Martin451's additions, since it hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of surviving. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Editor harassing real life sex abuse victim by adding her name to the article on the person she accused

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

---

So I check my watchlist and discover a suspicious edit adding the name of one of his victims to the article Bob Filner. I reverted the edit with an edit summary that said "that is harassment." --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is that harassment? It's published in reputable third party sources, and thus it can also be included in an encyclopedia if it's useful/beneficial information to the article as a whole, without WP:UNDUE ES&L 22:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Bigpoliticsfan, in the future please use this form to request suppression of a revision. It is also linked in the edit notice of this page. Ross Hill (talk) 22:47, 6 Nov 2013 (UTC) 22:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Quite the sensational title here. The name is sourced, I see no issue. John Reaves 22:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Proper sourcing is a necessary condition for inclusion, but it is not sufficient for inclusion in and of itself. (Otherwise, reductio ad absurdum style, everything published in any reliable source could just be entered into Wikipedia.) Other policies and guidelines, such as the undue weight policy and the bio of living persons policy must be considered. Without some other justification other than "it's sourced!", I don't see why including the name of a victim wouldn't be a BLP violation. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Kommentar it's not a violation of BLP to include names of people who are included prominently in reliable sources. It most definitely is not harassment. Now whether or not its a good idea or even notable to include the name in the article is a basic content dispute and not up to the level if this notice board. JOJ ^Hutton 00:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

...and in fact there is already a section to discuss this at the article's talk page: Talk:Bob Filner#Names of victims. This did not have to be brought to AN/I, although input from any of you is welcome at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think it is very much appropriate to bring it here, for this is in my opinion an outrageous violation of the principles of BLP -- do not harm. WP is not a tabloid, and although other publications may report it, and although the information may be in reliable sources and we can give a reference to it, this is exactly the sort of information that should not be made more prominent in the web. I am frankly amazed that editors I respect I would say otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "Do no harm" is an impossible standard to live up to and, if taken literally, would seriously harm the encyclopedia.

    Like it or not, facts, encyclopedic facts, may well be harmful to some living people: criminals, corrupt politicians and avaricious businesspeople, just to name a few. Any additional broadcasting of the activities of these people will be harmful to them, their reputations, their court cases and their families - but that's hardly the point. The point of BLP is not to try to avoid doing harm to anyone, it's to avoid doing harm to living people if the facts are not extremely well supported by citations from the very best of reliable sources. When that happens, when impeachable sources -- not tabloids, not scandal sheets, not TMZ or E! -- report something, and those reports are corroborated by other equally reliable sources, then it's out of our hands. Not to include those facts is a distinct disservice to our readers -- the people we are supposed to be serving here -- and an abrogation of our responsibility as encyclopedists in the modern world. That those facts will have a harmful effect on a living person is regrettable, but the additional effect of our including them when unimpeachable sources are reporting them is minimal.

    We are not a social services agency, here to make everyone feel better about themselves, we're here to write an encyclopedia in a neutral, straightforward, non-judgmental manner, with our information supported by citations from reliable sources. When we fulfill those requirements, we have fulfilled our obligations to our readers and to the subjects of our articles, to whom we owe nothing more than that: accuracy and neutrality. To say that we have another, overriding obligation, a blanket proscription to "do no harm" is a egregious misreading of the intent of the BLP policy, one that, if widely believed, would cripple our ability to do what it is we're here to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

    • WP:AVOIDVICTIM (part of WP:BLP) is explicit: Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. That's irrespective of the quality of the sources and embraces our simple human responsibilities. NebY (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• This one could go either way. Policies go both ways but lean towards leaving it out. My thought (from just a superficial look at this thread) would be to leave it out. The person's name is not essential to the usefulness / encyclopedic informativeness of the article, and moving it from the obscurity of aging sources into eternal prominence (Wikipedia) is certainly a change in the degree of privacy afforded. North8000 (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• Move to close. This is a content issue not requiring administrator intervention. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• Can I just note that the discussion points toward a certain US-centrism, where everyone is named in the press (and thus often here), victims and not-yet tried and convicted suspects alike? Fortunately the policy cited above by NebY is more globalized than that. And BMK, I'm sorry, but I agree completely with DGG. One can write perfectly decent Wikipedia articles without naming (and often shaming). The desire to include names is one that should be countered, not endorsed. Often, naming does harm; claiming that we're not a social services agency misses the point twice: Wikipedia's "don't do BLP harm" (to paraphrase DGG) was not intended (nor could it have been) to change anything in the outside world, and inside Wikipedia's world there would be no need for soothing any victim of an AVOIDVICTIM violation if we hadn't named them in the first place--as you yourself suggest, it is entirely possible that harm can be done by our edits here. Shouldn't we avoid that, even though other outlets don't have such policies? Or, why should I not beat my dog if others beat dogs? And please don't hit my little

Sadie just to make a point. She's the best dog in the world. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• • • @Drmies: I was responding not so much to the specific instance in question (I also believe in not crucifying the victim), but what I felt was an inappropriately absolutist tone to DGG's comment. In general, I find that "zero-tolerance" policies of all kinds are an abrogation of our unique ability to think, substituting rationality with pre-digested rules -- but I certainly should have been clearer that I was speaking of the general case, that's on me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, we are discussing a US topic. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not an absolutist, though I should have qualified what I said: In some cases, the amount of pre-existing publicity is so great that WP does not in practice make it more prominent on the web. I do not think this is one of those situations, but this is of course subject to discussion, and I think that is the usual basis for discriminating between what is and is not acceptable. My apologies for any unclarity. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, apologies all around then: I certainly didn't mean to be absolute either. It's always a matter of context (of the kind DGG points out, which agrees with the cited policy). Mendaliv, that we're dealing with a US topic makes no difference, though it does mean that there probably is more coverage of the kind DGG points at, since in the US just about anything is fair game. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
        • @DGG: Thanks for the clarification, it's appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Is anyone else thinking that the material should be suppressed? Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 03:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Personal Attacks by DrFleischman against Attleboro

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

---

I've reverted his attacks on me here. Please intervene. Attleboro (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree we need immediate intervention. I just requested temporary full protection here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll admit it, I called Attleboro a troll. Do persistent disruption, edit warring, and sockpuppetry qualify? Not to mention possible block evasion going back for years? He appears to be an old friend once known as Mbhiii. Evidence here, here, here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what it is you're looking for. You're running an ANI thread here while exchanging peace offers and soup on the user's talk page? Let's wait and see what the conclusion of the SPI is, but regardless of that, decide what it is you want, and on the basis of what evidence. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not running any ANI thread; Attleboro started this one. I made the peace offer in good faith but Attleboro rejected it. There's nothing wrong with making a context-appropriate Seinfeld reference. I want the SPI to run its course. The evidence is presented there. Meanwhile Attleboro and his socks continue to edit war and otherwise disrupt, even after temporary full protection and a short block. Hence the request for full protection. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I see. My apologies. This is a fine mess: I applied full protection for three days to put a complete stop to the edit war. Mark Arsten's semi-protection (for a year) should probably be re-applied when mine runs out. I hope the SPI delivers something useful; right now it's not providing me with anything I can use, or I'd be the first one to block. Dr. Fleischman, you have been brought here on civility charges and that's bad, of course. Please play nice. to Attleboro: your hands are not clean, and that's all I'll say.

Now, the edit warring thing, that history gives me an instant headache, but I don't need ACA to help me there; some tylenol will suffice. Perhaps someone like Bbb23, whose mind has been trained for discerning who's right and who's wrong in an edit war, can help out, or perhaps Mark will. I see you filed at ANEW but it led to the aforementioned semi-protection, not blocks. Whether any of them are interested in blocking now that it's fully protected remains to be seen, but there you have it. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, you mentioned that you put Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act under full protection for three days, but the edit summary suggests that it lasts through November 14; is this an error (or perhaps I am misinterpreting it somehow?) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Correction: seven days. My apologies. I was thinking of three but made it a bit longer since SPI is a bit understaffed, it seems, and the matters are complicated and controversial enough. If some kind of agreement is hashed out on the talk page on this narrow issue, it can always be shortened. Thanks for the question, Drmies (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

My ANEW filing has become rather stale, as Mark already imposed a 3-day full protection and then blocked Attleboro for a short time as well (and now you've imposed a second round of full protection, which I appreciate). It should probably be closed. The SPI is the crux of the dispute. CU will probably turn up nothing, so an admin will have to look at behavioral evidence. At least between Attleboro and Orthogonius it's pretty blatant, IMO. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yep. They're both gone. I see Grundle got in on the action as well. Which reminds me: what does blue paint smell like? Drmies (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance, Drmies. Seeing as most of the editors responsible for this recent round of edit warring (Attleboro/Orthogonius and Grundle) have been blocked, can the full protection of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act be lifted, or at least shortened? The semi-protection that was in place until next year should help stave off further edit warring from socks of these users. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

And the other crazies, too. Grundle has been recruiting folks off-wiki. I agree with Prototime, another 6+ days of full protection is unnecessary at this point. Thanks Drmies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. I don't see a reason right now to restore semi-protection right now; the recent edits weren't prevented by it anyway. I see that it was applied in September to last until December, but again, I don't see much in September that causes me great concern. So let's leave it unprotected until it starts again. Now, what does blue paint smell like? And one more thing--I don't like using the word "troll" here; trolls have much less sophistication, and Mbhiii wants something, as does Grundle, with these articles though they go about it the wrong way. But that's by the by. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. My apologies to Attleboro/Mbhiii (or whoever you are). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I just love it when Drmies pings me when I'm off-wiki and then adroitly handles the whole mess. It goes without saying that Drmies can handle just about any contretemps, although if bacon is involved, he loses his sense of perspective and regresses to a precocious 5-year-old.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

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

user 86.157.181.7, likely just incompetence

• 86.157.181.7 (talk · contribs)

A goodly percentage of this user's edits require reverting, but if I take this to AIV I suspect it will be turned aside. Lots of unnecessary tweaking of headings and mistaken 'improvements'. The user may be well-intentioned, but needs someone to ride shotgun. If anyone else wants to try to engage them, please feel free. I don't want to chase them all over Wikipedia. Thanks, JNW (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Might it help to actually talk to the editor rather than chasing them around the enyclopaedia? Unless I missed it, no one has actually tried that yet. All I see are three templated messages plus finally some more specific comments when telling them about this ANI. Templates are fine when appropriate, but in a more complex case where the edits are not clearly bad, some actual explaination of the problems with the edits would help.

I have started that, but I'm a lot less sure than you appear to be about the problems with the IP.

To start with, I looked at the 3 warnings. One was for changing the DOB without a source at Roh Moo-hyun. This is the sort of thing which looks like vandalism. Except that if you look in to the case, there is no clear source for the 1 September figure. There is a source used in the early life figure but it requires subscription and I'm not sure it actually shows the DOB (see Talk:Roh Moo-hyun). And a simple search find plenty of RS for the IP's 6th August date, not many for our 1 September date (edit: although there is a suggestion it's 6th of the 8th month of the lunar calendar).

The next warning was for changing the cause of death to "suicide by hanging" from "suicide". I don't know if it's normal for the infobox to go in to such detail, but the article itself already suggests the death was suicide by hanging (it's a bit uncertain on the suicide aspect in general).

The final warning from you but as it wasn't directed at anything in specific, I don't know if it's clear to the IP what you're complaining about particularly considering the earlier 2 warnings don't seem to be that justified.

Next, I had a look at 3 of the IPs edits from their contrib history. They were [33] which was changing a section heading from "Death" to "Illness and death", the section does somewhat cover an illness so whether or not it's necessary, I don't see anything obviously wrong with it. (In fact, IIRC, the illness and death is probably more common for a section like that.)

The next edit is [34]. This does look to be problematic as it's changing the name to a longer name without a source, and it doesn't seem to be supported by the source used in the article nor does a search find any evidence for the full name.

[35] is next, which is a self revertal of tributes to the subheading [36]. Since the section contained no tributes, the revertal was proper (perhaps the IP misread the section or intended to add tributes but then changed their mind). Either way, considering the quick self revertal, if the IP isn't regularly doing stuff like this I don't see it as a problem. However from looking more there, the IP also removed "suicide (gunshot)" from the infobox earlier [37]. This came before changing the Stephanie Parker article so it doesn't seem to be confusion from them being reverted/warned there, so it does seem to be a bit of a inappropriate and strange change. Particularly as the IP doesn't seem to be squemish about death or suicides (most of their edits seem to relate to that).

P.S. It would of course be helpful if the IP sought clarification themselves. On the other hand if many of their edits are not clearly blockable stuff, just following them around reverting and templating them often does not achieve much. Particularly as no one is likely to block them in such cases. Even a simple message will I suspect help a lot since even if they don't respond, people will take much more kindly to blocking them when it's clear they're not going to respond to problems raised with their edits.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it might be helpful to address these issues with the editor, and I thank you for attempting to discuss this with them. But I'm never encouraged by editors who don't use summaries, and don't attempt to respond to warnings with an explanation, preferring to continue on the same path. I think that path is a pattern of little more than test edits, adding 'death' or 'personal life and death' headers, punctuated by the occasional unsourced change [38] or head-scratcher [39], [40]. I suspect there's a competence or language issue, and am dubious that the user will communicate. But maybe I'm quick to predicate my interpretation on previous experience. You're correct to make the effort. Thanks, JNW (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/31.53.139.112 appears to have been the same editor and is currently blocked. Peter James (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No surprise; thank you for the note. Should this account be blocked for evasion, and are there any more where that came from? JNW (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe only block if the disruptive edits continue. There's only been one edit since the AN/I notification and that was to undo their own edit. Peter James (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Reporting User:DIREKTOR because keeps reverting sourced edits but refuses to discuss

I reported User:DIREKTOR for edit warring noticeboard about ten days ago because he or she has been reverting a sourced edits refusing to discuss about the materiality and the grounds of the revert. The page was protected (with the last version, i.e. with my edit reverted as I moved away from the issue to keep my hands clean).

I insisted with several requests to participate to the discussion and I showed extreme patience but this has proven to be useless. The editor declares "to be disgusted by my conduct", "qualifies my proficency in English insufficient to participate to the discussion", "that my only intention is to enter spicy sentences", "that I enter nationalist edits" and so on. The user replied (I quote): Get other people involved, or find someone who understands English at a reasonable level to discuss for you. Otherwise, I say openly: I will just revert everything you do to this article. It is NOT my job to spend time "policing" your attempts at fraudulent referencing, and not a single user can be asked to discuss with someone who reads every other post because he barely understands the language. It is also not my job to fix your faulty grammar: if you don't understand English up to a certain level - you're not supposed to edit articles on enWiki..

I have the feeling that the issue is rather that, I just participated bringing a view that is different from his views but that is equally well sourced. The edit I posted was literally copied (I am sorry for that) from a English book from a Reputable institution but even this did not work: the edit was reverted without any reason. All all my requests to know why did not work.

I requested a 3O but this could not be processed because no discussion had place before. So I found myself between a rock and a hard place. For this reason I report this incident. My primary concern is to find a solution. Useless to say, if the community confirms that Direktor has behaved in conformity with WP's rules I will accept the judgement. For what I could see on other discussions, Direktor usually talks like that. So may be this is normal and acceptable.Silvio1973 (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• At a glance it seems User:DIREKTOR (Silvio1973, please note you linked another user above - user names are case sensitive apparently) has WP:OWN behaviour on Talk:Istrian exodus. Refusal to comment on what seems a decent source-based addition looks disruptive to me. I suspect there is some pro-Yugoslavian POV on the part of DIREKTOR, but I am the son of Istrian exiles, and as such I'm quite biased on the issue, most probably.--cyclopia^speak! 11:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

That is most certainly not the case. I have not expanded that article in any significant way and absolutely do not consider myself the "owner". As for "refusing to comment", I have filled an entire talkpage archive and more trying my best to work this out with Silvio. Then we rolled back to an old version and basically agreed not to edit without consensus... until the user typically disregarded all agreements and started another edit war. I explain my position in detail at the talkpage [41]. The bottom line is that, whichever way you look at it, Silvio and myself certainly seem unable to discuss properly - and discussion is very much required on this complex, sensitive, and highly controversial issue, which is in fact the subject of something of an international dispute.

What is required is neutral input. More users. Someone who's willing to help and work with us (or perhaps against us :)) towards a neutral representation of the source material. And yes Cyclopia, while I certainly do not mean to say this "disqualifies" you somehow, it would indeed obviously be better if the input (if any) would come from users who aren't personally connected to this issue, especially actual victims of these tragic events. For the record, I am a "Yugoslav" (Croat) of Italian ancestry myself, hailing originally from Veneto. -- Director (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I further commented on the talk page, but I fully acknowledge I have a bias -also detailed in the talk page. I'll see if I can maintain restraint or if I should leave, and for sure neutral editors should be encouraged there. However, regardless of Silvio1973 previous edits/behaviour, which I didn't analyze in detail, the last edit seemed at least worth of discussion, and not of such blunt dismissal -and you yourself actually half-acknowledged that on the talk page. In any case, I am asking there just if you can both list what are the points of contention and the sources you both use; then probably it becomes easier for editors uninvolved in the issue to see what to do.--cyclopia^speak! 14:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No DIREKTOR, it's not the case. You are a responsible person and I am an incompetent, aggressive and nationalist user. And on top of that, as you correctly say my English is very poor. OK, now the entire community knows what a bad editor I am. But now please tell us what is wrong with the sources provided in support of the edit. We have been all extremely patient. Yes this issue is controversial and you do very little (if anything) to contribute to make things running more smoothly. But this time you have passed the limit. And quite a long time ago. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the above editors are currently at DRN concerning a related page (See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Republic of Kosovo). I believe both pages are covered under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, but nothing untoward is or was happening in relation to that issue. I often edit Kosovo articles, Silvio just followed my contribs there to harass. But still, besides the arguable WIKIHOUNDING there's nothing there that might warrant mention at ANI.. -- Director (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please remain focused on the reason of the AN/I

Direktor continue to add useless comment on the other users, but I have reported this issue on AN/I because I want to know why Direktor keeps reverting a sourced edit about the Istrian Exodus and not to give him an additional occasion to insult me.

The edit reverted is:

A second wave left at the end of the war with the beginning of killings, expropriation and other forms of pressure from the Yugoslavs authorities to estabilish control.

There are 3 sources:

1)Ethnic Cleansing and the European Union - Page 136, Lynn Tesser - It contains the exact sentence of the proposed edit.

2)History in Exile: Memory and Identity at the Borders of the Balkans - Pamela Ballinger, Princetown University Press, UK, 2003 - Page 77 - It contains the following sentence about the second period of the exodus : A second wave followed at war's end as Yugoslavs used force and intimidation to install the facto control.

3)People on the move: forced population movements in Europe after WWII and its aftermath - Pertti Ahonen et al., Berg, USA, 2008 - Page 106 - Concerning the exodus from Rijeka/Fiume that had place during the second wave of the exodus it is written : The liberators carried out a series of public murders and instituted an intense policy of Croatization of the city.

If these sources are not good, I want to know why. Otherwise the edit has to be restored and the disruptive comportment of Direktor must be stopped.Silvio1973 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of who is pushing what POV, the behaviour of DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) on Talk:Istrian exodus leaves a lot to be desired. Continuous apparently unfounded accusations that Silvio1973 does not understand English and stubborn refusal to discuss several edits are seriously problematic. Granted, in some cases it seems, by reading the talk page, that DIREKTOR is right on some points, but this does not justifies his behaviour apparently. --cyclopia^speak! 22:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

..And you're posting this after my having reverted myself [42], and after having read on the talkpage that I did so? [43] I may be out of bounds on this specific sentence, and that not by any great margin - but this is such an tiny part of the main problem, it hardly even warrants discussion here. The central issue is Silvio's disruption that makes trying to discuss with him an unbelievably annoying and time-consuming chore. Were that not the case, we would likely already have solved any problems. As I said before:

" As regards the Istrian exodus business, its a huge mess to read, but I believe any who take the time may well be surprised anyone has invested so much painstaking effort to unravel Silvio1973's fraudulent referencing and misrepresentation to try and arrive at a source-based lede. The user has no understanding of WP:SYNTH, has trouble with complex English forms, quotes references that have nothing to do with his text, those sources he does read he misrepresents in an incredibly biased manner (taking fragments from various sentences and piecing them together in such a way that entirely distorts the position of the author). He cherry-picks sentences without regard to their context; he attributes text to authors who did not write it; when I add text that is actually based directly on the ref, he demands the right to modify it in accordance with his personal views or else forbids its entry, he outright lies (for lack of a better term) and claims sources support him when, upon investigation, - they do not. He enters into these long monologues where he attempts to convince me of the validity of his own personal theories regarding these events, etc. All this is just childishly obvious and easily-demonstrable.

I could go on and on. Frankly its incredible. A nightmare for any Wikipedian. I probably should just have reverted and ignored the user after discovering the deception(s), or reported him for all this disruption, but I honestly thought we were slowly getting somewhere and decided to invest the time. My mistake.

”

I say yet again - Silvio does understand English, he just doesn't read it very often during discussion because that apparently presents an effort for him. I invite anyone to review Archive 3 and see it for themselves, particularly as the discussion really starts going (the Archive actually starts with Silvio's first misquoted reference). In fact I hope he doesn't understand English, because the alternative is that he's been deliberately making quite the fool of me, the user who invested immense effort in spite of the barrier to try and work this out. -- Director (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

For example, let me present one case here (then I'll go to work to present more cases :)). Here's me writing a 5,000-character post where I go into some detail regarding a complex attempt at sourcing fraud with two references [44]; which followed another such attempt [45]. Only after some research was I even able to divine which one of the several piled-on references is actually used as the support for the text Silvio introduced at the time, and discover that the rest are just fluff to make the thing "stick". Then I go into how the one source that's actually the basis for the edit ("Ahonen") has been misrepresented, in both its position being distorted, and through just plain lying. On top of all that's mentioned there, I also later discovered that "Ahonen", referred to as the author in Silvio's citation - isn't the author.

With the second ref, I go on about how the user attempted to deceive me by posting an obvious sentence fragment (perhaps less obvious to him), that turned out (when I finally found the book) only to refer to claims made by Stalin during his confrontation with Yugoslavia. I.e. the author was just talking about Stalin's claims, and not presenting her own position. But Silvio1973 won't tell you things like that. He'll say its "sourced" and repeatedly refuse to complete the fraudulent sentence fragment he presented, etc.

But its the user's response [46] that's really interesting. Without even the slightest attempt at apology, he writes a brief comment about how I've spent a lot of my limited time on that post (he clearly didn't read it), and then starts a new section for no reason [47], just continuing on as if nothing had happened, and repeatedly making strange and dishonest claims about my supposedly not having participated in a DRN thread (where I obviously did participate). This sort of thing is generally how it goes, as Cyclopia seems to have noted reviewing the latest threads. -- Director (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Apologies -I didn't notice yet your self revert before writing that comment, and it is indeed a very good demonstration of good faith on your part. Now, the thread you cite is indeed worrying on the part of Silvio1973, even if I would not go as far as to present it as "fraudulent" -he is selectively quoting out of context and nobody denies it's bad, but it does not seem the full context flatly contradicts the kind of reasoning Silvio1973 wanted to add -after all, it does not state it was just Stalin's claim, only that the claim has been used by Stalin. However yes, it is problematic, refusal to give context is also very problematic, and you are mostly correct debating his edits in that context, from what I can read. However in general, DIREKTOR, your confrontational attitude does not help. Just keep cool and keep arguments based on sourcing. I honestly think both of you should (1)list the individual points of contention (2)go on some relevant wikiproject and ask for outside help, perhaps via a RfC or something. --cyclopia^speak! 10:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm hardly objective of course, but I wouldn't describe it as "confrontational". You'd be surprised how fast one gets annoyed with WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and having to repeat oneself every single time. "Fraud" may be a harsh-sounding word, but its accurate. I know that's how we call it in medicine when someone posts fake sources (over and over again).

Again, while I know this is not the venue to request participation, I hope the thread will draw attention to the dysfunction of the talkpage over there: we need at least one more user. Silvio and I alone just don't get anywhere. We of course tried 3O, RfCs, and DRN already. Otherwise I don't see how we can proceed. -- Director (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I can only be happy if more users participate. However, if Stalin used a specific fact to the benefit of his propaganda, this does not mean the fact is false. Indeed the source say that it's true (although Direktor claimed at least 10 times my English is poor and I did not understan). However I will bring, when we will discuss of that point, more sources supporting the fact. Concerning the context, everything now it's provided. And yes 4 sources describe the same context. Feel free to read. Direktor, please tell us what is wrong. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Sigh... no, Ballinger does not confirm the claim, I read almost all of her book. And Corni 2008 specifically contradicts said claim (p.106), explaining that there was "no official decision for expelling Italians", and that "modern historiography places social and economic factors to the forefront" (p.109), etc... Goodness only knows what it is (if anything) that's making you think Ballinger "say it's true". I honestly suspect more OR, or nothing. Never mind the dishonest presentation of claims by Joesph Stalin, as "facts" by prof. Ballinger, and the deliberate, repeated refusal to finish an obvious sentence fragment to avoid the deception being exposed... -- Director (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, this is a separate matter. I opened to ANI for an edit that you kept reverting. Apparently this issue is solved. Please refer to the talk page if you want to add something. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I believe it is relevant. And I do not think the issue is solved at all, as even now you're pushing for a new set of controversial changes. After I filled-out an entire talkpage archive, you accused me of not discussing with you. So naturally I want to explain why I stopped doing so, and why I believe its your behavior that's truly at the core of the problem - and not mine (at least not to a comparable extent). -- Director (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

@Direktor, going trough your posts - with everyone, not only when you discuss with me - it looks that it´s always someone's else fault. You are never responsible. The others are never competent enough. Look I did you behaved on the DRN concerning the discussion about the Republic of Kosovo. You are a competent and experienced editor but you are too confrontational and you fail to recognise when (sometime) you are wrong. But the worse is that you concentrate on the users and not on their contributions. For someone of your experience it's regrettable. You should be less confrontational. It is in your own interest, other users won't take you less seriously because you are calmer. Silvio1973 (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Rockysantos and LTblb

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

---

I've reverted his attacks on me here and here. Please intervene. --LTblb (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"You come across as a Spanish fascist trying to give false propaganda about history" is the closest thing to a violation of WP:NPA I see there, however, rather that simply redact that you are removing the entire contents of their rather valid post. This is not enough for any form of block ... if WP:WQA still existed, I'd point you there. However, can you please show us where you have engaged the editor to ask him to tone down his rhetoric before coming here? ES&L 12:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my English is not very good , and I don't know well the mechanisms of wikipedia in English, but that user has gravely insulted me repeatedly. So I requested intervention of some Adminstrator.--LTblb (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have printed what was the potentially improper words from your first link above, but it's nothing that requires administrator intervention because it most certainly is not a "grave insult". The second link shows nothing that is a personal attack whatsoever. Again, I'll ask - could you tell me where you approached the other editor first? ANI is a last resort for interpersonal tiffs ES&L 12:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Excuse, I do not understand exactly what you try to say to me; I think it means that I should warn before Rockysantos about his insulting tone? I should not have come to this page? The discussion is about a substitution of a map in Spain. --LTblb (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

1. I see one possible insult, and I have removed just that from the article talkpage - it wasn't blockable anyway
2. I fail to see "repeated" insults, let alone any "grave insults"
3. Please don't ever remove the entire post when you try and remove something that clearly violates WP:NPA
4. You are supposed to try and resolve your differences between yourselves, not bring it to ANI
5. Dispute resolution exists for a reason

ES&L 12:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

In this edit summary, he also called me a fascist.

I appreciate your advice and your patience. Best regards.--LTblb (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No he doesn't. "...to support his fascist re written history..." Actually, there are two ways to read that link:

1) in usual English, it means history that was re-written by fascists (possibly other than you) that you are putting forward ("his fascist-re written history")

2) it could mean history that was a type of re-written history that is fascist in nature, being put forward by you

In neither case are you being called a fascist, you're merely putting forward something that was written by a possibly fascist point of view ES&L 13:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please, I request you if you can follow up on this discussion in anticipation of possible outbursts, WP:PA or misunderstandings, thanking again your comments and your attention.--LTblb (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the subject of personal attacks has come up, I'd like to take the opportunity to explore LTblb's conduct. This recent issue is a content dispute on which he seems to be the losing side, again. However, rather than discuss and follow WP:BRD he seems content to edit-war and hurl accusations at others. I dropped a template warning to his talk page which I felt was adequate given the situation and his previous disruption. He immediately accused me of harrassment in his reversion and again in a hostile message to my own talk page. I find it interesting that he chose not to address the content dispute - at all - and instead focused on me, an editor. That is a violation of the maxim "comment on content, not contributors." He regularly comes up with edit summaries like this when there is no vandalism, no NPA, no edit war but his own. His previous edit war involved the Good Article Antoni Gaudi in which he betrayed an anti-Catalonia, pro-nationalist Spain bias and edit-warred to keep Catalalonia information out of said article. For this he was blocked 24 hours. I am not an expert in 16th century Spanish history, but to me this current dispute about the maps looks like more POV-pushing. It would be a logical conclusion at this point. Elizium23 (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Rockysantos ought to receive a warning for using loaded terms like "fascist" and for commenting on LTblb's motives instead of actions. That said, ANI is not a first resort. Per WP:NPA (emphasis mine), "Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning, and a request to refactor. If a pattern of lesser personal attacks continues despite the warning, escalating blocks may follow. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less-severe situations when it is unclear if the 'conduct severely disrupts the project'." The first step for you, LTblb, is to remind Rockysantos to focus on the content while you resolve your dispute. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)

I have again been accused of obsession, harrassment and non-neutrality by LTblb in a discussion that is supposed to be about content. His complaints about WP:NPA are very weak considering his own tactics. I request warnings and sanctions if his behavior continues. A WP:SPAIN topic-ban would be appropriate. Elizium23 (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Can I used this page to report the harassment obsessive that Elizium23 is committing against me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LTblb (talk • contribs) 16:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC) --LTblb (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You can, but you are likely to find a WP: BOOMERANG, along with wasting everyone's time. Admiral Caius (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The tone of your response I do not like at all, Admiral Caius, is arrogant, dismissive, and unworthy of an administrator.

The only reason I decided not to do it because my English is not remotely good to defend my ideas. --LTblb (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I am proud to detail my history with LTblb as I already have outlined upthread. Yes, I have been following his edit history. In contrast with a campaign of Wikihounding, I have only intervened where I saw disruption, which is quite often, since he was only blocked two months ago for his edit-war and this is yet another major incident; he does not appear to have learned his lesson. I have tracked his edits "carefully, and with good cause" to correct violations of Wikipedia policies. I have not overstepped the bounds of harrassment or hounding in any way. On the contrary, this is an editor who likes to take accusations leveled at himself and turn them around to the accuser, whether or not it is warranted. Elizium23 (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yourself, with your own words is denouncing and evidencing the harassment against me, Elizium23. --LTblb (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

1. User:Admiral Caius is not an admin
2. In order to even claim harassment, you'd better read WP:HARASS, and provide very detailed links (WP:DIFF) or else it's considered WP:UNCIVIL
3. Are you 100% certain that your hands are "clean" in this situation? Are your actions 100% correct?

ES&L 17:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

My problem is my bad English, I can understand most, but it is much harder to explain.

Elizium23 harassed me, leaving messages on my talk page unjustified on numerous occasions, and reversing my edits without justification. That is very easy to check seeing the history. He has acknowledged himself.

Also, Elizium23 is involved in the project 'filo-Catalan' Wikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries , for their supposed good intentions is completely compromised.

My editions were not malicious in any way, and I have resorted to the discussion page, as shown. Yes, my capacity and ability to explain my point of view is limited.--LTblb (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am a member of the Catalan WikiProject. What are you trying to insinuate based on that fact? You are happy to discuss away as long as your edits stand, but you have not observed WP:BRD, you have edit-warred to keep your preferred version of the page until other editors, including myself, unwilling to sustain the edit-wars which you start, cease to revert you, even though you are on the wrong side of consensus. Elizium23 (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I try to show that this factor may be a cause of your intimidations and obsessive harassment against my edits, not because you believe that my edits were bad, but it may go against your own and intimate convictions or ideas. --LTblb (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

My membership in a Wikiproject is a factor in what way, exactly? Why would my membership cause me to do these alleged things to you (which I deny). (Footnote: I have joined WP:SPAIN (which LTblb has not) as my interest in Spain transcends the region of Catalonia. Elizium23 (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Not only yours memberships, but yours serious disturbance when I argued that Antoni Gaudí's nationality -who was born in 1852- was Spanish.--LTblb (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This thread is not for discussion of content disputes which happened 2 months ago, but since you mention it, I will point out that you were blocked for edit-warring in that dispute, while nobody else was. I am the person who helped raise this article to GA status and so you'll perhaps excuse my personal feelings about it. In recognition of Spanish-Catalan nationalism issues and past edit-wars, there was a compromise phrasing in the lede paragraph which had a delicately worded balance that both sides seemed happy with, until you came in to upset that balance and erase Gaudi's Catalan identity from the article. I disagreed and the compromise was restored to the article after your block. Note to outsiders: LTblb chose September 11 to start this war, this date is known in Spain as the National Day of Catalonia. So his bias is clearly apparent. I have no pro-Catalan bias, as LTblb seems to be implying by his accusations against me; I am merely standing up for both points of view in a hotly contested nationalistic squabble. My primary and overriding objective is to uphold Wikipedia policies. LTblb's edits to the Gaudi article were in fact inviting future edit wars as Catalans came to reset the balance in their favor. Wikipedia seeks a middle ground here, but we need to seek low levels of dispute resolution in order to defuse these arguments before they become heated because nationalistic disputes are often so intractable that they must be resolved at WP:ARBCOM. If LTblb wishes to uphold Wikipedia policies then he will seek to resolve the current dispute by presenting WP:RS and upholding WP:V and WP:NPOV. I would suggest reading WP:No angry mastodons as a guide to calm dispute resolution. If LTblb feels that he must wage war against other editors then perhaps Wikipedia is not the best place for him right now. Elizium23 (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

For the last time: stop using "harassment" unless it meets the clear definition. Just because you disagree with a warning, does not make it either invalid, or harassment ES&L 19:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It's absolutely false that I eliminated the Catalan identity of Antonio Gaudi article see here.

I will better read WP:HARASS, and try to provide very detailed links (WP:DIFF). Thank you. --LTblb (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

What's this edit for then? And you edit-warred with it, here and here and here (where you accused the others of WP:EW and then you were promptly, unilaterally blocked.) Elizium23 (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Only after you do this.--LTblb (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

LTblb you are the one attacking editors, not me, I suggest that if you feel your English is not correct, to not make anymore edits like the ones you do, as what you have edited is factually incorrect. As I have told you before and you have ignored. You seem to use your "My English is not remotely good to defend my ideas" when you are losing an argument......selective hearing of sorts and you are right they are ideas not facts.

The image you created of the Spanish Empire is factually 100% wrong, you have no references and will find none as it is wrong, you basically edited the image showing the Portuguese and Spanish Empires and made it all Spain's empire, doesn't change the fact it never was.

Me correcting your edits is not an personal attack, you are just factually wrong and I suspect you know it.

example of past encounter:-

Costa del sol article on the talk page:-

And you Rockysantos , is the least likely to speak, probably being a Portuguese who lives in Gibraltar, which is dedicated to improving tourist items of Portugal, like here or here, and come here, to enact defamatory information about the Costa del Sol, something that might be reportable .... Shame.--LTblb (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

My responce was

talk for the record facts are facts, I live in Spain but I fail to see why where you live or are from should matter, the information regarding the name is factual, this is an Encyclopedia and it's not meant to be a political propaganda platform for you to twist the truth to improve tourist numbers. Do you work for the Spanish tourist board? are you being paid to remove facts that you perceive are damaging to tourism?--Rockysantos (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

LTblb responded with:-

Rockysantos, your actions betray you, I will not answer to you, not worth it. And Valenciano, I already know your opinion about it, with which I am not agree at all .. So I will seek others opinions ...--LTblb (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2013

You didn't like the facts so on Valenciano's talk page you convinced him to enlarge the article to not be so focused on the costa del crime remark (article needed expanding I agree), (translated into English as LTblb wrote it in Spanish)

I warn you that after this his last contribution to the discussion I will be absolutely uncompromising , and no one except a librarian may amend Article onwards. Any minimal introduction of information will have to be carefully discussed and agreed , or will take the plank for breaking the rules of discussion and solicit the full protection of the article. - LTblb (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2013 ( UTC )

(notice how Costa del crime is still in the article LTblb?? Because it is a fact that it is known as such and as I said, it doesn't reflect the crime rate in the area but for the facts I stated......no crime figures exist as far as I can see also) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockysantos (talk • contribs) 19:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

My requests , complaints and suggestions in the article Costa del Sol were addressed , and the article, thanks to the efforts of publishers like User:Carlstak, has improved considerably, of course not for yours contributions, Rockysantos.--LTblb (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

How about this edit to Spain, where there were several representations of Catalan culture which LTblb removed? It is as if he did not want to acknowledge that Catalonia exists. Elizium23 (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yours accusation against me is a product of yours own obsession with me. And only highlight why you behave as you do.--LTblb (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems LTblb is trying to remove anything that represents Catalan Culture as well as others like the Galician people article he has also tried to replace with Spanish fascist views back in April, which is also what General Franco tried to do and like Franco, LTblb will fail as the spirit of truth and hope of humans will never be crushed. I look forward to your response LTblb, it is a chance to apologize to the editors and people you have offended.--Rockysantos (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)-

I hope that administrators will read this WP:PA.--LTblb (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Elizium23 continues bullying me, will an admin. do something? --LTblb (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

How the hell is that bullying? You've lost me here, LTblb ... you're either not competent enough to understand this project or you're trolling us. I've given you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to language for a few hours, but there's no humanly possible way to call that "bullying" ES&L 22:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Rockysantos just vandalizing my talk page: offenses and the taunts continue.--LTblb (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

LTblb You are involved in this issue and as such it will stay on your page like it will stay on mine!!! If you don't like it you shouldn't of started it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockysantos (talk • contribs) 22:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No, that would be bullying ES&L 22:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not bullying????? Oh, Dios mio....--LTblb (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Well I find it unfair that LTblb can put it on mine but I can't on his, I will also remove mine as I find the allegations offensive since it is LTblb that is the aggressor and I and others the victims of his --Rockysantos (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)attacks.

How fricking ridiculous Rocky ... LTblb was required by policy to advise you that he had filed an ANI about you. Why the hell would you advise him of something that you didn't file? That was harassment and tit-for-tat childishness. LTblb may be the aggressor, but it's usually recommended that you don't behave poorly when 100+ admins are watching your every behaviour - indeed, now's a good time to be on your best behaviour, not your worst ES&L 23:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Elizium23 and LTblb

I have put together various history revisions of my own talk page and others, to show that I am being subjected to hounding and harassment by the User:Elizium23.-

• 00:34, 4 September 2013
• 20:52, 11 September 2013
• 20:53, 11 September 2013‎
• 20:57, 11 September 2013
• 21:21, 11 September 2013
• 21:21, 11 September 2013 (2nd in the same minute)
• 21:24, 11 September 2013
• 21:24, 11 September 2013 (2nd in the same minute)
• 01:31, 4 November 2013
• 01:31, 4 November 2013
• 03:15 4 November 2013
• 03:18, 4 November 2013
• 18:26, 4 November 2013
• 18:26, 4 November 2013
• 18:27, 4 November 2013
• 15:27, 7 November 2013
• 15:34, 7 November 2013
• 16:44, 7 November 2013
• 17:18, 7 November 2013
• 19:16, 7 November 2013
• 19:54, 7 November 2013
• 20:28, 7 November 2013
• 20:31, 7 November 2013
• 20:53, 7 November 2013

--LTblb (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

very absurd, this is a continuation of your war editing LTblb and really a continuation of the section above - Personal Attacks by Rockysantos against LTblb, which really should be renamed LTblb attacking other editors and making claims which are just not true and seemingly getting away with it--Rockysantos (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• First, I have moved this to a subtread of LTblb's other section. Second, I have informed LTblb that if he calls anything "hounding", "harassment", "personal attack", or "vandalism" I'll block him. Third, none of those diffs demonstrate "hounding". Fourth, a look through his edit history shows 99% of it is battleground behavior; if we cannot get through to him and get him to change his ways, I suspect a very long block will be in order. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Why are there links to Commons in the above "evidence"? ES&L 23:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

When I discovered that LTblb was replacing the map with a new file, I checked into its source on Commons and found that he had uploaded a new file under a new name and claimed it as his own work. I had not noticed at the time that it was modified (turned from two-color red/blue Spain/Portugal into a monochromatic red all-Spain key). I reported these as copyvio; even as a Public Domain work I was doubtful that he could claim his own work here. Since my discovery that he had indeed modified the map to his own purposes I have let the copyvio accusation drop as it is immaterial and more or less baseless. But it is interesting that even the original map he based this on is inaccurate and was contested on its talk page for two years. On Talk:Spain I have proposed replacing this map with a much more accurate, detailed one, which was accepted by Rockysantos; when I implemented the change in the article, LTblb summarily deleted the whole image in lieu of an alleged WP:CONSENSUS. Elizium23 (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This is simply amazing . Not only has not been done or listen to my complaints , but publicly crushed me when I've been called 'a fascist', my home page has been challenged again and again for dubious reasons , and falsely accused me several times as I shown with links.

Seeking justice in wikipedia in english , it must be more difficult than finding a needle in a haystack.

Sad, very sad all this.--LTblb (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I proved to you earlier that you were NOT called a fascist. Very sad that you still seem to think you were ES&L 00:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you LTblb Justice has been more slow to you on the English wikipedia than the Spanish one, where you have been banned forever I believe, I suggest the same be done to you on the English wikipedia - https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:LTblb --Rockysantos (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU ROCKY. That hint is exactly what I needed to file this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bashevis6920. Goodbye forever, LTblb. Elizium23 (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was following this debate and this is an unexpected ending. What a plot twist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Irom Chanu Sharmila

The BLP Irom Chanu Sharmila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a bit of a mess; but I am bringing it here specifically for additional review of one specific edit summary:

• 15:10, 7 November 2013: "request it stand for 24 hours to keep her alive then undo when some have had the chance to read her plea."

I had removed the content due to a lack of a WP:RS. Can others please take a look and weigh in on the appropriateness of the content? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It is unsourced. Given that it contains negative assertions about at least one named individual, it must be reverted, under WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the policy is clear. It can even be an exception to 3RR. Content is easy to restore later if an individual can find an RS. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The unsourced material was restored yet again: [48]. I've reverted, and left another message at User talk:DesmondCoutinho. Hopefully, he'll finally respond, but otherwise, I think a block may be necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The user has responded, and though the response is not exactly nice, I believe he is not going to revert anymore. Also, he knows that the next revert will be accompanied by a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

K6ka

Inappropriate warnings;

14 September 2024

• 22:0322:03, 14 September 2024 diff hist +12‎ m 6th millennium BC ‎ Reverted edits by Charcoal Zenith (talk) to last version by Galebazz current Tag: Rollback
• 22:0222:02, 14 September 2024 diff hist −21‎ Brain rot ‎ Undid revision 1245574180 by Charcoal Zenith (talk) unhelpful content addition current Tag: Undo
• 21:5921:59, 14 September 2024 diff hist −127‎ m Volvo S90 ‎ Rollback edit(s) by StOctavius (talk): Not providing a reliable source (RW 16.1) current Tags: RW Rollback
• 21:5821:58, 14 September 2024 diff hist +1,292‎ N User talk:Loudogiscool ‎ You have been indefinitely blocked from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. current Tag: Twinkle
• 21:5821:58, 14 September 2024 diff hist +1,273‎ User talk:JamieayUwyzbwstsy ‎ You have been indefinitely blocked from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. current Tag: Twinkle
• 21:5821:58, 14 September 2024 diff hist +8‎ m Brain rot ‎ Reverted edit by Loudogiscool (talk) to last version by R0paire-wiki Tag: Rollback
• 12:5012:50, 14 September 2024 diff hist +29‎ List of birds of Ontario ‎ →‎Stilts and avocets: replace with less awful image current

13 September 2024

• 02:0502:05, 13 September 2024 diff hist 0‎ m User:K6ka/Talk page archive list ‎ + current

11 September 2024

• 10:2110:21, 11 September 2024 diff hist +1,440‎ User talk:Mongkeydyoyo ‎ You have been blocked from editing for using Wikipedia for spam purposes. current Tag: Twinkle

10 September 2024

• 00:1700:17, 10 September 2024 diff hist +1,292‎ N User talk:Joe's stinky toes ‎ You have been indefinitely blocked from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. current Tag: Twinkle

8 September 2024

• 03:4503:45, 8 September 2024 diff hist +141‎ m Wikipedia:Changing username/Archives ‎ ++ current
• 03:4203:42, 8 September 2024 diff hist −2‎ m Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations ‎ →‎Azarctic → Quetzal: mark status as done
• 03:4203:42, 8 September 2024 diff hist +302‎ Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple ‎ →‎TheFlawlessKing → PuzzleSolved999: d
• 03:4103:41, 8 September 2024 diff hist +86‎ N User talk:TheFlawlessKing ‎ K6ka moved page User talk:TheFlawlessKing to User talk:PuzzleSolved999: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "TheFlawlessKing" to "PuzzleSolved999" current Tag: New redirect
• 03:4103:41, 8 September 2024 diff hist +81‎ N User:TheFlawlessKing ‎ K6ka moved page User:TheFlawlessKing to User:PuzzleSolved999: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "TheFlawlessKing" to "PuzzleSolved999" current Tag: New redirect
• 03:4103:41, 8 September 2024 diff hist +106‎ N User:TheFlawlessKing/Murder of Paige Birgfeld ‎ K6ka moved page User:TheFlawlessKing/Murder of Paige Birgfeld to User:PuzzleSolved999/Murder of Paige Birgfeld: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "TheFlawlessKing" to "PuzzleSolved999" Tag: New redirect
• 03:4103:41, 8 September 2024 diff hist +89‎ N User:TheFlawlessKing/sandbox ‎ K6ka moved page User:TheFlawlessKing/sandbox to User:PuzzleSolved999/sandbox: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "TheFlawlessKing" to "PuzzleSolved999" current Tag: New redirect
• 03:4103:41, 8 September 2024 diff hist 0‎ m User talk:PuzzleSolved999 ‎ K6ka moved page User talk:TheFlawlessKing to User talk:PuzzleSolved999: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "TheFlawlessKing" to "PuzzleSolved999" current
• 03:4103:41, 8 September 2024 diff hist 0‎ m User:PuzzleSolved999 ‎ K6ka moved page User:TheFlawlessKing to User:PuzzleSolved999: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "TheFlawlessKing" to "PuzzleSolved999"
• 03:4103:41, 8 September 2024 diff hist 0‎ m User:PuzzleSolved999/sandbox ‎ K6ka moved page User:TheFlawlessKing/sandbox to User:PuzzleSolved999/sandbox: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "TheFlawlessKing" to "PuzzleSolved999"
• 03:4103:41, 8 September 2024 diff hist 0‎ m User:PuzzleSolved999/Murder of Paige Birgfeld ‎ K6ka moved page User:TheFlawlessKing/Murder of Paige Birgfeld to User:PuzzleSolved999/Murder of Paige Birgfeld: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "TheFlawlessKing" to "PuzzleSolved999" current

7 September 2024

• 13:1413:14, 7 September 2024 diff hist −4‎ m Thiago Silva ‎ Reverted edit by 2C0F:F698:C24A:EE0D:ECE2:6B44:DA93:D4B2 (talk) to last version by K6ka Tag: Rollback
• 13:1413:14, 7 September 2024 diff hist −5‎ m Samira Magroun ‎ Reverted edits by 2C0F:F698:C24A:EE0D:ECE2:6B44:DA93:D4B2 (talk) to last version by K6ka Tag: Rollback
• 13:1313:13, 7 September 2024 diff hist +1,492‎ N User talk:102.175.120.187 ‎ Your IP address has been blocked from editing because it has been used to evade a previous block. current Tag: Twinkle
• 13:1313:13, 7 September 2024 diff hist +3‎ m Aymen Abdennour ‎ Reverted edit by 102.175.120.187 (talk) to last version by K6ka Tag: Rollback
• 13:1313:13, 7 September 2024 diff hist −112‎ m Klay BBJ ‎ Reverted edit by 102.175.120.187 (talk) to last version by K6ka current Tag: Rollback
• 13:1313:13, 7 September 2024 diff hist +119‎ m Moez Ben Cherifia ‎ Reverted edit by 102.175.120.187 (talk) to last version by K6ka Tag: Rollback
• 13:1313:13, 7 September 2024 diff hist +29‎ m Maram Ben Aziza ‎ Reverted edit by 102.175.120.187 (talk) to last version by K6ka Tag: Rollback
• 13:1313:13, 7 September 2024 diff hist +50‎ m Meriem Ben Mami ‎ Undid revision 1244457211 by 102.175.120.187 (talk) Tag: Undo
• 13:1213:12, 7 September 2024 diff hist +288‎ m Time capsule ‎ →‎21st century: convert EL to citation current

6 September 2024

• 21:2821:28, 6 September 2024 diff hist +3‎ Aymen Abdennour ‎ rv unsourced Tags: Manual revert Reverted
• 21:2621:26, 6 September 2024 diff hist −9‎ User:K6ka/Wikibreak ‎No edit summary current Tag: Manual revert
• 21:2521:25, 6 September 2024 diff hist +119‎ Moez Ben Cherifia ‎ Reverted 1 edit by 2C0F:F698:C216:A28B:A267:36FA:D505:6FB7 (talk): Unsourced Tags: Twinkle Undo Reverted
• 21:2321:23, 6 September 2024 diff hist −4‎ Thiago Silva ‎ Reverted 1 edit by 2C0F:F698:C216:A28B:A267:36FA:D505:6FB7 (talk): Unsourced Tags: Twinkle Undo Reverted
• 21:2321:23, 6 September 2024 diff hist −4‎ Gabriel Jesus ‎ Reverted 1 edit by 2C0F:F698:C216:A28B:A267:36FA:D505:6FB7 (talk): Unsourced Tags: Twinkle Undo
• 21:2321:23, 6 September 2024 diff hist −76‎ Abderrahim Tounsi ‎ Reverted 1 edit by 2C0F:F698:C216:A28B:A267:36FA:D505:6FB7 (talk): Unsourced current Tags: Twinkle Undo
• 21:2321:23, 6 September 2024 diff hist −113‎ Klay BBJ ‎ Reverted 1 edit by 2C0F:F698:C216:A28B:A267:36FA:D505:6FB7 (talk): Unsourced Tags: Twinkle Undo
• 21:2321:23, 6 September 2024 diff hist −3‎ Jesús Navas ‎ Reverted 1 edit by 2C0F:F698:C216:A28B:A267:36FA:D505:6FB7 (talk): Unsourced Tags: Twinkle Undo
• 21:2321:23, 6 September 2024 diff hist +42‎ Maram Ben Aziza ‎ Reverted 1 edit by 2C0F:F698:C216:A28B:A267:36FA:D505:6FB7 (talk): Unsourced Tags: Twinkle Undo
• 21:2221:22, 6 September 2024 diff hist −7‎ Dorra Zarrouk ‎ Reverted 1 edit by 2C0F:F698:C216:A28B:A267:36FA:D505:6FB7 (talk): Unsourced Tags: Twinkle Undo
• 21:2221:22, 6 September 2024 diff hist 0‎ Gianluigi Donnarumma ‎ Reverted 1 edit by 2C0F:F698:C216:A28B:A267:36FA:D505:6FB7 (talk): Unsourced Tags: Twinkle Undo
• 21:2221:22, 6 September 2024 diff hist 0‎ Joselu ‎ Reverted 1 edit by 2C0F:F698:C216:A28B:3D99:5C64:EA35:BC04 (talk): Unsourced Tags: Twinkle Undo
• 21:2221:22, 6 September 2024 diff hist −56‎ Samira Magroun ‎ Restored revision 1239445759 by Chimou52 (talk): Revert unsourced changes Tags: Twinkle Undo
• 21:2021:20, 6 September 2024 diff hist −7‎ m Aymen Abdennour ‎ Reverted edit by 2C0F:F698:C222:D2C0:7B5A:CE9:6792:BAD5 (talk) to last version by K6ka Tags: Rollback Reverted
• 21:2021:20, 6 September 2024 diff hist +45‎ m Meriem Ben Mami ‎ Reverted 1 edit by 2C0F:F698:C244:A2FC:C6B1:C04E:8DAA:4F84 (talk) to last revision by K6ka Tags: Twinkle Undo
• 16:2916:29, 6 September 2024 diff hist +578‎ User talk:Shawn110 ‎ Warning: Vandalism on Kolkata Police. Tag: Twinkle
• 16:2816:28, 6 September 2024 diff hist −27‎ m Kolkata Police ‎ Reverted edit by Shawn110 (talk) to last version by Fantastic Mr. Fox Tags: Rollback Reverted
• 16:2816:28, 6 September 2024 diff hist +1,229‎ N User talk:2A02:C7C:A6C8:8400:145D:9473:C57F:9AA6 ‎ General note: Unconstructive editing on Gnomeo & Juliet. current Tag: Twinkle
• 16:2816:28, 6 September 2024 diff hist −2‎ m Gnomeo & Juliet ‎ Reverted edits by 2A02:C7C:A6C8:8400:145D:9473:C57F:9AA6 (talk) to last version by Discospinster current Tag: Rollback
• 16:2716:27, 6 September 2024 diff hist +1,228‎ N User talk:2601:601:8784:D380:8868:EDCC:4B7B:2871 ‎ General note: Unconstructive editing on Band of Gypsys. current Tag: Twinkle

IDK what's going on, but I think their contribs show someth "a bit weird" is going on.

Script fail, or someth. 88.104.29.216 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how these users received messages. Their talk pages don't even exist ... --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's wrong either. I don't warn users randomly, so it isn't a fault on my end. K6ka (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No idea, but, you're making stuff like User talk:2620:0:862:1:91:198:174:67 so maybe just... stop and work out what's going on? Please, thx. 88.104.29.216 (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

But this revert left a message on the talk page on the very user who edited the page before him ... so what's the problem? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why it is happening; all I can report is that I, and apparently several others, got 'warnings' inappropriately - as seen on User talk:2620:0:862:1:91:198:174:67. 88.104.29.216 (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• I recall something like this happening a few days ago with different editors and it was certainly not something the editor did. AGF first. Let's look at one of the edits.[49] At Honoré Daumier it wa an IPv6 editor. [50] Judging from that page though, numerous IP editors are seeing a warning. This looks like a clear error on Wikipedia's part and not on K6ka. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • It is; it's a technical issue that's been discussed a bit on VPT already this week. Here's the thread; there might be others. It's been reported to Bugzilla, too. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, IPs are being wrongly warned. That might or might not be important, depending on ones POV. 88.104.29.216 (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Of course it's important, but I don't think it's particularly fair to be sanctioning people for a technical issue over which they have no control, and I don't think it's a good idea to tell people to stop reverting vandalism either, so IMO, we're kinda caught between a rock and a hard place. Your mileage may vary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to wait for the issue to be fixed. In the meantime, users that were incorrectly warned will just have to flood the talk pages of the editor that reverted vandalism :( K6ka (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Recreating page after MfD deletion

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

---

User:The Banner just recreated a page that was MfD deleted.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Banner/Workpage28 [51]

User:The Banner/Workpage28 [52]

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I refuse to accept gagging orders. Point. The Banner talk 21:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

In case you did not know, people are already getting paid to edit Wikipedia.. QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• It's not the same page that was discussed at the MFD, it just has the same page name. The objectionable (to the MFD) content is no longer there. It's basically now just a userspace essay. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Ah. No problem, then. You can close this as "reporter was mistaken." --Guy Macon (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

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

IP account used for nothing but vandalism

I am bringing this here, rather than AIV, because the user is currently blocked for a week. User: 98.197.200.120 is a vandalism-only account. More precisely, in the 10 months they have been posting here, their additions have consisted entirely of capital-letter nonsense rants in Spanish or Spanglish. Recent examples: [53] [54] [55] Earlier examples: [56] [57] [58] [59] Earliest examples: [60] [61] The rants appear to be about some person that the user regards as having historical or religious significance. They do not respond to warnings by either template or personal note. When blocked, they come right back and resume their posting pattern as soon as the block expires. They have NEVER made a constructive contribution to the Wiki. I don't know what can be done about this type of account, but I am bringing it here for evaluation. --MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

{{anonblock}}ed for 6 months. I kind of sort of in a way over-ruled Mark on this one, but i don't think he'll mind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response! --MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that the same user is posting the same kind of rants (minus the occasional English word that they throw in here) at the Spanish Wikipedia. [62] Is there any coordination or communication between the wikis, or should there be? --MelanieN (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

There's little formal coordination for things like this, but I'm sure they'd appreciate a heads up if you can notify them at their equivalent noticeboard. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I've done my best to leave a note at what I hope to be the correct admin noticeboard. Nyttend (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I reverted one their contribs (creation of an article talk page with nonsense) as vandalism. If you need help with the es.wiki stuff let me know. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for User:Blade-of-the-South

Blade-of-the-South (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has consistently pushed their POV on articles related to the Syrian civil war, particularly on but not limited to Ghouta chemical attack. The user has been quite explicit on their user talk page and the article talk page that he intends to continue pushing until their POV is presented as fact, and indeed appears to take pride in the fact that he is a POV warrior: [63], [64]. He also makes it clear that he intends to exhaust other editors until he can establish the POV that he views as Truth: [65], [66].

His editing history could be a checklist for WP:TE:

• One who is blocked for violating the three revert rule more than once
  • Yup, per their block log (technically, one revert rule in this case).
• One who repeats the penalised edit
  • Their very first edit after their last block for edit warring was to continue to edit war the same diff.
• One who accuses others of malice
  • Editor seems to be under the impression that anyone who disagrees with him must be on the payroll of a shadowy government association, [67], [68]. His talk page edits are rife with personal attacks and snipes, ie [69], [70], [71], [72].
• One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources
  • Good lord, about 50% of the article's talk page archives. The editor's primary criterion for evaluating sources appears to be whether they support his views.
• One who repeats the same argument without convincing people
  • [73], [74], [75]
• One who deletes the cited additions of others
  • [76], [77]

Diff of one of several attempts to address problems with the user: [78]

Diff of notification of this discussion section: [79]

It is my opinion that this editor is too emotionally attached to their personal beliefs to contribute constructively to articles related to the Syrian civil war. I am proposing that Blade-of-the-South be topic banned from all articles related to the Syrian conflict, broadly construed, for six months. VQuakr (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Just a quick observation, having perused only a few of the diffs reported here: "No one has the right to delete others stuff" blatantly contradicts Blade of the South's edit here (with no comment on whether that brief note should be in the article). But in this edit part of the information that was removed was done so correctly (Facebook stuff), though their edit summary was very faulty. But this is madness: "intel agencies" are to blame for a whitewashing on the Ghouta talk page? Besides a personal attack on the integrity and good faith of the editors active on that talk page, that's just another whacky conspiracy theory (that whole thread on the user's talk page is full of it) and in itself could be enough to disqualify the editor, since they obviously have issues that prevent them from editing neutrally. I'm leaning toward supporting a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm obviously an involved editor here who has repeatedly clashed with Blade-of-the-South (there was an incident some weeks ago that raised my suspicions enough to open an SPI, but an administrator I hold in high regard and believe to have been impartial concluded he did not intentionally break Wikipedia site rules) and who does not share Blade-of-the-South's oft-professed POV on the Syrian conflict. That being said, I've worked with editors on any number of articles during my years of editing Wikipedia with whom I haven't always seen eye-to-eye, and I have found Blade-of-the-South to be a highly tendentious and problematic "partner" on Ghouta chemical attack. His only criterion for determining what to include in the article seems to be whether it aligns with his POV. He is persistent in making unfounded and untoward accusations toward fellow editors. He openly professes his strategy is to wait other editors out so he can eventually have free rein to make conforming changes to bring the article in line with his fringe beliefs. This isn't the behavior of someone whom I believe can ever be counseled to contribute constructively on this topic. He obviously either has much stronger feelings about it than I do, or less of an ability to shelve his POV and edit from a neutral stance than most other Wikipedians with whom I've collaborated over the years. You can discount my vote as that of an involved editor if you'd like, but I reluctantly support a topic ban. That's not a decision I come to lightly, but it's well past tiresome to deal with this editor's repeated attempts to skew the article's POV and slime fellow editors on Talk. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It could just be my geographical bias, but I'm really not seeing a good reason not to just block this editor. Throwing around wild conspiracy theories and relentlessly attacking everyone in sight doesn't seem like the type of editing we need here. I see no realistic chance of improvement, and a topic ban would just be delaying the inevitable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm of two minds on that. My instinct is to say I think that would be overly harsh, as I've seen no evidence Blade-of-the-South cannot contribute constructively on other topics. But in reviewing his contribs history, he seems to almost exclusively edit Ghouta chemical attack, occasionally shopping his warped belief that "some editors" on that page are paid intelligence operatives over to the likes of Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy. I don't know if that qualifies him as a WP:SPA; a cursory look at my contribs page shows the overwhelming majority of my recent edits are to that article as well (although I helped expand Same-sex marriage in New Mexico a couple of months ago), so I don't want to paint with an overly broad brush -- glass houses and all. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked Blade of the South twice pursuant to the general sanctions. My concern is he doesn't seem to learn. His reactions to the blocks while blocked are refreshingly civil, and you infer from his comments that he knows what he did wrong and won't do it again, but then he does. I'm not going to dredge up the diff, but my recollection after the second block is he fairly quickly went back to the article and restored his version. I didn't notice it right away, and perhaps over generously, I did not block him again, even though the revert merited a longer block. I suspect that his apparent inability to change his behavior is not because he doesn't get it but because his biases outweigh his intellectual grasp of policy. The Intel conspiracy issue truly bothers me as well. I would support a topic ban although I would add talk pages to the language. The Blade of the Northern Lights's feeling that he be blocked is not warranted at this point, in my view, although the probable effect of a topic ban for Blade of the South would be a block (too many blades here, I gotta be careful) as he doesn't edit much outside the topic area. Plus, any sanction should be tailored to preventing future misconduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23: personally, I did not find either of these edits while blocked to be particularly apologetic. VQuakr (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

First, I never said he was "apologetic". Second, those comments were directed at you; I don't think you're one of his favorite people. I was referring to his comments posted, as I recall, after my block notices.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and clarification. I was not attempting to mischaracterize your post, sorry about that. VQuakr (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It would take a lot of checking to find what I refer to. Who has the time? However I offer a view. What has propmted this activity here by the editing duo VQuakr and Kudzu1 is my success in bypassing their edit monopoly recently. I did this here [80] and here [81] I changed tactic, by using the rules. I have played legit the last two weeks by learning the processes, despite the taunts (as some editors have a proclivity toward taking something like this and running as far as they can with it to the point of breaking WP:NPOV. Kudzu1) and sarcasm (Wait, so let me get this straight. U.S. government agency says the Syrian government almost definitely gassed civilians in Ghouta, which is pure lies and propaganda. But other U.S. government agency says the weather in Syria was a certain thing at a certain time, which is irrefutable and undeniable fact. Got it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)0

They did not like this, and are playing the previous cards where I just took them on and got banned etc. Why, because I learnt how to get neutral editors involved. There has also been a run of discouraged editiors who identified the US POV and tried to fix it, these two VQ and K have chased them away including. [82] [83] It would take a sustained effort to research and see this pattern of editing to retain the US version of the Syrian Gas attack. They would not like this conversation either. [84]

VQ is a passive aggresssive. This is his style left on my talk page. ‘There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved’. And he is not a favourite of mine. Hes disengenuos with WP IMHO. Hes Non NPOV. To give him his credit VQ knows the system. But he plays it to get the pro US POV in the article relentlessly. Hes playing it now. I will call it as I see it. IMHO they are both paid advocates who play the WP System because its their job. It makes no difference if Im topic banned or worse. Its a minor inconvenience. YOU remain with an article thats biased and the probably never to be resolved issue of paid editors who taint WP. Blade-of-the-South talk 03:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

VQ may or may not be "passive-aggresive", I have no idea, but the text you quoted is not evidence of anything, since it's the language of the standard notification template ANI-notice which editors are suggested to use when notifying other editors that an AN/I thread has been opened. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

A few things here.

1) I had literally no involvement in proposing this topic ban. The first I heard of it was when I was checking User talk:Blade-of-the-South this afternoon (FYI, Blade-of-the-South, something I do semi-regularly with editors who contribute to pages with which I'm involved, as a means of making sure I'm not missing any conversations happening off article Talk, such as your fascinating dialogue with a new editor you appeared to encourage to edit-war -- glad he didn't take your advice -- a couple of days ago on Talk:Ghouta chemical attack).

2) Following onto that, for all your repeated insinuations that VQuakr and/or I am working on behalf of some sort of intelligence operation, you have yet to come anywhere close to the neighborhood of offering evidence to support your outlandish (and insulting) claim. I am not a government employee or contractor of any type, I have next to no personal stake in Syria or the broader region, and although VQuakr and I apparently do live within the same metropolitan area of 2.64 million people, as far as I know, we've never even met.

3) I would apologize for the "taunts" and sarcasm, but the "taunt" was not any such thing -- I think it's perfectly reasonable to request that a potentially controversial change be workshopped somewhat before being boldly inserted, and I think some involved editors, including Blade-of-the-South, have misconstrued statements by other editors as the go-ahead to make objectionable additions and removals or word things in an unencyclopedic way. I myself have been rapped at times by editors who object to bold changes I've made, per the bold-revert-discuss process, which I believe is valuable and which I've done my level best to respect. And as for the sarcasm, sure, my tone was probably unhelpful, as another editor pointed out. But it seems like you're trying to pretend that you've been keeping your head down and I've been beating up on you for no apparent reason, and that's downright laughable -- considering the absurd accusations and personal attacks you've made that VQuakr documented in his initial post.

4) As far as I'm concerned, Swawa and any other editor is free to raise points and contribute constructively anywhere on Wikipedia. My response to his effort to introduce claims from his self-published blog and promote that website under the eponymous handle User:Whoghouta was admittedly short, while VQuakr did take a tougher tack by first hatting and then removing the thread -- and was backed up by Orangemike, an uninvolved administrator. This isn't about Swawa, who has accepted administrators' recommendation to create a new account and back off promotion of his blog, and I don't feel I've done anything to "chase off" Swawa at all.

5) I've seen the "intel agencies" conversation to which you're referring. Congratulations -- you have found a couple of other like-minded individuals on Wikipedia. Do I think it's unreasonable to think that some Wikipedia editors may be employees of intelligence services of one country or another? No, I don't. But what is both unreasonable and uncivil is to repeatedly suggest that the only reason you aren't able to run roughshod inserting your own POV on an article like Ghouta chemical attack is that your fellow editors are spooks being paid to stymie you.

6) I have to applaud you on finally coming out and saying outright, rather than just insinuating it, that you think VQuakr (for whom I can't speak, but whom I do believe is a responsible and generally even-handed editor, even though I don't always agree with his edits or comments) and I are "paid advocates". I was getting really sick of you beating around the bush, and it's nice to see you've finally mustered the courage to lay your bad-faith conspiracy theory out there in plain wording.

I don't have too much else to say, other than that I sort of do wonder about that SPI sometimes, considering the lengths this tendentious editors has gone to since then in order to smear opposing editors and sidestep Wikipedia policy and guidelines in order to advance his POV by any means necessary. But what's done is done.

I will say Blade-of-the-South's utterly graceless response to this proposal, including his slam on VQuakr for using what appears to be a generic and inoffensive template text to inform him of the discussion, has hardened my belief and reduced my reluctance to support this suggested topic ban. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC) -- updated 05:06 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Kudzu1 re point 1. Hardly encouraging a war. Read what I replied to. People are aware you are a tandem outfit and political. Point 2. Its hard to prove. You havn't denied it yet. At best you are true believers in the American view. Either way you are biased to a high degree . Point 3. You are aggressive. I dont mind that in a person who is honest about it, Im ex military and its a good quality at times, but you lack insight and it just comes across as nasty. Point 4. You play the system, read his parting note. He knew that. You and VQ discourage WP as it should be. Its effective I'll give you that. Someone posts, bam your on it. Like your working. Its very naive to think WP is not on the intel radar. But most people dont want to know. Hell after Snowden, youd have to be in a hole to not know all data is intercepted. WP is certainly a high search engine asset not to be left to chance. If your just doing your job, congratulations, youre doing it well. The article is still US POV. But like Iraq it will fall apart in time. Point 5. You know my so called POV is called the other perspective. While I say both views should be in you try hard to exclude Russias view. Thats POV. You know that. Next. Point 6. I dont care what you think because you edit by agenda. And thats why I dont trust you. Accounts are easy to come by, morals far more so. I know I am open to both sides of this story to be included. Like the Iraq WMD fiasco, your Pro USA POV will unravel. I'll see you on the page then. Adios. Blade-of-the-South talk 06:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely, repeatedly, and categorically denied it. What's more, I find it utterly insulting you expect that I should have to respond to such malicious nonsense. And as for me trying to exclude Russia and "edit by agenda", hmm, let's find some examples. You mean like this? Or this? Maybe it was this? I suppose it could have been this? And I see you're closing out your post with yet another ominous prediction about how this will turn out like Iraq and a promise to hold out with your POV until then. Lovely. All right, well, I've said my piece and I should probably leave this for uninvolved editors and administrators to decide -- I just wanted to give my perspective on how Blade-of-the-South has been, IMO, a disingenuous, tendentious, and stubbornly unconstructive editor in my months of experience with him. Obviously, he is more than welcome to think whatever he thinks about me, and I don't expect to lose much sleep over it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice try Kudzu1> There is no doubt in the minds of many WP is an intel target. [85] [86]. [87] Ghouta is especially relevant. Of the editors, all of them, who is likely. You two only. I dont care about the account. But this sort of thing is why WP fails in some respects. Blade-of-the-South talk 06:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't much care about your view that that "WP is an intel target". Editors, both named and anonymous, create all sorts of problems at Wikipedia because of their biases and their conflicts of interest. The one example you cite above is just that, one example, in this instance of an edit from the U.S. Senate that made one inappropriate edit to the Snowden article that was quickly reverted. It's not that different from an IP editing from a corporation or a political campaign or anything else and trying to denigrate or promote something in an article. Making a generalized statement, though, about biased edits is quite different from accusing specific editors of having a nefarious agenda. You don't back that up. All you've shown is that your views on the topic area differ from theirs. If that was the only criterion for determining underhanded shennanigans, almost every editor, including you, in these controversial topic areas would fit into your paradigm. What your attitude here confirms - and this is generally the case that editors make things worse in their comments at ANI - is that you deserve to be topic-banned because you can't edit neutrally and because when some editors disagree with you, you sling accusations of conspiracy and what-not to impugn their motives and their edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course Im aware commenting here highlights my views, that's why I did it. WP relies on communal trust, as we all do even walking down the St. There is trust VQ is not a sock puppet of Kudzu1 or vice versa. They could be one person. They come from the same area. They edit in tandem. They tag team. How can you know? You cant if its done well i.e set persona's. No problem for an agent trained well. That's how the trust can be abused on WP. Most people have no idea how things are really done, Snowden has opened a window. You admins are just like putty in a system (WP) with good ideals but built like a sieve. I can come back tomorrow Dynamic IP, Tor, different PC, dif Nic. Your being played and there's nothing you can do about it, you dont have the tools or policy, know where to start or even the will. You are a microcosm of the USA, debt to your eyeballs, shot full of holes and failures like Obamacare. Still hoping in the face of a slow collapse Blade-of-the-South talk 01:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

After the above screeds, I'm still more convinced that just blocking and being done with it is the best way to resolve this. You've done exactly nothing above to show that you have any potential of being a useful editor. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You are entitled to your view. My purpose above was to show you how flawed WP is when up against the determined cheat. Thats useful. Blade-of-the-South talk 04:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• I just blocked the Southern Blade for 31 hours for harassment/personal attack: "Update. Im a target of intel boys" with a link to this discussion is a personal attack on the integrity of all the boys and girls participating in this thread. (It's canvassing and all that too, but never mind.) In my opinion, those kinds of comments are unacceptable since they go to the core of AGF. Whatever else should be done with this editors I leave to the other intel boys. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe he has invited you to "bite" him, Drmies. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, he thinks this matters, that he's actually accomplishing something by exposing blah blah blah. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Support skipping directly to the indef block per wp:nothere or wp:notherapy or wp:cir or wp:de; you just know that's how this going to turn out. NE Ent 15:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

After subsequent comments by Blade-of-the-South, or as The Blade of the Northern Lights aptly calls them "screeds", I now lean in favor of an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Since VQuakr and I are apparently the same paid intelligence agent, does it count as two votes if I say I think it's appropriate to skip straight to the indef? :P -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• After several rants on his talk page, his latest is: "Im done here. Im deleting this password user on my PC. Im banning WP as a waste of time in your current mode. I feel sorry for you guys." I'm not fond of retirement announcements that later turn out to be fake. I'm inclined to indef the user without a consensus for doing so. Strictly speaking, a block doesn't require consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Two is a consensus, right? Drmies (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Unretirement is a mostly harmless wiki tradition, that's not really the issue here. NE Ent 02:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Heh, I count more than two. It's just two lately. He's now talking about socking (he's alluded to that before), although it makes no sense because on the one hand he says he wants to ban WP from his world, but then he says he already has another account he's going to use. I thought of talk page revocation, but ... Oh, yeah, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Might be worth keeping an eye on User:Valkyrie 06, the account Blade-of-the-South appeared to use either as a sock or meatpuppet to harass me and chide Bbb23 a couple months ago -- but I think it's likelier Blade-of-the-South will reemerge under a different user handle entirely. Hopefully it will take less time to sniff him out than it did with some of the other socks I've had to deal with (DanielUmel, a particularly prolific ChronicalUsual sock, comes to mind). -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

No need to keep an eye on that anymore; good call. I actually ran into that editor's work a few days ago, by chance. Blocked indefinitely--not as meat, but as a straight-up sock. It's possible, of course, that Blade is indeed married, but the linguistics tell me that this is not a case of meat. Now, go ahead and start that SPI if you like, for future reference, and request CU to create a record. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The SPI is located at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blade-of-the-South/Archive. I actually opened it up some time ago, and Bbb23 decided to let Blade-of-the-South off with a warning at the time after Hoverfish, a third-party editor who indicated some knowledge of Blade-of-the-South's personal life, stopped by to vouch for him. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Reaper Eternal and Drmies have rooted out a handful of BotS socks. They've been tagged and BotS is now marked as a sockpuppeteer, which will hopefully help out if this weirdo comes back to make mischief in the future. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Reporting disruptive SPA

Rupintojas (talk · contribs) seems to have only one agenda: slow-warring on nationality issues at Ignacy Domeyko. I think a warning may be advisable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

So give him a warning ... yours holds the same power as anyone else's ES&L 11:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Might also be a WP:ARBEURO discretionary sanction situation. I mean, it looks like the specific issue on Ignacy Domeyko has been going on since at least 2005, with various editors calling him Polish, Lithuanian, or Belorussian. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I've given him the sanctions warning and added one at Talk:Ignacy Domeyko. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• This may make me sound like a bit of an ass, but I clicked on a random link from that ARBEURO matter and noticed that the editor known as Galassi was sanctioned for Ukraine and Cossacks. Now unless the definition of Pogrom is suddenly NOT highly relevant to both of those, isn't this edit a violation of the sanctions?[88] Several others also jump out at me in the recent contribution list. Do these things expire or is the "indefinite" clause right because at first glance it looks like they mean nothing. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• I was thinking of WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions, but perhaps they have been superseded; I've been happily out of the loop on those issues for few years now :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a redirect now to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. Dougweller (talk) 06:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Editor that seems to have some issues.

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

---

I am sure most of you have WP:DRV on their watchlists, but this seems to require some thoughtful intervention quickly. --cyclopia^speak! 14:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The relevant AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mihovil Lovrić, wherein the editor in question characterized one of comments asking for administrator action on the debate as "...the usual modus operandi of the State Security Service", as per this diff. Do we delete the DRV outright or just close it out? Regardless, User:Neven Lovrić likely needs a topic ban (at minimum), as this has gone a bit too far for my taste. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

From the DRV wording I think the editor has some, ehm, let's just say health issues to solve. I don't know what is the procedure in these cases but I guess something has to be done. --cyclopia^speak! 15:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the personality of the DRV filer, what about his argument? Was this AfD closed prematurely? I'm not a regular there so I would assume that a case would be open for 7 days, not a matter of a few hours unless there was an overwhelming majority of votes to Keep oder Löschen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the BLP concern alone is a fair criticism of the article (as it accuses others of murder without references, and accuses the subject's (presumably living) son of brutal and intimidating attacks on his own family). The article is also autobiographical (An entire paragraph about the subject's grandson, whose name matches this editor and who the editor admits to being), Non-neutral (laments the injustice, etc), and bourne of the author's Conflict of Interest. I don't think re-opening the debate would be helpful in crafting a neutral reference-based article on this subject. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I've pinged the deleting admin about this thread. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Liz, you're not a regular at DR, fine, neither am I--but did you even take the time to read the AfD? "Serious BLP violation"? You could have a little faith in the participants and the closing admins, that there was something going on that warranted speedy deletion. In fact, you could take their word over that of someone who makes a bunch of conspiracy claims. As for the article--I can't even cite one of the sentences from the lead since it is so incredibly blatantly a violation, and you'll just have to accept that the sourcing was beyond terrible (I just looked at it: it's atrocious). The article should have been done away with much sooner than it was. Asking for it to be moved to user space (as you did in DR) shows a lack of understanding of our BLP policy oder a lack of faith in the administrators and editors involved in the initial AfD discussion and in the DR. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, I am such not a regular that I couldn't find the deletion discussion! Do you have a link? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I don't think it is fair to say I have no faith in the participants and the closing Admin. Part of a deletion review, as I understand it, is to ask the very questions I was asking. I have no personal opinion about this article since it is deleted and I can't even read it myself. L.

The link is in the second paragraph of this thread. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mihovil Lovrić but the page was blanked. Didn't think about checking the Edit History until now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• I see that the creator has been blocked per WP:NOTHERE: thank you Spartaz, you saved me from having to propose it here. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I would have blocked him myself... but obviously since I'm part of a covert apparatus of the State Security Service working inside the USAF directing illegal arrests in foreign countries (and more importantly: tire puncturing) I had to make it look like I wasn't actively silencing his dissent. (On a serious note, can an uninvolved admin go ahead and close this discussion as the referenced user has been indef blocked.) — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 17:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Obviously so, Coffee. Your very user name proves it. Maybe it's time for you to pick up a copy of A Tomb for Boris Davidovich (shameless plug: it's fantastic) to see what might be in store for you if you fall out of grace with your employer(s). Drmies (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

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

User with persistent copyright infringement uploads

BGCTwinsEdit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has consistently been uploading images that constitute blatant copyright infringement. This user just received their 9th template warning on their talk page, and has been told specifically what they were doing wrong three times. I asked them to stop a month ago, they left a message on my talk page saying "I very well understand the image issues as it was my first time & I made mistakes" which led me to believe they understood the issue and were going to improve.[89] Despite this the bad image uploads have continued, and probably will continue until some sort of action is taken. I brought this issue here a few weeks ago but received no response.LM2000 (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I did receive a bad image warning however due to the fair use copyright disclaimer under section 107 of the copyright act of 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, & research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statue that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational, or personal usetips the balance in favor of fair use. So as long as I, the uploader, has no intentions of making a profit from the images then by law the images are allowed to be placed on wikipedia. You would have known that if you bothered to read the file description page & the file discussion page where I explained the exact same thing to the person who most recently gave me the image warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BGCTwinsEdit (talk • contribs) 23:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows a much more stringent interpretation of "fair use" than the one you are trying to use, BGC. None of our exceptions to copyright apply to an ordinary shot such as the one I just deleted, of a living person for whom a non-copyrighted picture could be obtained. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Waiting to see if BGCTwinsEdit understands and accepts this - if not a block is needed. Dougweller (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Re-reporting user: Handyunits

Hello! The editor is continuously reverting edits and putting original research to {{Islamism in South Asia}} without providing any reliable references in support of such edits not even leaving any notes in the template's talk page. The user was previously reported here. The list of events added by this editor have not a single reliable source that proves those events as a part of Islamic politics in South Asia. I'm seeking Administrator's attention for this edit war. Regards,--Benfold (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I just left User:Handyunits a pretty direct message to not readd those events, but to participate in discussion at the template talk page. Looking at the history of Template talk:Islamism in South Asia, Benfold has participated there, but Handyunits has not. If Handyunits disregards my suggestion, a block for edit warring is absolutely in order. —C.Fred (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your involvement to resolve the issue. Hopefully, the editor will discuss in the template talk page rather than continuous reverting.--Benfold (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice: RfC regarding the anime and manga dispute has been started

Previous AN/I threads have focused on a dispute surrounding coverage of anime and manga articles, often focusing on the conduct between Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri. The most recent AN/I thread was resolved in favor of holding a binding RfC on the content issue, with he hopes that that would allow the conduct issue to resolve itself.

The RfC is now online, and can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/franchise coverage RfC.

Uninvolved parties are encouraged to come to the page and voice their opinions. This is an issue that several members of the Anime and Manga WikiProject have been heated about, so it is also going to be good to have neutral parties watching the conversation to make sure that it stays on topic and does not dissolve into bickering about past user conduct.

Yours, Sven Manguard Wha? 20:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Short-sighted, dickish behaviour, not assuming good faith, yadda yadda yadda

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

---

Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) reverts me twice without reason (and twice by other users), claiming that I have to open a discussion on the talk page before making an edit, despite me providing twice clear rationale in edit summaries. Has provided no explanation for reverting my edits, and now is trying to get me blocked. What do? 124.169.113.132 (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Start by apologizing to Malik. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

For? 124.169.113.132 (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It's standard practice to discuss significant edits on controversial topics on the article Talk page first. Malik was encouraging you to enter into the bold-revert-discuss process, which isn't terribly arduous and which is entirely his prerogative as a fellow editor to request/require. It's certainly unfair of you to characterize his behavior as "dickish". I think you should engage with Malik on Talk, and if you are still at loggerheads after a thorough discussion of the issues, or if the dialogue disintegrates into personal attacks, it might then be appropriate to bring your disagreement to administrators for mediation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a statistical correlation between the number of unnecessary capital letters in an edit summary and the dickishness of the edit summary. 124.169.113.132 (talk) 05:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that, generally speaking, but WP:CIVIL asks that we try to avoid escalating conflicts like this, and using the term "dickishness" seems really unnecessary. I know from experience that editing Wikipedia can be deeply frustrating and that certain people in every topic area can be difficult to deal with, but I definitely think there's a way to avoid some hurt feelings on this with a bit more care. And reading Malik's edit descriptions, I don't think he was being overly rude. Exasperated, maybe, since by the time he stepped in, you were being rather stubborn in continuing to push your desired changes despite reverts by other editors -- but not unduly hostile. (By the way, in case you were unaware, Malik Shabazz is a Wikipedia administrator. Tread lightly.) -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm also rather annoyed, because Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk · contribs) decided yesterday to go through and revert each of my edits without explanation or dialogue, which was absolutely ridiculous and I have no idea why he chose to do so. When I posted on his talkpage here, he called me a "BIG BUNNY" [?] and deleted it without responding. 124.169.113.132 (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

...Not sure what to make of Mr. Griffith-Jones' behavior, but I think that should be counted as separate from Malik Shabazz's actions. It looks like Griffith-Jones has a pattern of revert behavior, and while he has stewardship of his own Talk page, if you feel he's trying to marginalize you or prevent you from contributing constructively, you should bring that up through a separate process. But just hitting out at anyone who objects to edits you make and wants to discuss will weaken your case, IMO. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It's tangential to the discussion, given that Griffith-Jones' initial reversion (without rationale) has apparently given all other editors an open slate for reverting. The fact is, I made an edit, with an edit summary, and have since been reverted five times without any criticism of the edit itself. The talk page is wide open to Joe, Malik, and Gareth, if they would care to participate. 124.169.113.132 (talk) 05:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you've taken your suggestions to the Talk page, although I would strongly suggest moderating your tone. I know it's frustrating to make changes and have them reverted, especially for what you see as flimsy reasons, but people will react poorly to assumptions of bad faith. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this IP may be a sock of Karmaisking and have posted to SPI.[90] There is also an open 3RR complaint against them. Given their brief period of participation here, where they have been abrasive and edit-warred, it would probably make sense to block them. TFD (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• The real mystery here is why Malik, after all those years here, is still such a nice guy that he didn't block the IP after he had reverted (righteously) and warned them. IP, there is no "trying to get me blocked" here: if Malik wanted to get you blocked he could have simply blocked you. There's not much point in blocking after the fact, but let the record reflect that the IP was in fact guilty of edit warring. Let it reflect also, then, that this entire thread is specious (Garreth's edits have nothing to do with Malik's) and that we should perhaps wait for the SPI, unless more disruption is forthcoming from the IP. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by User talk:74.196.111.68

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

---

Resolved

 - by blocking 74.196.111.68. Materialscientist (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

74.196.111.68 (talk · contribs) is adding unsourced, possibly libelous content to Nancy Grace. After two reverts, the IP left on their talk page the following: If you block me for stating such; you will be subpoenaed for obstruction. 1 2 3 As well as the next comment below this entry. Jim1138 (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

And, you will be. You are making claims that are false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.111.68 (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:BLP and WP:NLT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Special:Contributions/Banaster_Giver_Extra_Polite

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

---

Some of the spelling involved is causing me considerable concern --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

People's opinion about this? --Glaisher [talk] 12:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Why am I being attacked for rewarding some of the most active contributors on Wikipedia (or ones that made a significant difference on Wikipedia). I am a reader (I like up to date content) and I don't want active people leaving because of the lack of encouragement.Banaster Giver Extra Polite (talk) 12:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I have never attacked you. Discussion at my tp: User_talk:Glaisher#precisely_when_did_I_vandalize --Glaisher [talk] 12:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

You accused my of 'vandalism' and stuck a harsh warning on my tp. Maybe on Mars encouragement is considered vandalism.Banaster Giver Extra Polite (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems vague and with little point, but it's not harmful. IDONTLIKEIT and IWOULDNTDOTHAT aren't good reasons to act against it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

He means well, and is showing his appreciation, but I agree doing it on mass isn't the way to do it. I don't think there's a need for a discussion here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

So you are trying to say: Please don't encourage our most active Wikipedians so that there is an extra chance they may leave and our content will be just that little more out of date.Banaster Giver Extra Polite (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I see it more as, "Devaluing barnstars by handing them out widely and randomly". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see any policies limiting the amount of banisters you can give per day.Banaster Giver Extra Polite (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with such acts -- I have seen literally hundreds of barnstars given out by some editors, and almost none by some others (including myself). I suspect this person has been on Wikipedia in the past, and I daresay finding this sort of behaviour to be "actionable" is a waste of time. We should discussion important stuff, and this particular case is not only not important, it verges on Monty Python in nature. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see this as actionable ...although I have reminded BGEP that this isn't a social networking site. I would also state that being a receiver of 1 of a hundred bulk-barnstars kinda lessens the meaning of the barnstar itself - I don't feel so special anymore :-( ES&L 12:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Indeed, WP:BARN states "If you are sure the barnstar is appropriate, don't be shy!" (emphasis original). Given that BGEP didn't edit the Glaisher's page prior to G's intervention, it's unclear why they care. It certainly is not vandalism -- on wiki we reserve that term for messing with mainspace articles (you know, the important stuff). I highly recommend just ignoring BGEP; if they post an unwanted barnstar on an editor's page they can just revert it. NE Ent 12:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suspect most editors won't go about my contrib history (not that there is any harm in doing so) and won't discover they received one in a hundred bulk barnster. So they will still feel proud and special.Banaster Giver Extra Polite (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is one of the most incomprehensible things I have seen in WP. It´s not the number of awards the issue. It's more that they were awarded to 3 users (Cyclopia, Direktor and I) for conducting a DR that it's imho not an example to follow. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I did look at your contributions, and like ESL I no longer feel very special. Snif. Gaishers only warning is, well, a bit ridiculous. I'm going to give ESL a barnstar in hopes of restoring some of his self-esteem. Funny thing is that I got my barnstar right after I read someone the riot act, and I wondered for a second if there was a connection. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I have given User:Glaisher the appropriate user warning template. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Aww, I didn't get recognized. Also, barnstars in theory promote more edits and involvement in the area as a form of recognition. I get a lot of thanks for my edits, I wonder how I can see how many times I've been "thanked", but spreading good will and merriment is part of the upcoming season right? Jolly ho ho ho! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

How come this user has more than a reasonable standard of English, yet not once has he spelled "barnstar" correctly? The range of misspellings is quite something, and makes me wonder. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Try telling google chrome that, it thinks "barnstar" is an incorrect spelling (is it even a proper word from a general dictionary?). But, on a more serious note, find one research surveys that says "encouragement and rewards decrease future participation in a project" and I will stop giving barnstars immediately.Banaster Giver Extra Polite (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you know that the word "gullible" is not found in any spell checker or online dictionary? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

On the surface there's nothing wrong with this, but something doesn't seem right with this account. --Rschen7754 16:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TechnicalEngineerA3. --Rschen7754 16:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

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

User:ProudIrishAspie and Infobox flags

I don't like having to come to this board for any reason, but due to the continued actions of the user listed above, I find myself with no other options. For several months, I've noticed that User:ProudIrishAspie has gone on long tears of adding flags to military history info boxes - generally for biographies, ships, and battles. The problems are that a) I don't think WP:INFOBOXFLAG supports such wholesale use of flags, but more importantly, it doesn't support the use of ahistorical and fantastical flags. For instance, this user has added the Gadsden flag to numerous articles as the flag of the Continental Army; this flag simply was never used in any such capacity. See an example of this here. In another set of instances, s/he has added a template with the Red Ensign to symbolize the Royal Navy during the American Revolutionary War; this is also incorrect, as the Royal Navy was also represented by a White Ensign and a Blue Ensign, and there is no consensus that the Red version ought to represent the Royal Navy as a whole. See an example of this here. Not all of PIA's flag additions are inaccurate, but enough are that a whole lot of reverting will need to take place. Even if accurate, as I expressed on his/her talk, I don't believe they add any more information other than what the words say.

• A look at his/her recent contributions will show you the extent of this user's single-mindedness. I would guesstimate that the user has made over 1,500 infobox flag edits since October 1; in my opinion (based on my knowledge and frequent work in and around American Revolutionary War issues), nearly all of his contributions to 18th century military history articles will be inaccurate. Even if not, he's cluttering up thousands of info boxes.
• I attempted to converse with the user three times, once in May, here, and twice more in the past week, here and here.
• This user has previously been blocked at least once because of this same issue this year; that discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive797#ProudIrishAspie.
• I understand the user has self-identified as being a person with Aspergers Syndrome; while I would in no way ever denigrate or "pick on" another user because of his disability, I do not believe a disability should allow a user to continue to edit disruptively - and to avoid talking about it. If he thought I was wrong, all he'd have to do is answer my multiple comments.

I am willing to answer any questions or concerns, particularly about the subject matter, which I know is unfamiliar to many. Cdtew (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Notice left on the user's talk here. Cdtew (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Cdtew, I was involved in the discussion last time that led to the block, which I fully supported. I have a few questions for you and for the general audience: 1. WP:INFOBOXFLAG seems to support no flags at all in infoboxes in biographies, except for sportspeople in very specific contexts. I know it's customary to have them in military people's infoboxes, but I don't even see that supported. Did I misread? What does MILHIST have to say? 2. Can you identify (for the non-specialist) incorrect flags after your second recent note? 3. Do you (and others) think that the ratio of incorrect vs. correct is high enough to warrant mass rollback? It's a drastic step, but it may be legitimate if there's simply too many incorrect flags.

  I'm going to leave another note for them, a kind of cease and desist note, though I don't anticipate any answer--this is one of the things that make working with the editor so impossible. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm struggling to remember the last time I even participated in a thread at ANI but I think it's worth doing so here... I agree that INFOBOXFLAG appears to support not using flags in infoboxes as a general rule. I don't know if this was always the case. When I started editing military articles (primarily biographies) in around 2007, infoboxes always used little flags for nationality/allegiance and service, so I followed suit. Sometime in the past year my attention was drawn to the guideline and I stopped using infobox flags in my new articles and removed them from existing articles that I was improving. The world did not end; several other MilHist editors have adopted a similar practice. I don't think the issue is necessarily bad enough to systematically remove all flags in all articles, but I'd strongly discourage systematically adding flags (whether they're 'correct' or not) to articles -- it's imagecruft at best, misleading at worst, and is one of those WP behaviours that strikes me as plain obsessive. I'd have no issue with a mass rollback in this particular case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you Ian, for that useful narrative. (I always like stories.) I'm hoping for a bit more input from your fellow editors there. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
      • The issue of flags in infoboxes in ship articles was recently discussed at WT:SHIPS and it was consensus that for them it was appropriate due to flag variations, ensigns, etc. I think it was discussed awhile back at MILHIST that flags for battles and such in infoboxes were not, but I'm drawing a blank on finding it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
        • @Drmies: I think you have most of an answer for (1) - I'm with Ian, but my position is that because a nation/kingdom's name is generally found in the "allegiance" and "service" fields, the flag adds no additional information, and serves to disproportionately emphasize the importance of those sections, which is contrary to INFOBOXFLAG. As for (2), here are some examples of edits that came after my recent warnings:
          1. Theophile Aube - This edit ignores the actual article, inserting the Kingdom of France's flag and the white French Navy flag for an admiral who served only under the Tricolour; PIA relied solely on the apparently incorrect dates in the infobox to add the wrong flag; this is emblematic of this editor's modus operandi: in previous discussions, he's stated that he makes these edits quickly, and acknowledges this leads to mistakes.
          2. Armand Blanquet du Chayla - Here, the editor removed the tricolor and replaced it with the Kingdom of France flag and the French royal naval ensign; this ignores the fact that the article expressly mentions du Chayla's service in the post-revolutionary navy, thus under the tricolor.
          3. Frank Matteson Bostwick - This is another systemic issue; throughout an untold number of articles, the editor has placed the Flag of the United States Navy (which was adopted in 1959) in infoboxes of people who died before 1959. This is ahistorical and should be rolled back.
          4. Samuel Hood - Here's one showing the Royal Navy flag issue.
          5. George Little - Another U.S. Navy flag issue, but this also includes a US flag issue; the reason flags are so messy for this period are that there were multiple U.S. flags between 1775-1800. So, this subject served in the American revolution under the 13-star flag, but also served in the U.S. navy under the 15-star flag (adopted in 1795); PIA has only chosen to put one, which is misleading. Multiple flags, though, will be too much.
          6. Francis Nash - This one is what initially caught my attention; note this was before my warnings. In this one, a U.S. flag issue appears (Nash would have in theory served under the Grand Union Flag of 1775-6, and the 13-star flag of 1777). Most importantly, though, this is an appearance of the Gadsden flag issue, which is now in a multitude of articles about Continental Army soldiers.
        • That's just some, for now. Admittedly, the last one came before my warning, but I wanted to explain to be clear. Cdtew (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Warning given: I will block if there's any more flag edits pending this discussion. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
• Such edits were indeed made since the warning was given: here, for instance. That warrants a block, unfortunately. In addition, there is enough doubt here about the editor's competence that I believe mass rollback is warranted, as painful as it is: this probably undoes a large number of valid edits, but taking samples from the last 500 edits confirms that many of these edits are problematic, especially since none of them come with any kind of explanation. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Instead of an outright block, is there a way to topic ban the user from the narrow point of adding flags, rank insignia, or other images and icons to the infoboxes of military history biographies? Cdtew (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Sure--the moment they start talking. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, we can open a discussion and even enact it without their discussion input - which appears to be necessary ES&L 15:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I happened to see this section heading pop on my watchlist, and bells went off. I can't put my finger on anything specific, but this first edit to the user page stands out. SandyGeorgien (Talk) 15:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

[Comment redacted by author]

Oh my. SandyGeorgien (Talk) 16:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've seen equipment - ships mostly, but occasionally other military vehicles if there has been a long enough history of said vehicles being in operation - use flags to denote operators or allegiances, but in most cases save for specific ships the use of flags in such an article is limited to a section on foreign use and is not in the infobox. In most cases battle or war articles will use flags to denote the allegiance of the military commander in the battle or the faction that fights the battle in the infobox, but again this is only done in a limited capacity, particularly since we get anal about citations and verifiability at MILHIST for articles on such material. Personally I think it a bad idea since most of the flags used have long since fallen out of use by a nation and the addition of flags to infoboxes A) unnecessarily increases the size of an infobox, B) can be said to violate POV by assigning a specific nation or allegiance to the subject of the infobox, and C) adds nothing to the infobox that could not be expanded upon in better, more accurate, and well cited way within the article body itself. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• @TomStar81: Tom, I agree that there are instances where it appears flag use has become acceptable. I personally don't use flags in biography infoboxes, as I think the flag places undue emphasis on allegiance/branch of service. For instance, I think we can all agree that Elvis Presley shouldn't have a portion of his infobox with flags for allegiance and branch of service, as those were minor factors in his life. My main problem with the flags that PIA is putting in infoboxes is that many of them are erroneous. In the 18th century, flags (aside from naval ensigns and those flown from fortifications) didn't have much consistency or official backing.

To further confuse issues, there are a ton of flags that were adopted in the 19th/20th centuries that people want to impose on 18th century conflicts and figures. Look at the Seven Years' War article as an example, where the infobox will occasionally be littered by things like the Iroquois flag (a 20th century creation), the Russian flag {not made official until the 19th century), or variations of the Austrian/Holy Roman Empire/Austro-Hungarian flag (all either 19th century creations or representative of something larger than "Austria"). Or, on the other hand, look at problems with Civil War articles like 7th Arkansas Field Battery, where, despite constant warning, another editor continues to create articles on Arkansas confederate units featuring the Arkansas flag (for the record: not even thought of in concept until 1912).

So, in short, there's a huge issue with Wikipedia's credibility at stake because of something as silly as flag icons, and users like ProudIrishAspie, who appears to be a single-issue (or dual-issue, along with the subject of mass killings) editor undermining that credibility. That being said, Proud made a note on his talk page here, calling Drmies a prick and asking why he'd been blocked. Drmies and I both responded here asking for him to please talk with us, but since then Proud has not attempted further contact. I'm not an admin, but I would ask for a narrow topic ban now that Proud's edits have been rolled back. Cdtew (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• I just removed the flag at 7th Arkansas Field Battery; as I said in my edit summary, today's Arkansas is not that of 1865--at least I hope not. "Prick"--ah well, I've been called worse, and since I blocked the editors and rolled back a bunch of their edits a bit of anger is understandable. Mind you, I did not roll back all their edits: it's like drowning puppies, it gets to one after a while. (And it seems that mass rollback only rolls back one screen--I went 50 edits per screen to try and prevent my browser from crashing with 100 windows open.) A topic ban is fine with me, as I said before, but the unblocking will have to come after an unblock request--or perhaps someone can volunteer as a kind of mentor, at least initially. But since the editor doesn't wish to communicate there's little to go on right now. Please note that I derive no pleasure from rolling back good-faith though erroneous edits, or from imposing this indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've restored this from the archive, because this still needs formal action. Please, anyone else, have a comment. Cdtew (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• The editor is blocked; that's formal action. I assume you want this possible topic ban discussed? If so, expand below. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for ProudIrishAspie

(Non-Admin proposal here) I'll propose that ProudIrishAspie be topic-banned from adding flags, icons, rank insignia, and other images to military biography infoboxes indefinitely. Cdtew (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support. To prevent trouble for us and for them. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• Kommentar please read WP:AUTISM if you have not already. Action is required and I support it, but please implement it in such a manner that the editor understands. Fiddle Faddle 17:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Tim, if you want to be involved with phrasing or implementing it, you're more than welcome. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support, per Drmies, who always puts things more succinctly than me. bobrayner (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support as per evidence of behaviour, and evidence of being continually unwilling/unable to amend behaviour in the face of community consensus ES&L 16:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban unless and until PIA discusses the edits that led to this thread, recognizes his errors, and agrees not to repeat them. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Drmies. And it needs to be made clear that any breach of the topic ban will result in a substantive block - possibly indefinite. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom: battleground on article talk pages

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

---

• Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

On end of last month User:Admiral Caius left a message on the talk page of user:Parrot of Doom (Pod) under a section heading Talk: Guy Fawkes Night that started "I struck through the two comments because they are a blatant violation of WP: NPA..."

So can an uninvolved administrator (if there are any left) please point out to user:Parrot of Doom (Pod) that comments such those he has recently made towards me (as bullet pointed below) are also not acceptable?

• 12:45, 7 November Most of the message is a robust POV, and while it is not directly pertinent to the page development, it does not breach civility but "and told to disappear back under whatever stone you slithered out from." is in no way connected to the page development and is in my opinion a breach of civility and a personal attack.

At 21:14, 8 November 2013: In my next posting to that talk page page I wrote "PoD if you breach the civility policy again I will raise an ANI. ..."

• 00:12, 9 November 2013 POD was the next to post to the page the content of which was "Not for the first time, you're talking out of your arse. Now, where's that stone you slithered out from?" which again is in my opinion a breach of civility and a personal attack.

So here I am! This is wording on an article talk page, not on a user talk page. I think that PoD uses this type of language on article talk pages to intimidate people on the talk page when he feels that his point of view is under threat. I do not think he uses this type of language in hot blood, but uses it as a tool to intimidate others or entice other editors into inappropriate behaviour. It is a particularly effective tactic with new and inexperienced editors, who often give up and leave, or get distracted from article development into a series of personal attacks (either way PoD wins as the content remains as he wants it remain). In the case of Guy Fawkes Night when this has not worked, PoD is still willing to breach the three revert rule to keep the article content the way he prefers (1: (14:43, 27 October 2013‎), 2, 3, 4: (12:02, 28 October 2013‎))

Verbal abuse on the talk pages of anniversary articles like Guy Fawkes Night is real problem because anniversary pages are likely to attract new editors around the time of the anniversary. A new editor will typically make a small change to a page under an IP address. If the change is reverted, (s)he may find her, or his, way to the talk page. How likely is it that a new editor is going to want to contribute to the conversations on that page given the uncivil language that is currently on the page and directed at others who have proposed or supported changes? I think it is long past time that community stopped PoD from using language like this on article talk pages as Wikipedia is not a battleground, even if some members of the community take a more liberal view about such language on his own user talk page. -- PBS (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• If one "battler" is to be sanctioned then so should the other, PBS. He clearly learned nothing from his RfC/U. Eric Corbett 16:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) PoD calls PBS an idiot, PBS posts "shows how little you understand"; the primary difference I see is PoD's insult was more succinct. NE Ent 16:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Not necessarily a personal attack, and not always uncivil. "Whatever rock you slithered out from underneath" often refers to a situation where someone - after a great absence - sneaks into a conversation or situation that they have little background in. OTOH, he might be calling you a snake. Ambiguous enough, and more the realm of what used to be WP:WQA and not admin intervention, unless you want an RFC/U ES&L 16:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• What I see currently is a question about fireworks, answered civilly with a comment on sources, followed by a comparison to sourcing in Christmas which is, surprisingly perhaps, not a terrible article but certainly not a very good one, and thus not much of a yardstick. Then PBS comes in with a lengthy diatribe comment attributing synthesis and accusations that the FA review process wasn't followed properly, without much evidence. If PBS has a problem with the FA status they should start a review, but basically accusing PoD and others (including the FA reviewers and promoter) of foul play is hardly civil. The rest of the commentary, by a new old account and an IP, that's the typical kind of thing we see often enough in Eric and PoD's articles and I wouldn't pay it (or the responses) much attention. I urge Eric and PoD to do the same. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I have replaced a negative term with a more neutral one, on the suggestion of PBS. My apologies. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer, the proposed solution of which is quite clear and I won't repeat it. What I think should be taken away from it is that PBS would do well to stay away from the article: they're stoking a fire where embers are always smoldering, certainly this time of year. This is not to say that PoD and Eric couldn't have been more polite but as I've argued before civility ought to be seen in a context, and in this case the context is damning--again, read the RfC/U for yourself, and note how many editors endorsed its summary. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

  Meanwhile PBS remains an administrator. Not exactly an optimum solution. Eric Corbett 20:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• As an administrator myself, a code of silence prevents me from commenting on that, and since you're nothing but a peon, Eric, I could threaten you with a block, for anti-sycophantism perhaps. In the meantime, this does not seem to gain much traction, and perhaps someone can close this little lightning rod before it starts to work. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

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

user talk:2607:F0D0:2002:69:0:0:0:20

This IPV6 editor keeps disrupting Wikipedia. At first, he makes some simple request at my talk page, posing as 31.170.166.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Then he gets blocked as sockpuppet of blocked user, who has been interested in code2000, for one year. Then all hell breaks loose, yet this account is blocked for three days. However, that can't stop him from screaming and yelling and spewing words that he used inappropriately. --George Ho (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• As someone who has been dealing with this user as well, I would recommend they be blocked from editing their talk page since they have not done anything besides delete constructive comments and make personal attacks. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 18:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• Talk page access revoked, and I've lengthened the block given the obvious pattern of vandalism and disruption. Can someone smart (Elockid? Kww?) look at the situation? There was a proxy block. I'm looking at the other IPs and accounts in a minute. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• On a technical note, this IP is likely an open proxy, given that it's registered to a hosting company, and blocked on the Dutch and French Wikipedias as such.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, he/she now is trying to reach George at Commons. We hope (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The blocked proxy admits that he is the blocked user Sourceforge (talk · contribs). Let's verify that he is, shall we? George Ho (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The IPv6 has been blocked globally. If you're talking about CheckUser, it won't normally connect an account to its IP.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Any other methods? George Ho (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

We have to go on behavioral evidence alone.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are only three ways to connect an accountname to an IP address (whether IPv4 or IPv6).

• Give Checkuser a really good reason. They are very cautious around privacy.
• Get the editor to admit it.
• Find a good correlation among edits, whether it's making identical reverts/!votes, or more subtle behavioural stuff.

But why would you need to verify? bobrayner (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Um, this user is using the second method himself by admitting as Sourceforge and evading blocks by using 31.170.166.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in Commons. Update: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sourceforge is created. George Ho (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It's User:Wikinger, of course. Everybody just please block any IP he uses on sight; always use hardblocks for a year and with talkpage access revoked immediately, without further warnings; these are always open proxies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• From what I remember, we usually hardblock this ISP. For future reference, it might be a good idea to get a Steward to block these IPs globally once they've been identified/blocked here. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The entire /32 is globally hardblocked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

31.170.166.23 was acting up at Commons earlier and is now blocked for 3 days there. This IP is just continuing the quest of the IPv6 one. We hope (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious behaviour by User: Christopher Theodore at Talk:State of nature and elsewhere.

User:ChristopherTheodore, a new account, seems to have severe difficulties comprehending our policies regarding original research, and has been filling Talk:State of nature with an unsourced and repetitive argument to effect the that 'state of nature' is a synonym for 'universe' - rather than a specific concept within political philosophy, the (properly sourced and defined) subject of the existing article - based entirely on an unsupported assertion that this is an 'axiom'. Having failed to win the argument there, and despite the efforts of multiple contributors to explain why his argument has no relevance within the context of the existing article, he has raised exactly the same unsourced and questionable 'axiom' and arguments at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources [91] and at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard [92]. At no point has Christopher Theodore acknowledged that his proposal is not only unsourced, and clearly based on original research, but completely and utterly off-topic with regard to the present content of the article. Given the repetitive nature of the argument, combined with what seems to be a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I think his behaviour has strayed well into tendentiousness, if not exhibiting a lack of basic competence, and that it may be that a block and/or a topic ban may be necessary, at least until he gives an indication of understanding why articles about one subject shouldn't go off at a tangent and discuss something else entirely. Incidentally, it is worth noting that a previous contributor, User:Aksis was making exactly the same argument, in almost exactly the same words, [93] some five years ago. It seems not unreasonable to ask whether Christopher Theodore and Aksis are one and the same person - if so, we seem to also have a bad case of beating the proverbial deceased equine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Rebuttal:

1. "User:ChristopherTheodore, a new account, seems to have severe difficulties comprehending our policies regarding original research, and has been filling Talk:State of nature with an unsourced and repetitive argument to effect the that 'state of nature' is a synonym for 'universe' - rather than a specific concept within political philosophy, the (properly sourced and defined) subject of the existing article - based entirely on an unsupported assertion that this is an 'axiom'."

• This misconstrues the actual issue. (see Talk:State_of_nature#The_actual_state_of_nature) The account is 3 years old. Is this "new?" (or is this an attempt to skew the facts to some purpose that is lost on me?)

• Example of what I mean by "misconstrues the actual issue" from my talk page:

"This will be my last statement regarding the dispute. It is true that "state of nature" could be interpreted to mean "the current state of the universe". Nobody is disputing that this is a linguistically correct interpretation of those words. Let's consider a different example: capital flight. This is a topic in the field of economics. However, someone approaching the topic with no knowledge whatsoever, such as your hypothetical collage student, could conclude that it means airline flights to a capital city. This is a legitimate interpretation of those words, but it would be ludicrous to include information about Reagan National Airport in the capital flight article. The state of nature article is about the concept in the field of philosophy. Political philosophers do not use the term to mean the physical state of the universe; they use it to mean the hypothetical social structures which existed before the emergence of governments. Your attempt to expand the scope of the topic, without showing any evidence that published philosophers recognized that expanded scope, is unambiguously original research. Pburka (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• If my use of the dictionary as a source to so grossly distort the concept of the article like they are providing here (and many other examples of this same kind), then i could comprehend why it's OR), but this is not what I did. Further, my "hypothetical collage student" was actual someone still in high-school. Further still, not only is "this is a linguistically correct interpretation of those words" but it is exactly on point. The state of nature is Nature... and the various theories presented in the philosophers works discuss what life might have been like in Nature before civilization.

1. "Having failed to win the argument there, and despite the efforts of multiple contributors to explain why his argument has no relevance within the context of the existing article, he has raised exactly the same unsourced and questionable 'axiom' and arguments at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources [94] and at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard [95]."

• After misconstruing the actual issue, I made a serious good faith effort to clarify it. The use of the term "axiom" was made in it's purest sense: "3. An established rule or principle or a self-evident truth" -- Websters

1. "At no point has Christopher Theodore acknowledged that his proposal is not only unsourced, and clearly based on original research, but completely and utterly off-topic with regard to the present content of the article. Given the repetitive nature of the argument, combined with what seems to be a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I think his behaviour has strayed well into tendentiousness, if not exhibiting a lack of basic competence, and that it may be that a block and/or a topic ban may be necessary, at least until he gives an indication of understanding why articles about one subject shouldn't go off at a tangent and discuss something else entirely."

• After seeing the real issue was being misconstrued, I tried to re-state it in a number of ways in hopes of clarifying it. There was no repeating, there was no repeating, there was no repeating, there was no repeating. ;-)

• After misconstruing the real issue, the claims of OR are suspect. I am still unclear on certain points regarding OR policy and my questions along those lines remain unaddressed (other then with what feels like a condescending off handed dismissal and links to policy which didn't seem to support the interpretation or application of that policy with regards to the issue).

1. "Incidentally, it is worth noting that a previous contributor, User:Aksis was making exactly the same argument, in almost exactly the same words, [96] some five years ago. It seems not unreasonable to ask whether Christopher Theodore and Aksis are one and the same person - if so, we seem to also have a bad case of beating the proverbial deceased equine."

• Before editing the article, I checked the Talk Page (and Archived it), after a review of it I decided one of the points that User:Aksis was making had merit, so I decided to champion his/her cause on that point. I am not the same person as User:Aksis. This can be verified via my IP.

In addition:

[diff]

As can be seen from the diff, I had made a good faith effort to provide references to support this statement, but persist it a self evident truth. Further, I never deleted any portion of the article and edited it in a manner that not only preserved much of the existing text, but most importantly, the real concept of what the article is about, and in my opinion improved it.

William M. Connolley gave this as the reason for the reversion in the tag line: (rv. Don't like it. See talk), and you can see for your self how things went from there.

I don't think the claim of OR is valid, I think it is a strawman and the real reason for the accusation is there is no grounds to simply revert an edit based on the fact that William "didn't like it," but there is for OR. I feel like the people contributing to the article are friends or know each other via wikipedia and are working together and supporting each other, which in most instances is a good thing, but in this instance I feel a bit harassed and bullied.

I also don't believe my points were honestly comprehended. I also don't think the issue[s] I raised regarding the interpretation of the OR policy or with the current lead were ever honestly addressed.

There was nothing I found in the OR policy that prohibited relying upon definitions as sources, only that other kinds of sources are more desirable (I pointed this out on the Talk page). This seems to have been interpreted as some absolute rule, rather then what I gathered the spirit of the policy is, to prevent relying upon definitions to grossly distort a topic. No contradicting primary source information was presented to rebut the definitions I presented in support of that statement. Just a repetitive, and in my honest opinion, baseless accusation of OR.

And now I am being accused of many things.. I may be a "newb" at wikipedia, but I am not new to the concept of people using a greater knowledge of policy (and how to manipulate them contrary to the spirit of those policies), to abuse someone who doesn't have as great an understanding. Christopher Theodore (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Just checking in here, but it seems from a perusal of the talk page that Andy has roughly the right read (though I don't think a similarity to a 5 year old account is relevant even if they're the same person). The proposed changes to the page don't seem to be supported by sourcing, specifically a source which indicates the whole thought this change expresses. And the discussion on the talk page seems like a waste of time as Andy describes. Protonk (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Also see the comments there by User:Atethnekos. ChistopherTheodore still doesn't grasp our policies at WP:NOR and WP:VERIFIABILITY. The charge that policy is being manipulated is ridiculous and I fail to understand how this new user who has a lesser understanding of policy (if others have a greater understanding as he says) at the same time has a greater understanding of the spirit of those policies. Dougweller (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You mistook my use of the word "policy" to mean wiki policy when I wrote "I am not new to the concept of people using a greater knowledge of policy (and how to manipulate them contrary to the spirit of those policies), to abuse someone who doesn't have as great an understanding," I was using the term generally. There is life out-side of the wiki-paradigm. Christopher Theodore (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Note that Christopher Theodore's response to this has been to add yet more original research (or more accurately unsourced and unverifiable assertions) to the State of nature article. [97] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Making rebuttals in debate is getting me accused of WP:TEDIOUS. Christopher Theodore (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

How long has this article been nothing more then a "Start Class" article for all the WPProjects involved? Seems like it's been years now (but I'm not sure how to verify that.) I think I can see why it's not improving after this very educational experiance. Christopher Theodore (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Initially I had hoped that I'd be able to engage this user in discussion. However he seems unwilling to consider that he may be in error, and insists on adding unreferenced or poorly referenced material to the article despite a clear consensus against the changes on the talk page. Most recently he has attempted to use primary sources attributed to Emer de Vattel (d. 1767) to reference a claim about contemporary theories of the origin of rights. At this point Mr. Theodore has alienated all of the other editors who participated in the discussion. I strongly advise him to find some other topics to edit, and to understand the importance of providing relevant references from reliable secondary sources. Pburka (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

I just blocked him for a week for edit warring, tendentious editing, editing to prove a WP:POINT and most of the above. I don't see a shorter block as providing enough time to engage w/ Christopher Theodore and see if the editing issues are something which can be resolved. Protonk (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Repeated Copyright violation etc by User:Blueyefinity

User:Blueyefinity, who states that s/he has been a "Wikipedia member since 2007", but only has an edit history under that name since July 2011, seems unable to comply with Wikipedia policy regarding copyright, despite multiple warnings regarding the issue. [98]. While editing the contentious Morgellons article, Blueyefinity not only violated copyright by copy-pasting from a source cited [99] to our article [100] (see the paragraph beginning "The belief held by mainstream medicine...") but also added images which had clearly been uploaded from the same source - by Blueyefinity (the images have now been deleted after I tagged them). When one adds the fact that Blueyefinity seems unable to adhere to WP:NPOV and/or proper sourcing policy - see the discussion at Talk:Morgellons - and the fact that Blueyefinity has also today vandalised the article Chemtrail conspiracy theory by editing image captions to assert that they depict "chemtrails", rather than the contrails depicted, it seems reasonable to conclude that Blueyefinity is not here to contribute usefully to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

A peek at a pre cleaned up version of this user's talk page can be quite instructive. He/she has also been edit warring at the Morgellons page, and was warned but just deleted the warning. [101]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Morgellon, wikipedia should not ignore scientific proof just because is badly added/edited by other users (me). There are enough references to rewrite the entire article and being neutral about it. But hey, after what I see here, not only on Morgellon, surely Wikipedia can't be OBJECTIVE. I really tend to believe most of the editors are just some failed writers/scientist/etc, other just astroturfing to keep the sheeple in line.

Regarding the contrails vs chemtrails, is anyone here a chemist and if yes, what method did they use to determine beyond doubt, that the plane lines in certain photos are only water vapors (contrail) and not other chemical mixture? Superficial quantities of water vapors tend to dissipate quickly, not to expand creating cloud-like formations. .... Blueyefinity (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheeple? Astroturfing? Chemtrails? Like I said, WP:NOTHERE... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dbrodbeck. Looking through this disruptive editor's talk page history is very instructive. We're dealing with abusive language, evidence of a total lack of good faith, and serious personal attacks. I see little evidence of competence, understanding of policies, or willingness to collaborate. Instead we see plenty of edit warring and blocks. It's time we see this editor for what they are. They are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to push a fringe POV, even to the point of vandalizing article content. It's time for a very long block and topic bans. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You're not bringing any new "evidence" for your position to the table. If you'd looked through the talk:Morgellons archive like some other editors recommended, you'd see that the articles you want to include information from (plaguarized or not) have been brought up before, discussed, and very soundly dismissed as not meeting Wikipedia standards. Per Wikipedia policies we do not replace information from good sources with information from bad sources. I have to agree that you're engaging in behaviors characteristic of bad editors. The questions are, do you understand why this is not good behavior and will you change? 69.23.116.182 (talk) 12:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

His comments above seem to confirm the position he is coming from. He was probably wise to delete his response to my last year's warning today - it was "fuck you bitch. and fuck you lousy and misleading wikipedia:chemtrail page". Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion doesn't mean a change of heart. The comments reveal his attitude, and we don't need that type of attitude here. I see no evidence of a positive learning curve, or attempt to even better his abilities as an editor. I concur that a block is in order. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Propose indefinite block

Given the above I am proposing that this editor be blocked indefinitely. Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support, editor is not here to build an encyclopedia, and really has no desire to learn policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Why are we jumping to such drastic measures? Start with a topic-ban or limited-duration block. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

What sort of topic ban would that be? All topics where there is a conspiracy theory? (I know this sounds sarcastic, it is not meant to be, I can't think of another way to word my question). Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't sound sarcastic at all. It sounds fairly reasonable. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support. NOTHERE is a bit much considering the editor is not a vandal or troll, but block anyways on the charges of tendentious editing. KonveyorBelt 20:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support. His comments reveal his attitude, and we don't need that type of attitude here. I see no evidence of a positive learning curve, or attempt to even better his abilities as an editor. I concur that an indef block is in order. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - A review of Blueyefinity's contribs shows: Copyright violations, personal attacks, BLP problems, battleground behavior, adding unsourced content in one article followed by removing content in another article because it wasn't sourced, major edits marked minor, thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories sourced to YouTube videos, more personal attacks, edit-warring, failure to take into account long-resolved discussions on Talk pages controversial articles, more copyright violations, and more personal attacks. Yes, Wikipedia can do without this editor. Zad68 03:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support per NOTHERE, If the user cant be arsed reading numerous policies regarding copyright & heeding the warnings given, then an indef block's the best solution here I think ....→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely not here to build the encyclopedia. The editor is only here to push fringe viewpoints. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Odd infobox edits by User:Therequiembellishere

I had rather hoped this would not all reach this stage, but I'm at the point where I don't think this can continue without the scrutiny of other editors. A year ago, I noticed User:Therequiembellishere had removed an office order from an American politician's infobox. In the grand scheme of things, nothing important. However, he yielded no explanation when asked, and I then began to notice a talk page, littered with years of complaints against infobox edits that go against established consensus, including the removal of office orders. When no response was forthcoming, I said his edits were against consensus, and that I would put back in orders when I saw they had been removed. Unfortunately, this has now devolved into months of repairing the changes, and despite numerous entreaties that we just simply talk (dated 31 December, 24 March, 29 September), I have never received a word of response. Finally, after seeing another warning left on his talk page by another user about his infobox edits in general, I left one more request. However, the fact he edited thereafter, but more importantly my fear that higher scrutiny is unavoidable at this stage, I have decided to raise this now.

My concern is thus; infobox edits are not the most glamorous topic, but I have become increasingly convinced that, for whatever reason, Therequiembellishere has engaged in a years-long campaign to reformat infoboxes to his own desired format, even when such format goes against established consensus. My own specific concern is over his strange fixation with removing office orders, but from what others users have said on his talk page, he seems to like removing all sorts of other things, though I declare myself no particular expert witness on that aspect - his edits are mostly labelled as 'Formatting infobox/succession boxes'.

To be frank, one way or another, I would like this to end. I didn't join Wikipedia to police other editors. To be honest, I don't mind if I end up getting judged to be wrong - though I don't think I am - but whatever else, I think some community judgement on the validity of Therequiembellishere's edits is long overdue. Redverton (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide some diffs of the contentious edits and maybe some link to where consensus was established? I do agree that the lack of communication is an issue. John Reaves 17:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any centralised discussion where consensus was reached. On the matter of office orders, my awareness of a consensus has come through localised discussions I've seen, and through being told by other editors that such a consensus existed. I know that hardly sounds definitive, but more pertinently we do have a standardised infobox format, such as the example at Template:Infobox officeholder. There, we can see the standard format includes an order field, as well as other filled-in fields that Therequiembellishere has removed over countless articles, examples of which I provide at the end. At first, I thought of this as a content dispute. Indeed, in my entreaty of 29 September, I suggested we hold an RFC (again, no response). However, I began to see his edits as, to be frank, disruptive, when I concluded that years of infobox edits against the standard format and - as you noted - doing the silent treatment when often questioned about the changes by other editors, meant this evolved from a content dispute to something much more disruptive. Whilst I still welcome an RFC or some kind of a centralised discussion - whether over office orders or infobox formats in general - I think his editing behaviour has become an entirely separate discussion.

I've picked some of his most recent edits. They show him removing the 'order' field, and removing the order itself. I've also tried to pick edits that highlight some of the other concerns editors have raised, such as when he removes filled-in fields like professions and places of residence. To be honest, these are not some of his most pronounced changes - whenever an editor like me questions him about his edits, he noticeably scales down the kind of changes he makes (even without responding to those queries), but then seems to pick up again after a short while after the attention has passed. When I intervene over his office orders removals, he does let them stay in for awhile, but then inevitably goes back to trying again. [102] [103] [104] [105], [106]. Redverton (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

User Unable to Follow Basic Wikipedia Editing Protocol

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

---

Although there have been long standing calls [[107]] [[108]] to discus any reverts or further edits to the Criticism section of the Airlines for America article on the associated talk:Airlines for America page, User:intermittentgardener simply entered a couple weeks ago by blanking the entire section in question [[109]] [[110]] [[111]] and then writing a POV addition [[112]] by using existing fragments from the blanked section. I reverted that noting again that this section should be discussed. Instead of doing that, the user in question once again Reverted [[113]] the edits to his version, and ran to an admin User:Mark Arsten to have the page frozen in his vision. I've warned him multiple times about his violations of WP guidelines. Although he has the time to return to issue snide comments about my persistence that he adhere to the conduct and protocol outlined by Wikipadia, he refuses to edit in WP:Good Faith. All he ever comments in the edit notes is "Removing POV material". I've told him to explain his position. I'm always greeted with silence.

WP:HEAR, WP:YESPOV, WP:DISCUSSION Section: Follow the normal protocol and section Discuss with the other party

I'm requesting the page be reverted to the this version, [[114]], before user:Intermittentgardener's edit warring, and is then protected. If user:Intermittentgardener wants to follow Wikipedia protocol, I'm willing to discus his and other absent editors opinions that these sections are not NPOV and make them more POV. There seems to be a number of other absent editors that think they're fine the way they are. It could be user:Intermittentgardener is right but, he's going about it the wrong way.

PS. I might be asked to be away on a 3 day business trip beginning tomorrow, but I'll return should that occur.--50.128.155.168 (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Long term vandalism from a user with a dynamic IP address

Please could people experienced in dealing with long-term vandalism from users with a dynamic IP address please assist at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Why isn't IP 86.158.105.73 blocked yet?.

The same user has been inserting various nonsense into articles about UK railways for months now - the thread in question goes back to August and the title indicates that it has been going on longer than that. They've used over two dozen IP addresses, almost all from BT (UK's largest ISP), rarely staying on the same one for more than a week.

Short of semi-protecting every article about UK train operating companies, rolling stock and stations (thousands of articles) or catching hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders with range blocks, is there anything that we can do to stop simply firefighting? Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Since you have exhausted all the normal measures, I suggest the use of stronger medicine. We can certainly achieve the equivalent of semi-protecting articles on all those subjects, but in a way that applies to BT broadband customers only, using the edit filter. This would not inconvenience BT broadband IP editors editing non-British-transport articles, nor would it affect IP editors from any other ISP editing any kind of article. Even BT customers editing British transport-related articles would only be inconvenienced to the extent of having to create an account to be able to edit those articles. This would not be hard -- we've done it before for, for example, an editor from Croatia that used addresses that spanned over several of that country's large ISPs that persisted in making curious edits to Nazi-related topics. After a couple of months, they went away, and the filter was removed without them coming back. If you give me some keywords that identify the topics in question, I will happily create the filter. -- The Anome (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a filter already (545), but it's mostly logging false positives, and it's unlikely that many users in Croatia will be editing pages in English about Nazi-related topics, but UK-based users are likely to edit UK-related topics. Peter James (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a description of a possible edit filter at User talk:Master of Puppets#Your block of 86.154.165.236. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The edit filter I created has, since being refined a bit, caught mostly-related edits. I've been slowly tuning it as we see what it finds as false-positive (which, admittedly, was a lot at the beginning) - if you look at the newest page of the log, it's been catching almost exclusively relevant edits. m.o.p 01:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hiding RfC talk comments, deleting WP:CONSENSUS summaries and WP:TAGTEAM

This is the second ANI I've had to bring due to User:SchroCat editing or altering other people's comments and this is the second ANI regarding WP:TAGTEAM involving SchroCat. That ANI started by User:Light show is here. The first ANI where every administrator admonished ShroCat for interjecting his comments in other people's edits is here.

There's an RfC at Talk:Peter Sellers regarding specific use of the word "Jewish" to describe a character in some commercials he played (RfC here). After a week of very grueling and confusing debate with multiple opinions as to exact content, I created a straight forward non-partial "Survey summary". If I in good faith misrepresented anyone's opinion in any way, I would be happy to, and in a couple of cases did, correct that. [115]

Apparently unhappy with the survey results (a vast majority of editors are not agreeing with him), ShroCat is now attempting to hide this survey and all the other editors' subsequent comments. [116]. User:Dr. Blofeld, one of the few editors steadfastly resisting any altering of the wording to the article, in an apparent effort to circumvent WP:3RR using WP:TAGTEAM now has reverted my restoration of my comments.

ShroCat has been blocked for edit warring earlier this year and this behavior is continuing. There's multiple other examples of consistent WP:NPA, WP:HOUND and WP:OWN behavior which is another ANI in itself. Can something please be done about his editor? --Oakshade (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the real issue here is your troll like behaviour on the Peter Sellers talk page and false edit summaries such as this which falsly claim Schrod to be removing editor's comments. And it takes two to edit war, so bringing up Schrod's past history as if he's some serial edt warrer is just silly. I doubt you'll get much support coming here. Why don't you just walk away and start doing something useful?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Just want to highlight Dr. Blofeld's last comment there as an example of this team's approach to those who disagree with them. When I brought up concern for the term "Jewish," this was the kind of response I got. Now with wider community RfC input, it's clear this was a valid concern. Saying "walk away and start doing something useful" is no help to your cause. Constructive discussion as must of us have been doing from the beginning would help your and ShroCat's case much better.--Oakshade (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

How tiresome, yet another misleading set of half facts from Oakshade.

1. "editing or altering other people's comments": hatting inappropriate comments is not editing or altering anything. As at least one other has pointed out, it is not advisable for an involved editor to try and summarise an RfC – especially if you are the one who has started it, and especially if you do such a bad job of it that you end up aggravating others by providing a misleading situation.

2. "second ANI regarding WP:TAGTEAM": no, Light show did not accuse me of tag-teaming, and the term (or any related accusation) does not appear in that ANI. (In passing, that ANI turned more boomerang on Light show than anything else)

3. "I created a straight forward non-partial "Survey summary"." No, it was not "non-partial" (whatever that means). It was one-sided and misleading and misrepresented the opinions of at least four other editors

4. "If I in good faith misrepresented anyone's opinion in any way": you did, and there are still misrepresentations in your "summary" which you have failed to correct. I raised these in the thread and you have not done anything about them. I struggle to keep hold of my good faith, considering the circumstances

5. "Apparently unhappy with the survey results": actually, given the selection of different replacements, more people want the current version than any of the other versions

6. "ShroCat is now attempting to hide this survey": as per my point 1 above, hatting is appropriate: the comments are still there and can be seen, if required.

7. "an apparent effort to circumvent WP:3RR using WP:TAGTEAM": Oakshade should try and learn that having people disagree with him is not tag teaming, it's people disagreeing with him.

8. "ShroCat has been blocked for edit warring earlier this year": temporarily and was lifted quickly when the admin realised I had reverted because it was a BLP breach.

9. "this behavior is continuing": Are you trying to drag me through ANI for Tag teaming or edit warring? Both are wrong, whichever the choice

10. "WP:NPA, WP:HOUND and WP:OWN behavior": More unfounded and ridiculous mud-slinging - I refute it all utterly.

- SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll just respond to the most obvious and confirm-able non-truth above. Only 4 out of 15 16 editors so far want the current version. ShroCat is one of those 4 editors. --Oakshade (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Before I revert to base Anglo-Saxon because of another of your turgid little smears, there is no "non-truth" here. You have lied in your accusation. You have lied in your "summary" of opinions and now you smear by lying again: there is no non-truth: there is a different way to looking at the opinions of the other editors and you are looking at it differently to me: it is not a non-truth, so stop with the loaded language. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Wow. A summary midstream of an RfC, that's not unheard of. Nor is hatting such a section, if only for convenience sake. And then you all have a survey over whether or not to hat the comments and what the survey is saying? Drmies (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hatting is in effect hiding it. The discussion has so many different proposals for alternate wording with so many different editors preferring so many different alternates (with only a small percentage preferring the current version), there had to be some kind of summarizing so editors can at least gauge all the different options. Now SchroCat is hiding this from editors. --Oakshade (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

People can read the thread, which contains reference to the sources and counter arguments. You decided to allot opinions to people who had not expressed such an opinion: that is abysmally poor practice. You are too involved to provide a neutral summary, especially when there are so many different parties going for so many different options, with more people wanting the status quo than any other. The thread is still there, and accusing an editor of deleting comments in your summary really takes the cake! - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Bullshit, Oakshade. "In effect hiding it"--whatever. You're not being oppressed here. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've always felt hats are neon pointers to "the good stuff is in here." NE Ent 21:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Drmies likes this.

Looks at Oakshade's contributions to wikipedia in recent months, I don't think this is the sort of troll we want on wikipedia. It's disruptive, and he's continuing to waste time with this here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Anyone who disagrees with this tag team is called a "troll." I've been editing here since 2006 and have created some major articles and never has anyone thrown such attacks at me until I dared to disagree with editors of this article a couple of weeks ago. This is their M.O.. --Oakshade (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• At the moment, the only problematic behaviour I see in this thread is two edtors calling Oakshade a "troll" and a "liar". THis is an editor who has been here a long time - longer than me - and whilst I have often disagreed with him, especially at AfD, I have never seen any evidence of such behaviour. And none has been presented here, either. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• As per my comments above: "second ANI regarding WP:TAGTEAM": untrue. " I created a straight forward non-partial": untrue. "this behavior is continuing": untrue. " consistent WP:NPA, WP:HOUND and WP:OWN behavior": untrue. And that's just in this thread. I'll happily outline the ones in the RfC, if you'd like? I do not consider pointing out such untruths as "problematic". I am not sure what the length of someone's history has to do with anything, tbh: if we're playing that game, Blofeld has been here longer than Oakshade - and that means absolutely nothing too! - SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• An untruth does not liar make; "lie" implies intention to deceive, so, unless you can provide evidence an editor is being intentionally duplicitous it's best not to call them a liar. NE Ent 21:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Very true, NE Ent, but when I see someone summarise a thread and misrepresent the opinions of others, and then file at ANI with a series of "untruths" all strung together, I'm afraid my AGF facility takes too much of a battering to think anything else! - SchroCat (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• What's the misrepresentation? Where exactly are you claiming I'm intentionally deceiving anyone? As I've said, if you point out exactly, I will happilly correct it (as I've done twice, btw [117][118]).--Oakshade (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• And yet, despite having to twice alter it after some very basic misrepresentation was found, it's STILL misleading. I've already pointed out in the talk thread where it is misleading and you still haven't corrected it. Even if you correct now, for a third time, it is rather self-evident that for such an involved editor to try and summarise something using your opinions was a mistake. If you had simply tried to report the situation it may (and only just may) have been acceptable, but you tried to interpret the opinions of others - and you've made something of a mess. "Non-neutral" is the nicest way that your efforts can be described. - SchroCat (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've read what you wrote in the talk thread and I don't see what you're talking about that's "misleading." For the sake of everyone here, can you please explain what exactly is currently "misleading" about the summery?--Oakshade (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It's unclear to me what purpose the summary is intended to provide; I'd expect both participants and the eventual RFC closer to read the entire discussion in its entirety. NE Ent 00:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There were so many proposals for the re-wording of the content by multiple editors and so many preferences for those proposals from so many editors, as well as those who wanted no re-write or elimination of the section as a whole, and with the thread meandering on for what seemed like forever, there needed to be a place that had some sort of easy references to those who came onto the RfC so they can get an understanding of even what was being debated. That's all the purpose was and I think it was a good purpose.--Oakshade (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@Blackkite and Oakshade, what percentage of Oakshade's contributions in the last three months have gone into constructive mainspace editing? DO you really consider him a constructive editor Blackkite? The fact is you're not a productive editor, I've looked at your contributions since August on here and your continued posting on the Sellers talk page and here is wasting a lot of time for everybody involved. The way you and Light show obsessively keep posting on the Sellers page pushing either infoboxes or trivial article "issues" for weeks on end while contributing bugger all to the encyclopedia. It's destructive behaviour and a drain on good editors here who really should not have to be dealing with this and be editing themselves. I suggest you take a break from here for a bit and come back when you're willing to improve the encyclopedia and edit something else.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Ernst, Black Kite is a hardworking admin, but do you really want them to dig through those edits to find evidence for your position? This is the third time this week, I think, that I have to point out the usefulness of RfC/U. Your interest here should be to disprove the allegations; throwing mud right back at the plaintiff is rarely useful. Think tactics, evil one. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Besides multiple improvements to multiple articles, in the last three months alone I've created the articles Brian Kelley (intelligence), Sanja Bizjak, Daniela Knapp, The Disaster Artist and Christine Schorn. If you feel such activity is "unconstructive," you can start a formal investigation. This smear/attack-anyone-who-disagrees WP:NOTTHEM defense is just what we're dealing with with these editors and this is prime example. I have certainly disagreed with Blackkite over the years but never have I doubted his sincerity nor his ability to constructively work with other editors. I recommend you begin that approach with editors you don't see eye to eye with.--Oakshade (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the hat itself as worth arguing about, but editors should sign them per the instructions at {{hat}} (and WP:TPG) NE Ent 21:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep, my bad - thanks for adding it. - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Titling the hatting in bold "misleading and one-sided" and "twisting to your own opinion" as SchroCat has done is most certainly worth arguing about. Instead of taking my word for it, everyone is certainly invited to look at the summary and decide if there is anything "misleading" or has the intention of anything but a convenient summary to a very long and arduous debate. --Oakshade (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Ah OK. So, all this boils down to someone having mistitled something. And you started an ANI thread over that. Thanks for reminding us why these are called dramah boards. Moving right along--the Peyton Manning show is on. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• It was started over the tag teaming in order to circumvent WP:CONSENSUS. That opinion stands. But I did have to point out that relatively less-major issue of SchroCat's inappropriate title. Believe me, there are many other issues of WP:CIVIL and other violations, some of which has been demonstrated on this board, but there's only so much that can be covered in a single ANI. --Oakshade (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Other editors may wish to have a look at the discussion. I can not BELIEVE what absolute bollocks is being passed off as reasoning there. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
• Kommentar One of the very few things I agreed with Jack Merridew about is the pitched-battle mentality of the "key authors" of this article resisting the inclusion of an infobox at all costs. There is an extremely limited consensus to exclude the infobox, and it's tiresome and frustrating to argue with those that control every nuance of the article. So please don't kill the messenger. Doc talk 02:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

COI editing at Naveen Jain yet again

• Naveen Jain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 173.160.176.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 173.160.176.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.103.74.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Oct'13 COIN Report

This article has a long history of editors attempting to whitewash the article against a conflict of interest (COIN January 2008). In the past, most of the problems have been managed with partial protection of the article. After the latest potential IPO of Jain's company Intelius was pulled, the article settled down and protection was removed.

173.160.176.110/111 are new WP:SPA ips registered to "NAVEEN JAIN NAVEENJAIN". The ip's have repeatedly violated WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI with their editing, and have attacked other editors.

70.103.74.91 is an Intelius ip. Similar problems from this ip, though the editor is more civil.

70.103.74.91 and 173.160.176.111 have continued after the COIN report.

I can provide diffs if necessary, but given the article history, the blatant coi's, and the short editing histories, I hope we can get through this quickly. Minimally, I'd like to see 173.160.176.111 blocked. --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Balloftwine continuing disruption on Robin Spielberg

User:Balloftwine along with an IP editor removed most of the content from this article before the IP tagged it for AfD. I have restored much of the removed content and added sources, but Balloftwine has continued to remove sourced content. I have warned them but they have continued with edits that not only remove content but 'break' the article by leaving references hanging without any content. This is disrupting the AfD, which should itself be looked at as somewhat suspicious. Having made major edits to the article I am now 'involved' so to speak and would welcome some independent intervention. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

User Michig kept reverting spurious advertising-type non-encyclopedic content. Balloftwine (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Michig clearly has a personal interest in keeping advertising up on Wikipedia.Balloftwine (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Off to give them last warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The article talk page is empty. Why not discuss problems with the article there instead of edit-warring and then complaining here? Just as an aside, the article looks fine, well-sourced, and judging by the length of the discography, clearly notable. --Pete (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Sopher99

This user had been notorious for his edit-warrings and other bad behaviour in articles related to the Syrian civil war, but I think this time he had gone too far. He had deleted with no reason other user section on the talk page of the Battle of Aleppo detailed map, as can be seen here.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Sopher99 believes the IP editor he reverted is notorious sockmaster User:Deonis 2012; I don't know what evidence he has for that belief. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Right. The blind are reporting the blind: neither of them follow any kind of proper procedure. If Sopher thinks HCPUNXKID is a sock, they should file an SPI (strikes me as very unlikely, since KID started three years before Deonis did, but hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I hear). HCPUNXKID, in turn, has no business reporting to ANI after one single revert. And we're done, Drmies (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Colton Cosmic is back

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

---

174.252.36.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

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

non-admin

I am concerned about the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alvaro Dias Huizar by a new user, User:Venezuelan GM, who is not an admin. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Next time you can revert it yourself, done and warned. Also looks like a single purpose account so a checkuser should be alerted. Secret ^account 03:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I've never done anything like that. And I nominated it, so I didn't feel right about reverting the closure. Most of the ones that voted to keep are SPAs. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't feel bad, Bubba; Secret has a very special nose for this. But when an SPA closes something, there's probably something going on, so thanks for notifying here. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• And blocked as such, while I was sticking a VOA template on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Venezuelan GM? Lol. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express

Hello. I would like to bring before a group of uninvolved admins a significant edit that recently occurred on the Suburban Express page. But first, I find it appropriate to give you the backdrop of this situation.

Over a 3 month period, CorporateM has been helping monitor and mediate edits to the page via the Suburban Express Talk page. Involved in the discussion have been numerous COIs, including myself, the owner of the company, and many other paid editors (the reward board, Biosthmors, and SirCharlesofDriftwood). Due to outing editors (here and here), the owner of Suburban Express Arri_at_Suburban_Express was blocked.

Once blocked, the owner of Suburban Express began posting private information about editors as seen here for AlmostGrad and here for Gulugawa, and here for NegatedVoid. He also posted about a Wikimedia admin here.

As you all can see, there has been quite a bit of controversy, which leads me to my main concern. As described above, the article has been monitored and mediated by CorporateM. He has worked tirelessly and was even recognized for his work here. As things have progressed, SlimVirgin has taken the stance that s/he believes no COIs should discuss or edit the main Suburban Express page or its Talk page as seen in this example and again in this example. Prior to both comments directed at AlmostGrad, s/he solicited Suburban Express for feedback. When AlmostGrad inquired as to why this was fair, SlimVirgin ignored the comment.

This leads up to the most serious edit. On November 9th, this major edit was done marked as a copy-edit. This edit was done without any prior discussion, negating over 3 months of edits under the supervision of CorporateM. Once these edits were completed, many admins displayed their disagreements with the shift in POV, even if subtly like in this response. Other admins were more bold in their response. One editor, N2e suggested that SlimVirgin was making a WP:BOLD edit. However, as another IP pointed out in this edit, you need to be WP:CAREFUL. Some would argue that copy-edits do not fall under this category, however; SlimVirgin’s edit was far from a “simple copyedit” as the rule describes.

Once these edits were completed, AlmostGrad attempted to give examples of notable facts, even from the Chicago Tribune. To these suggestions, SlimVirgin was again silent. Furthermore, SlimVirgin used admin privileges to dig out non visible (and irrelevant) material. This received a response from AlmostGrad to which I agree.

In closing, the article should be reverted back, pre-SlimVirgin’s “copyedit” here since it reflects vigorous conversation and mediation. I would also like to request that SlimVirgin refrain from asking others to not engage in discussion about the topic on talk pages, since those are intended to reach a consensus (which was not reached for SlimVirgin’s latest copyedit). 24.15.78.1 (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)