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

Deleting talk page comments

I'm not sure this is the correct place for this notice, but I couldn't find one that fit exactly what was going on. On Talk:Sandra Morgen, an anon editor made some disparaging comments about another editor, although not by name. The editor who was ill-spoken of then deleted those comments. The comments in question have been restored several times, and either deleted, edited, or hidden [1] [2]. User:Thebrycepeake has been warned, and yet persists in the behavior. I understand this was part of a larger issue between she and anon, but do not believe that justifies deleting this comment, however uncivil, unkind, or even unfair. --Briancua (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL explicitly states: Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. If Thebrycepeake has objected to this information appearing on the talk page, and has explained why, do you think it's WP:CIVIL to repeatedly insist on reposting it? What purpose does this serve? Ivanvector (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at what it says just before the sentence you quote, Ivanvector: "It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment." Also, I will quote again what I wrote on Thebrycepeake's talk page: Take a look at what the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines have to say on the subject: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection..." Under the heading of personal attacks, they can sometimes be removed if the comments involve " personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." As you can see, you have to rise to the level of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing in order to justify deleting a comment, and still then it is a "borderline case." This comment does not even come close to being disruptive.

I've removed the comments again. There is no reason to force them to remain there. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article. The anon can take his accusations to an appropriate noticeboard if he has a problem with an editor. --Onorem (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Depending on one's viewpoint, it could be argued that referring to the subject of the article as a "low level academic" could be construed to be a BLP violation. Blackmane (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello all, thank you for weighing in. I'd like to provide some context for Briancua's harassment/protests. He had been reverting edits made on various university and college pages that had been added after consensus, and supported by three other editors. See [[3]] for more context on that. After trying to provoke an edit war, he was told to stop because the content he was deleting was supported by a score of reliable sources and List of American higher education institutions with open Title IX sexual violence investigations, which is an article that I originally wrote. He then nominated that article for deletion [[4]]. Additionally, he went through my contribution history and undid a couple of edits, including the initial erasure of the uncivil activity on the Sandra Morgen talk page. It feels very much like I'm being harassed by this user simply because he disagreed with edits that I had made on pages he patrols. Thebrycepeake (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I, naturally, feel differently about much of what was said here, but won't respond to that in an effort to keep this conversation focused on the issue at hand, the deletion on comments from this particular talk page. I would, however, like to apologize to Thebrycepeake if she feels harassed. That certainly was not my intention. --Briancua (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I accept your apology @Briancua:, and hope the Admins will close the thread with no other actions needed after deleting the comments on Talk:Sandra Morgen.- Thebrycepeake (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I am glad we are on good terms again, but I still feel it is inappropriate to delete another user's comments on a talk page and am waiting for an admin to chime in. --Briancua (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article. The anon can take his accusations to an appropriate noticeboard if he has a problem with an editor." - Care to respond to those points? Could you explain why the anon's comments are in any way appropriate for the article talk page? --Onorem (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Anon is claiming that Thebrycepeake has a conflict of interest in writing this article in that her main objective was not to help improve Wikipedia, but to flatter a professor for her own academic gain. I have no idea if that is true or not, and regardless I think that the subject meets WP:N, but I think that, as uncivil as they are, the comments warn future editors to be on the lookout for bias in the article. Beyond that, I have a fundamental problem with deleting another user's comments on a talk page. Here Thebrycepeake has accused me of harassing her, and elsewhere accused me of being a sockpuppet. I didn't delete those comments, edit them, or attempt to hide them in any way even though I think they were unfair. I'll let my actions and my words stand on their own, as I think Thebrycepeake should let the article on Professor Morgan stand on its own. --Briancua (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Aggressive and abusive editing, excessive abuse etc by User:FleetCommand

• FleetCommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of The Big Bang Theory characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At List of The Big Bang Theory characters, FleetCommand is being aggressive and confrontational in such a way that rationally disussing disputed content is not possible. He has also been edit-warring and attacking me in edit-summaries in the article. It is not presently possibly to make constructive edits to the article because FleetCommand would rather edit-war than discuss and refuses to respect WP:BRD, also demonstrating a degree of WP:OWN over the article.

FleetCommand visited my talk page a month ago. Discussion seemed to be progressing until he decided to call me scatterbrained.[5] He was called out on this by another editor,[6][7] and from there the discussion went downhill. (see archived discussion) More than a month after last editing List of The Big Bang Theory characters he returned to the article, leaving an edit summary that read "Repaired damage inflicted by User:AussieLegend".[8] The "damage" was a deliberate choice to use {{anchor}} instead of {{visible anchor}} for a non-credited name. After that edit, I fixed a template name leaving an admittedly childish summary, as a way of hinting to him that he isn't perfect either.[9] That was reverted with the summary "Reverted tendentious violation of WP:NOTBROKEN. {{tl|Official}} redirects {{tl|Official website}}. Only AussieLegend is interested in conflict. I went to his talk page in peace but he kept stonewalling me and playing dumb". Seeing that as clearly going overboard, I left a note on FleetCommand's talk page.[10] I don't believe I went too far in addressing the situation, although I was (naturally) a bit terse. At this point Codename Lisa inserted herself into the discussion. Despite attempts to give her some background (We have had prior amicable dealings at Windows XP) her posts became more and more accusatory and hypocritical. She even criticised the editor who had called out FleetCommand on my talk page, simply because he said "fuck", even though he was not part of the conversation. Eventually I chose to withdraw from that discussion, and concentrate on the content issues by moving the disussion to the article's talk page.[11] However, that didn't stop her unjustly accusing me of being a liar.[12] Discussion on the article's talk page continued but Codename Lisa continued to question my conduct so I left what I feel was an appropriate post on her talk page[13] (several times she admonished me for addressing FleetCommand's conduct but, hypocritically, continued to criticise mine[14]).

FleetCommand's involvement in the article talk page discussion had been minimal, essentially consisting of a single paragraph, to which he added a trivial question and a baseless claim of sockpuppetry.[15] Since then he has only announced that he made an edit that hadn't been properly discussed,[16] followed by an attack.[17] FleetCommand has made aggressive and inappropriate edit summaries in the article, edit-warring as he did so:

• "Deleted {{verification failed}}. Per talk page, verification passed the test at 3:54. Actually, I did know that. I just wanted to see if AussieLegend resorts to this combative action. He did"
• "Deleted {{weasel-inline|date=October 2014}} because it is a peacock term, not a weasel word. Of course, because AussieLegend only seeks warfare, he doesn't care. Also replaced the term." - This is of particular note because {{weasel-inline}} wasn't added by me. It was added by an IP.[18]

In addition to the inappropriate summaries, FleetCommand has edit-warred. Because of threats by Codename Lisa,[19] I decided to document the warring instead of fixing the errors that were introduced. I did this here for anybody who wants to look. The edit-warring continues. Today, FleetCommand made some unexplained changes to the article, which I partially reverted, explaining why in each summary.[20][21] Note that I did not revert all of his edits, as there was some constructive editing.[22] In fact I deliberately did not restore two notes that have been added to the article because of prior problems with other editors. In today's edits I also made two changes so that the article reflected what is in the sources (the previous version contained significant WP:SYNTH).[23] FleetCommand's actions were to revert most of the changes that I made,[24] leaving just this portion remaining. He graciously "consented" (his word, not mine[25]) to that edit. And there is still no attempt by him at discussion on the article talk page. I am not claiming total innocence, but I believe that I have tried my best to collaborate with this editor, only to be abused for my efforts. This is not a simple case of edit-warring. A break from the article for whatever reason has been shown not to work. After a month away FleetCommand returned to the article and with his first edits he chose to attack me.[26] While content is an important part of this, the main problem here is FleetCommand's continued aggressive editing and abusive edit summaries. He has been blocked in the past, multiple times, for his attitude to other editors and edit-warring. There are even concerns about his actions at WP:AN right now. This is an editor who needs to be reminded that he has to collaborate with other editors, and fully justify his own actions, not to rely on somebody who seems to have a rather strange off-wiki relationship with him. I'm asking that he be given some firm direction in this area, and reminded that he can't edit-war. Even after he was convinced in an IM to revert an inappropriate reversion,[27] he has continued edit-warring. He also needs to respect the BRD process and not discount edits made by other editors. Given that he's editing just as he was when he was blocked I don't have a lot of hope though. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• User:FleetCommand: Hey, quit talking about the editor. Calling people warriors in edit summaries is going to make them warriors. Your causing a self-fulfilling prophecy. Quit being a dick. Okay, let's close this and everyone move on.--v/r - TP 19:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If only it was that easy. FleetCommand only seems to be taking advice from Codename Lisa, and then only when it suits him. In this edit he self-reverted because she told him to, but in his very next edit, he effectively reverted himself, removing a ref and completely changed the context of one statement, turning a sourced statement into nonsense.[28] that had to be fixed.[29] --AussieLegend (✉) 20:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Those are content issues, we can only address behavioral issues here, sorry.--v/r - TP 21:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I was addressing behavioural issues. My point was that he is unlikely to take notice of your comment. The edits I referred to were examples of his inconsistent behaviour. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Just keep reporting instances of WP:NPA and at some point an admin will have to take preventative action.--v/r - TP 21:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: Should I have to keep reporting until an admin finally decides to do something? This is an editor I'm reporting now for several instances of inappropriate behaviour including, but not limited to NPA, incivility, edit warring, asserting ownership of an article and refusing to discuss edits. This is an editor who has a long history of NPA and incivility and has been blocked for it several times. A quick check through his edit history shows instances of incivility, such as one edit where he calls another editor a pig.[30] Why shouldn't something be done now? @FleetCommand: - That Codename Lisa may have said that verification does not fail does not mean she is correct. Anyone can look at the episodes and see she is wrong and I have explained why on the article's talk page. You claim to be open to discussion, but I've tried to discuss and you don't seem to want to. All you do is edit-war and when I try to discuss you fob me off or ignore me completely. You need to collaborate and respect BRD, not make excuses not to do so. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"...when I try to discuss you..." Diff of your attempt please! Fleet Command (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, here's an example: I tried to address the issue of the unexplained heading changes,[31], which you completely ignored in your reply.[32] --AussieLegend (✉) 16:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"He graciously "consented" (his word, not mine[129])".
"you completely ignored in your reply."
Make up your mind. Did he ignored or did he graciously consented? 86.57.57.209 (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

He graciously consented to restoring the row scopes that he deleted but completely ignored the issue of the unexplained heading changes that he had changed. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If so, "completely" is false, he partially ignored, partially consented. Next, you complain when he disagrees, you complain when he is silent, you complain and mock when he consents. Hence, you complain regardless of what he does and find the idea of reaching a consensus moot. Hence, he is not to blame for what he does. 86.57.54.112 (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I realise you're from Iran, so English probably isn't your first language, but he "completely ignored the issue of the unexplained heading changes" is entirely accurate. The point is, he only responds to what he wants to respond to. For example, I've been waiting four days for him to discuss the issue of the original research that he has inserted into the article on the article's talk page but he has not been seen there. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You realize wrong; I am in Iran, not from. And I know six languages including English. But, if you want to continue down this path, please be my guest; I'll take my leave now but I would be very surprised if anyone, be it Iranians, Australians, Americans, Frenchmen, Russians, Chinese, Cubans, North Koreans or Syrians ever tried to help you. 86.57.54.112 (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: You talk exactly like Codename Lisa. (So, if you ever wanted to be his paid sockpuppet, ask for a hefty sum! It was a joke by the way.)

Look here, now. I am open to an actual discussion. But a peace conference is not held in the middle of a war. Saying "The matter of failed verification has been thoroughly rebutted without further opposition" does not change the talk page sentence from "verification doesn't fail" to "verification does fail". Also, I think you would agree that I wasn't a dick throughout September. But looking at that time, do I look a hero to you? Or do I look like a dufus? Fleet Command (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• An example of the ongoing confrontational editing by FleetCommand can be seen above. When I replied here I noticed that FleetCommand had applied some peculiar indenting, but I tried to retain the original indenting. Expecting that fixing his would result in an inappropriate response, I decided not to fix his indenting. He subsequently changed my indenting with the edit summary "Indenting your message correctly is a good start. As for the rest, do your worst."[33] After I actually fixed the indenting, the confrontational summaries continued.[34] Instead of leaving the indenting alone, he's now moved his post after mine, so I'm now replying to a post after mine,[35] which is bound to confuse the casual reader. It doesn't matter what he's replying to, FleetCommand just continues to be confrontational. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. So, these two finally found their way into ANI? Sad but predictable.

Overall assessment:

• The article's condition is stable; this amount of revert and partial revert is natural on any article. Only by looking at the user conduct we see that there is actually a problem.
• Fleet Command (FC)'s edits are resentful; he edits at the wrong time, and doesn't seem to be in hurry to call in appropriate dispute resolution processes. I know how to deal with such editors; a little respect and a little compromise can solve it.
• AussieLegend (AL) has entered Mastadon Mode: Not only he is assuming bad faith, he sees everyone and everything as threat, does not give up an inch of his position for a compromise and aggressively posts a combative reply to every talk page post. (If I posted a comment that said "Fleet Command, shut up!", AL(not FC) would have replied by saying "I won't shut up".) And most importantly, he resorts to lying a lot. Should I list them chronologically or categorically? Let's go with chronological. (See below)
• Other involved editors are myself (Codename Lisa) and CyphoidBomb, although we didn't the article. CyphoidBomb was only present during the first stage of the dispute.

User talk:AussieLegend

The whole discussion can be seen in revision #625920663. It started on 1 September 2014. FC started it with an icebreaker, but unlike what AL said in the opening statement here, it was not going well. I was aware that AL is misinforming FC, although only when the "scatterbrained" comment came I realized that FC was acutely aware of this. Now, AL did mention that CyphoidBomb used less-that-civil language to scold FC. What he didn't mention – TParis, I hope you are reading this – was that FC apologized early in the incident. almost immediately. In addition, AL does not seem much bothered by this brief exchange at that time. Later, CyphoidBomb also apologized. Most importantly, the discussion didn't go downhill since; it died then and there, and not because of the brief uncivil exchange.

User talk:FleetCommand

The whole discussion can be seen in revision #629285971 except for what's visible in revision #629165515. Please correct me if I am wrong but the opening statement by AL is purely ad hominem because its purpose seems to be to hurt, to threaten or to get even. (It certainly wasn't a collegial attempt to resolve any dispute.) When I tried to calm both down and said "discuss the content, not the people"; FC replied "let's do it" while AL replied "don't throw NPA at me"!

Also, AL revealed his absolute unwillingness to give any form of compromise, not matter how small. Normally, when I see such edit, I don't bother thinking about it, let alone bringing it to ANI. If I know that it upsets someone and hinders discussion, I categorically avoid it. Instead, AL did this: [36] Childish! Very Childish! It is the very embodiment of refusing to have any compromise even one that makes no difference to anyone. Also, see how AL actually defends this edit in the opening statement. It would have been a more convincing argument if AL said "okay, I made a mistake. Doesn't everyone?" (Indeed it can happen.) But no! He says 'The "damage" was a deliberate choice to use instead of {{{1}}} for a non-credited name'. (The problem is, if I did believe it was a deliberate choice, it would have been vandalism.)

Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory characters

AL contended above FC's presence in the discussion was minor. But what he didn't say was that the so-called discussion didn't deal much with the treatment of the dispute and was mostly exchange of incivilities. Mainly, he refused to get the point, especially, when had no answer for the objections registered. Lying was his modus operandi and assuming good faith or the will to negotiate was non-existent. FC didn't do good there either; not participating in uncivil discussions is good but it is not dispute resolution. WP:DRN and WP:RFC were the avenues that he must have tried. Most importantly, none of them properly explored the avenue of alternatives to resolve their dispute. In fact, I did that. But I shouldn't flatter myself.

Perhaps the most important thing that AL did in that discussion was one particularly nasty comment that forever shattered any hope of having good relations with FC. FC implemented a particular form of compromise that I had proposed and asked whether it is edit warring. Naturally, yes and no are both wrong answers. So, instead I resorted to invoking a certain event in which one editor reverted another 56 times in the same day, under the supervision of six admins, and was one of the most peaceful and constructive wiki-cooperations I ever had encountered. (FYI, it was a WP:FACR speedy resolution, if you are wondering what that could be!) I was hoping that this memory will forever erase any thought of further dispute from FC's mind by showing that no matter what, a collegial discussion is more worthy than any outcome of it. It didn't, because AL came along and posted a comment that showed that he would simply go to any length to fight FC just for the hell of it. AL could have just shut up and enjoy the outcome, but no! He must poke the sleeping hellhound. Eventually, I switched to instant messaging (IM) and convinced FC to end this whole inferno with revision #629673768.

User talk:FleetCommand § BRD

Well, here AL is wrong, plain and simple! He is not assuming good faith; otherwise, BRD is followed perfectly. FC said "I did a B. You partially reverted, especially the scope part. That's an R. I consented, matter closed." In the opening statement, AL has described this as an instance of WP:OWN because he assumes bad faith. But in reality, this sentence is saying "I liked your revert; we have a consensus". For all I know, this could have been what I and one of my esteemed colleagues do, except without the talk page showdown and without the ANI.

Final comment

I see two editors; one who starts a potentially troublesome discussion with a discuss-first approach and is mature enough to say "I humbly apologize"; another editor who cannot even confess that he made a slight mistake (which everybody does every now and then) and must interfere in a topic that he knows nothing about just to incite more hatred and combat. Can I really be mad at the first one?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Codename Lisa presents what is best described as an unrealistic and severely distorted view of events:

"I was aware that AL is misinforming FC," - No, that's not true. I was informing FC what was normal practice, even citing examples. I actually doubt that claim as Codename Lisa was not involved until I posted on FleetCommand's talk page, well over a month after FleetCommand attacked me at mine.

"What he didn't mention – TParis, I hope you are reading this – was that FC apologized almost immediately." - That's also not true at all. FC called me scatterbrained,[37] and was challenged by Cyphoidbomb.[38] FleetCommand then tried to justify his incivility by arguing that it would have been more uncivil not to because it would be relevant at RfA.[39] (If you can understand that you are better than me!) Meanwhile, I was still carrying on a conversation with FleetCommand,[40] and other editors on my talk page. From the time that FleetCommand was first uncivil to the "apology", (note this edit summary) NINE days elapsed.[41] In that time he made 25 other edits. That's not even in the realm of the realm next to "almost immediately"!

"AL does not seem much bothered by this brief exchange at that time" - No, I was bothered by it but I chose to ignore it, other than making a single comment.[42]

"Please correct me if I am wrong but the opening statement by AL is purely ad hominem because its purpose seems to be to hurt, to threaten or to get even" - Yes, you're wrong. I saw fit to post because of yet another of FleetCommand's uncivil/NPA edit summaries.[43] His attitude towards other editors is far too agressive and clearly needed to be reminded of the ramifications.

"When I tried to calm both down and said "discuss the content, not the people"; FC replied "let's do it" while AL replied "don't throw NPA at me"!" - Rubbish. What you actually said is here and my response was this. I did not say "don't throw NPA at me" until you had persistently attacked me for daring to take umbrage at FleetCommand's uncivil/NPA edit summaries. You have persistently said "discuss the content, not the people", but then you do exactly that yourself.

"AL contended above FC's presence in the discussion was minor. But what he didn't say was that the so-called discussion didn't deal much with the treatment of the dispute and was mostly exchange of incivilities." - Because of Lisa's own aggressive actions at FleetCommand's talk page I withdrew from the page and tried to continue a discussion there. That discussion seemed to be productive up until this post (ignoring FleetCommand's bogus sockpuppetry claim[44]) but then Codename Lisa decided to continue her attacks from FleetCommand's page.[45] She could easily have omitted the last paragraph of her post but instead, once again, decided to question my "questionable past conduct". since then I've had to ask her more than once to keep on topic.[46][47] However, even attempting to keep the focus on editors off the page,[48] has not been successful.

"because AL came along and posted a comment that showed that he would simply go to any length to fight FC just for the hell of it" - More rubbish. All I did was copy what Wikipedia:Edit warring actually said in response to an off-topic discussion that should have been conducted on FleetCommand or Codename Lisa's talkpage, or via IM, instead of continong to drag the discussion off-topic.

There is plenty more of Codename Lisa's post that warrants comment because it is blantantly and verifiably incorrect, but I'm sure nobody wants to read it. Ironically, the one thing that FleetCommand and I do agree on is that her presence at the article has not been helpful.[49] --AussieLegend (✉) 13:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I too disagree with Lisa's claim that FC almost immediately apologized. FC's first reaction was to downplay the insult against Aussie by pretending he was insulting Aussie for Aussie's own good. It wasn't until 9 days after the insult that FC struck it out with a "Whatever..." edit summary, then apologized. I also disagree with Lisa's claim that my language was incivil. I described the insult (not Fleet the individual) as "shit" (which I felt it was) and as "irritating as fuck" to read (which I felt it was). I described Fleet's attempt to backpedal on the insult as "crap" and "sub-adult", the latter of which is no different from Lisa's "Childish! Very Childish!" language above. That said, after Lisa accused me of "grossly" insulting Fleet, I apologized to Fleet Command because I hoped that doing so might help repair some of this damage between he and Aussie. I stand by the apology and still hope that it helps. I absolutely do not see eye-to-eye with Lisa on this matter, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You are right: "Almost immediately" is struck out. I meant to write something along the lines of having happened relatively early in the timeline of the whole incident. Sorry. Codename Lisa (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Early in the incident" is still somewhat misleading. There are two parts to the "incident" and his apology wasn't until the very end of the first part, after which there were 22 days of peace before he started again. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The correct phrase is "almost immediately after spotting the thread". I was absent for 9 days (no edits on 9th through 16th) and when I came back I tended to my watchlist from top to bottom, so yes, naturally I didn't see it before I made some (25?) edits. Although I don't know about Australian English, here, "Whatever..." is an interjection of dismissal which I used to dismiss my old "scatterbrained" comment. Of course, striking out that comment was an emergency action. I needed time to re-study everything and measure exactly what to write. (One forgets a lot in 9 days.) It took 32 minutes.

"Early in the incident" is also correct: "Early" is relative; CL has illustrated four stages. It occurred on stage 1 out of 4, so yes, it was early. Fleet Command (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Spotting the thread"? What, you didn't realise the thread existed, even after you'd been posting in it? Why couldn't you have apologised before you disappeared, or not have posted the insult at all? It's all well and good that you eventually apologised, but you shouldn't have been uncivil in the first place, and you know that. You then went and undid the effect that you apology may have had with this post. You've just made it worse by acknowledging here that working through your watchlist was more important than apologising.
"striking out that comment was an emergency action" - If it had really been an emergency you would have done it before going through your watchlist. You knew that you'd been uncivil before you absented yourself. You didn't need a watchlist to tell you that and after striking out your edit with "whatever" you went off and made 5 other edits before returning. You're clearly making excuses here but they're transparent. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Disclaimers: 1) Personal involvement with AussieLegend and 2) I only skimmed through (way too much to bother reading thoroughly) this and Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory characters and List of The Big Bang Theory characters revision history and their talk pages' histories.
That said, skimming through this AussieLegend seems to just confirm my first impressions of him: If he can't convince someone with the first few instant reverts, which he is convinced he is correct in doing (which may or may not be true), he will then start "explaining" – often quite convincingly. If somebody reads through what he wrote and manages to finds "errors" and it gets pointed out where in his initial revert reasoning he might be wrong, he will not admit it, but keep on digging deeper into the hole, or if possible, find other policy violations (which may or may not be correct) and dig another second hole. Repeat these steps for as long as necessary.
My impression of FleetCommand is that he maybe seems to get a bit too heated (maybe) too fast, and sometimes too blunt and direct choice of words for the other person's taste. But when he cools down he can admit if he actually did something wrong. But if it doesn't get pointed out he did wrong, he will also stubbornly continue until convinced otherwise.
Make the discussion long enough and the other part usually just can't be bothered any more and gives up. Except if they both are equally stubborn. Just my short biased opinion based after briefly looking/skimming through. -Hekseuret (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It's true, I do try to explain. That's part of the process but, try as I might, sometimes the other person just doesn't want to listen. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I wish I could say you don't listen too, but it wouldn't be entirely true. You just straight out ignore what others say if you have it in your mind it is incorrect. -Hekseuret (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring by FleetCommand at WP:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28

This link stated, "...(3) as per WP:TPO notice of change is needed)".  FC reverted without inserting a WP:TPO comment, while the objection shown in the edit summary could have been handled via the talk page.  The revert, while not 3RR edit-warring, was the out-of-control aggressive behavior restricted by WP:Edit warring.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And that close has subsequently been undone.[50] --AussieLegend (✉) 13:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong forum. Closure is already discussed in WP:ANB. Edit warring must be discussed in WP:AN3. No one is supposed to edit a closed discussion. Doing this compromises the integrity of closure and makes the closing person look like a complete fool. Also digging dirt on other people only makes the dirt digger look bad. WP:NOTBATTLE, so cut it out. 46.62.142.76 (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This all goes to presenting an overall picture of the editor's behaviour. You can't draw lines and say "talk about this bit here, that bit over there and that bit over there". All of the different aspects overlap. If we were to go to each specific forum to address each specific aspect, we'd be accused of gaming the system. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The point by the IP was that you don't edit closed/archived discussions. If you disagree about a closure you find other ways to bring up your disagreement. -Hekseuret (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@@FleetCommand:: Don't feed divas. Use WP:DR. 95.141.20.196 (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Un4goten1

• Un4goten1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Clearly a vandal-only account. Logged yesterday, he did 6 nonsense edits on Henry Greenslade article, all rollbacked (see: first 3, 4th, 5th, and the last one). User was still warned by the users who rollbacked the page. Anyway, the article was vandalized some minutes ago by another vandal (indef blocked per WP:UAA after my report), and the nonsense style looks like the same. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: User was indef blocked by Berean Hunter. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Also indeffed his socks Your fucking mother, SniparClan, Cheeesez and 89.241.160.144 (hardblocked 72 hours). Un4goten1 is a sleeper account from late 2010 so this is someone's sock. I've semi-protected the page two weeks.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for edits. Ah, sorry, I've not noted he was logged in December 2010 and not few hours ago. Anyway, also the user Theobinns made this pair of strange edits (and nothing else) onto Greenslade's article, on 20 september. Another possible sp? --Dэя-Бøяg 02:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Most likely but I didn't choose to block based on just those two edits.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

PS: could it be a good idea to open an SPI page for Un4goten1? --Dэя-Бøяg 02:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You can if you would like to...I was hoping someone might put a name on the true sockmaster if they recognize him from this thread.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, I'll try, al least to leave a thrace of this sockpuppetry case. And maybe, someone can recognize the original sockmaster :) --Dэя-Бøяg 11:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I am rather surprised a sock or vandal didn't use a username like "User:Your fucking mother" yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Rotfl :-D I thought the same think reading of him in new user log... only yesterday. --Dэя-Бøяg 11:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I created the SPI page for Un4goten1. I hope it could be helpful to discover the real sm. Anyway, I've listed other possible IP socks (2 of them, in September, are almost certainly him), and discovered a thing that could be interesting to understand the reason of all this vandalisms on a little stub about a person born in 1867. Thanks again. --Dэя-Бøяg 13:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User:JARA7979

There have been a lot of users repeatedly removing the same information, currently fully sourced one, from the article Joseon since October 2013 and the most persistent one is JARA7979 (talk · contribs). Her/his first removal was this and the latest one was today. Though s/he wrote "(please check the Talk:Joseon#Tributary_state)" in her/his edit summary, but there's no new post. I talked with her/him. On my talk page and the article talk page. The same kind of information can be found in the infobox of Ashikaga shogunate and Ryukyu Kingdom, but no editors try to remove it. JARA7979 is obviously a white-washer, a Korean POV pusher, almost a SPI and a IDIDN'THEAR type editor. Please block the user. Oda Mari (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems a bit unnessecary to go from what appears to be no warnings straight to an instant level 4, on the flip side his last [51] unblock request included the statement that they would gain consensus instead of resorting to editwaring, it does look like the slowest edit-war ever but the IP's arent helping by the fact they removed identical information but taht would be somethign for WP:SPI. Amortias (T)(C) 17:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I first left this on September 24 after I saw the user removed the information again and again before my revert. Please take a look at this. It was last year and JARA7979 knows what she/he is doing. Oda Mari (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Additionaly, the user must have read this message dated on Feb. 9, 2014, but s/he removed the same information on Feb. 26, 2014 immediately after the block was lifted earlier on the day without consensus. And again on the next day, the user removed the information. These are the warnings. [52] and [53]. I also left this on the user's talk page in April. What level of warning should I have used? Oda Mari (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Artificial Intelligence and the RFC over the lede.

I don't know if this is the right place for this, but could some experienced editors please look at Talk:Artificial intelligence?

Basically, there was a dispute over whether or not the lede should describe the field as trying to make "human-like" software.

• A user called an RFC.
• User User:FelixRosch started edit waring to include a template-breaking "disclamer" that he didn't think the RFC was created by an impartial editor. [54] [55] [56]
• (An experienced editor warned him not to do this..)
• It started to become clear that the RFC would not arrive at the conclusion FelixRosch wanted.

Now, users User:Robert McClenon and User:FelixRosch have prematurely closed the RFC to form their own, private two-person agreement[57] on the issue. Of course, User:FelixRosch is edit waring [58][59] to keep it closed.

Thanks. APL (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I closed the RFC, after its wording had been changed and after discussion of other ways to word it, with the understanding that User:FelixRosch would open a different wording of the RFC that he thought was neutral. At this point, since there doesn't seem to be agreement as to how an RFC should be written to address the question of the wording of the lede sentence, moderated dispute resolution may be a better answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The OP forgot to notify the two parties. I have notified User:FelixRosch. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Appreciation to editors to pointing me to this notideboard since @APL did not do this. My understanding is that @Robert McClenon currently has successfully made a 5 (five) editor consensus upon his closing the RfC following the "Steelpillow" consensus edit on Talk. User @APL has not notified me of this noticeboard and has misrepresented the total number of 5 editors in the consensus. The consensus of 5 editors was established by @Robert McClenon with the following offer which consensus I joined, with @Robert McClennon currently holding the 5 editor consensus as follows:

@Robert McClennon: You appear to be saying that of the 4 options from various editors which I listed above as being on the discussion table, that you have a preference for version (d) by Steelpillow, and that you are willing to remove the disputed RfC under the circumstance that the Steeltrap version be posted as being a neutral version of the edit. Since I accept that the editors on this page are in general of good faith, then I can stipulate that if (If) you will drop this RfC by removing the template, etc, that I shall then post the version of Steeltrap from 3 October on Talk in preference to the Qwerty version of 1 October. The 4 paragraph version of the Lede of Qwerty will then be posted updated with the 3 October phrase of Steelpillow ("...whether human-like or not") with no further amendations. It is not your version and it is not my version, and all can call it the Steelpillow version the consensus version. If agreed then all you need do is close/drop the RfC, and then I'll post the Steelpillow version as the consensus version. FelixRosch (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Your turn. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Installing new 4 paragraph version of Lede following terms of close-out by originating Editor RobertM and consensus of 5 editors. It is the "Steelpillow" version of the new Lede following RfC close-out on Talk. FelixRosch (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

After he joined the Steelpillow consensus to form a consensus of 4 editors, @Robert McClenon had invited me to joined the consensus which I did do, and he at this moment holds the 5 editor consensus. He offered to close the RfC first, and I offered to post his endorsement of the Steelpillow edit in return, and he held me to these terms. Both of these were done, the RfC was closed by RobertM and I posted the Steelpillow edit as promised in the above. The RfC was closed by the author of the RfC and the Steelpillow version posted in the Lede following the consensus of 5 editors. FelixRosch (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

FelixRosch has been slow edit-warring on this article, pushing a perspective that is not backed up by the literature. Notice the absence of sources. [60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78].

Reasoned and sourced responses from other users get ignored, misrepresented or a curveball. There is very little effort to build consensus.

More Rosch drama [79][80][81][82][83] (and there's more on other subjects unrelated to artificial intelligence)

I haven't seen an editor single-handedly create this much drama in all my time on Wikipedia. Pretty impressive for an editor contributing for less than a year. pgr94 (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Pgr94 Please do not make fun of two editors who have been involved in good faith discussion for over a month by singling out your favorite dozen or so one-line comments from a very long discussion. There is no reason for you to make fun of RobertM either for making the first genuine progress in the discussion by establishing a consensus edit of 5 editors by his closing his RfC for the benefit of the first 5 editor consensus edit in over a month. FelixRosch (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch: reverted to close the RFC prematurely yet again (2014-10-18T15:01:47) just after his response here (2014-10-18T14:47:52). I have waited some time in the hope that there would be a response to this request for assistance. Since there has been no response yet, so I have reopened the RFC myself. We really need admin intervention here (whether to allow the RFC to complete without further disruption or otherwise), so will someone please respond. --Mirokado (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Undid revision 630191794 You appear to be edit warring against a 5 editor consensus for an RfC closed by the originating author RobertM. Please stop WP:EW and WP:3RR. Your next edit puts you over 3RR and your Talk page is posted for WP:EW because of your reverts against the consensus of 5 editors. You have not even tried one single time to contact RobertM concerning the established consensus or anyone else to try to make consensus. RobertM has made genuine progress for a discussion over a month long for the first time by establishing a consensus of 5 editors. You have been invited to seek consensus in the section below it on Talk:Artificial Intelligence and you have refused. Please stop edit warring and please follow Wikipedia policy and procedures for establishing consensus before you edit. FelixRosch (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Unrelated edit from editors who do not know the difference between the words "to" and "too", twice in one edit.

Time for action here ....this Felix person competences has been called into question to many times to believe that anything will ever change with the behaviour Getting tedious to say the least. Getting reverted 90 percent of the time then edit waring over those edits would lead any normal editor to conclude Felix simply doesn't get it!! To many editors have wasted there time with this guy already. I dont think English is the editor primary language. -- Moxy (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations by Spiritclaymore at Huns

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

Huns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Spiritclaymore added material that plagiarized from the sources Najjar and Livingstone, and was warned about it. He then restored older material that plagiarized from the Russian Translation series (last source in there), was warned again (with the explanation to not use the same words), to which he readded the material, paraphasing a different part and only removing one word from the Russian Translation Series plagiarism.

He appears interested in learning to do it right, but there's still a degree of responsibility on him to be able to not plagiarize (even if it's unintentional).

Ian.thomson (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

He's also been edit-warring over content, but at the moment he seems to have stopped (perhaps a time zone thing). We'll see what happen when he returns to the article. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

He's restored the content after I warned him about 3rr and asked him not to. Filing a 3rrnb report now. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

And Spiritclaymore seems to think that 12 hours is more than 24 hours. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Participation by Admin Dreadstar in edit war at The Federalist (website) AFTER fully protecting the article

I wrote the following before becoming aware of the ANI report almost immediately above ((since archived)), but it is in any case a separate issue. Dreadstar wtites there, "I've fully protected the article due to edit warring. I've also removed the material identified as a potential BLP violation. Work it out on the article talk page. Dreadstar ☥ 23:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)" But this is not ok. You don't get to win edit wars and delete what you want merely by alleging a BLP vio. Some consideration must be given to whether the allegation is simply gaming the system.

I went to look at this article after not editing it for some time, and was not shocked to discover that it was protected again. What I was a bit shocked by was this edit [84] by the protecting administrator, immediately after the protection. I had consulted a previous protecting administrator, HJ Mitchell, about scare quotes added by a third administrator, drmies, to this article which HJ Mitchell had placed under full protection, and was assured that "[an admin... work[ing] on a protected page as if it were not protected] is definitely out... Adminship is about enacting (and sometimes enforcing) consensus and, by extension, policy (which is a codification of policy). Admins shouldn't act unilaterally, and they have to respect full protection like anyone else. So they can make edits requested on the talk page that have consensus or are uncontroversial (eg typo fixes), and they can remove serious policy violations (copyvios, I would say it would have to be a serious BLP violation, vandalism, and other serious issues), but they shouldn't just edit through protection as though it wasn't there, even though they have the technical ability."[85]

But here[86] admin Dreadstar removes the disputed material from the page AFTER fully protecting it, with the comment, "BLP has been invoked, take it to the talk page". But of course HJ Mitchell had assured me that BLP had not merely to be "invoked", but there had to be a clear and serious violation for an admin to take sides. In this case the material (on Neil deGrasse Tyson's "misquote" of GWBush) is fully cited and had been on the page in substantially similar form, except when briefly removed during edit wars, for a considerable time and is substantiated by Tyson's admission of the mistake.

I brought this up with HJ Mitchell, and he pointed to WP:PREFER's statement that, "administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists", otherwise declining to get involved again. But that can't be right: The Tyson material has been on the page, in substantially similar form, far longer than the coatrack of anti-Federalist material that is now the sole text content of the protected page. It has been off the page briefly during edit wars and when protection happened to catch it off the page, but the current version is in no way "an old version of the page predating the edit war".

Can I here get a recommendation that Dreadstar self-revert? Andyvphil (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG 2607:FB90:704:938C:C9D:4B21:F6A3:A960 (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the meaning of this obscurity? Andyvphil (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I feel the right thing was done per WP:HARM. Consensus is not clear if the material goes against WP:BLP yet, so rather than going on like it does and it is okay to include the information it is best to air on the side of caution here and keep it removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Dreadstar did not "keep it removed". He took affirmative action to remove the contested material. THAT is why I am here.

So-called "erring on the side of caution" has, as I noted, the effect of freezing the article on "The Federalist" in the state of being a straight attack piece on its subject. The attempt to delete this article, as well as keep any mention of Tyson's inventive way with the truth out of Wikipedia has received significant negative coverage in the conservative press, enhancing Wikipedia's reputation as a partisan environment. The attempt to delete this article failed BrD, but this gaming of the system has the effect of handing the failing side in that debate the result they wanted. Further, there at least was a tradition on Wikipedia of editors instituting page protection leaving the article in the state they found it rather than involving themselves in the content dispute, absent a clear policy violation. Failing to seriously engage the question of whether such a policy violation exists before giving one side of such a debate what it wants has serious costs. Andyvphil (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Good-faith invocations of BLP are generally to be supported; The Federalist is not a living person and is not subject to the same protections as actual people. If you think the article would be best completely stubbed, blown up and started over again, that's probably worth offering as a suggestion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, good-faith invocations of BLP are generally to be supported. The question is what to do about determined bad-faith or obtuse invocations of BLP. See WP:GAME. Is your suggestion that I have adopted a position opposite to the one I expressed in the BrD based on anything I have said? Andyvphil (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No comment on this particular issue, but reality has a well-known liberal bias and Wikipedia reflects reality. --NE2 07:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The reality in this case is that there is no BLP issue with informing Wikipedia readers of The Federalist 's page of its success in bringing attention to Tyson's inventions. Somehow the liberal bias of this particular bit of reality has escaped the attention of the apparently "liberal" would-be censors, as they otherwise would presumably not be so anxious to make sure that in this case Wikipedia does not reflect reality. Feel free to inform yourself on this issue before again attempting to hijack this section. Your smugness is noted, but not helpful. Andyvphil (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Support indefinite block on reality. Facts are funny things, known unknowns, welcomed as liberators, mission accomplished, etc. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I confess I have no idea what that's intended to mean, although an indefinite block on reality is exactly what I'm being forced to combat.

Despite my pinging you[87] you have not chosen to respond to my inquiry about what you meant when you said, I think, that Obsidi had been "previously corrected" in objecting to the misleading "1RR warnings" you leave on others' talk pages. Is that your final decision? Andyvphil (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Please be mindful of edit warring on the Tyson article due to the new WP:NEWBLPBAN discretionary sanctions. It will be best to limit yourself to WP:1RR and let the other editor get blocked or topic banned." What part of that statement is misleading? Obsidi was corrected on this point in another discussion,[88] now I would like the opportunity to correct you. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I will take this up further at the target of your link, i.e. Talk:NDG (and not, unfortunately, your "correction" of Obsidi, which is what I would still like), since I will be referring to material there. Andyvphil (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me say this again, I did NOT say that you stated that 1RR was a part of WP:NEWBLPBAN, just that it could have been mistaken to think so for someone who didnt know WP:NEWBLPBAN. You are stating it as if the other editor would get banned for violating 1RR and so you should avoid it. Now I am NOT claiming that Viriditas should be sanctioned for misrepresenting ArbCom, what you said was not incorrect. I just said it so that next time you might want to think about clarifying the fact that 1RR is not a part of WP:NEWBLPBAN so more people don't get confused. (And other then yourself "correcting" me, I have not been "corrected", and I stand by what I said) If you do need to notify someone that discretionary sanctions apply, you can use: {{Ds/alert}} or in this case {{subst:alert|blp}} --Obsidi (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh and I wish if you guys start talking about me by name on this board, I ask that you ping me next time. --Obsidi (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Ping" is an invention post-dating my last active interest in Wikipedia. I apologize for not mentioning that I had inquired of Virditas what he had said to you when I linked to here on your talk page. I'm still trying to find out if he was told then that his warnings were misleading. Andyvphil (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

What I wrote does not in any way imply that "the other editor would get banned for violating 1RR". Per the applicable sanctions, editors must "comply with all applicable policies and guidelines" and "follow editorial and behavioral best practice". That especially applies to edit warring. Self-imposed 1RR helps avoid coming under such sanctions. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a trumped up version of "the admin protected the wrong revision". It's perfectly acceptable to remove a COATRACK allegation (to which the article owes its existence in a discussion many of us are now wishing ended differently) on the basis of BLP and protect the article. Protonk (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK is an essay, not policy, and even if the article were that it would not be proper for an administrator to "fix" that problem as part of the protection process. Absent a policy violation requiring immediate address (and COATRACK is obviously not that) it is completely inappropriate for a protecting admin to "fix" the text for quality -- he can revert to a stable version prior to the edit war, if it exits (as I mention above) or just leave what's on the page undisturbed. This used to be widely understood. When did it become controversial?

Dreadstar didn't "protect the wrong version". He protected the version that existed... then CREATED another. Andyvphil (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Close this Actual WP:BLP issue or not, admins are given wide discretion to enforce BLP on questionable cases. There are enough editors and reasonable information available to determine that reverting contested BLP information from the article is acceptable. The only argument is whether the material actually is a BLP violation or not. That has no impact at all on Dreadstar's revert. The fact that it is being discussed justifies his actions. Therefore, take the discussion to the talk page, gain consensus, and then restore the material.--v/r - TP 05:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• Agree with Knowledgekid87 and TParis that removal was correct (controversial BLP content pending discussion). It sounds like there is a legitimate dispute about whether it's a WP:BLP violation. It might not be, and eventual discussion might find consensus that it's not (leading to re-adding it within a few days), but the case for it being problematic is not obviously nonsense and I don't see prior consensus that it should be included. BLP policy clearly gives very high priority to avoiding harm to LPs, so we should favor removing the material for now (avoiding harm to LP, at the lesser cost of the remaining content being claimed unbalanced against a non-LP). DMacks (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• Whatever anyone's behavioral or edit warring issues, this an inappropriate use of tools. It undermines confidence in the neutrality of admins, or their respect for the content decisions of the community. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Re, "Whatever anyone's behavioral or edit warring issues...", let me repeat: I discovered this protection and edit after coming to the project page after some time away from it. I was not involved it the edit war that prompted the protection. Andyvphil (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:PROT says "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies..." It is accepted practice to remove policy violations from a protected page. Chillum 04:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Chillum, for finding the guidance policy I vaguely remembered, as recited above. But it doesn't support your conclusion. @Dreadstar: did not purport to conclude that the then-current "version contain[ed] content that clearly violate[ed] content policies". As I quote him above, he said the exact opposite: "I've also removed the material identified as a potential BLP violation."(emphasis added). Hopefully, he will come here and clarify this. Andyvphil (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless I missed something there is no policy violation that has been established, much less clearly so. Indeed, as far as I can tell well-established editors are arguing in good faith on both sides. So it boils down to an admin enforcing their view on a disputed content matter using admin tools. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I admit the case is not entirely clear cut. I can however imagine Dread was confident it was a clear violation at the time he/she made the edit. While the validity of the edit can be disputed I don't think there was an abuse of admin tools here. Chillum 06:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can imagine "Dread was confident it was a clear violation", but see my response to you above. Andyvphil (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, not abuse. Perhaps hasty use. When editors are debating whether an issue legitimately invokes BLP, best to hear it out. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"...best to hear it out"? Meaning what, in this context? I am, sincerly, not understanding what you're saying.

If not abuse, clear error if Dreadstar made no attempt to evaluate the alleged policy violation, as he seems to say?

I've noticed him, and later pinged him, but he's failed to show up. This appears to be a violation of WP:ADMINACCT.

The protection is expiring, but I don't believe this moots the question of the propriety of his actions, absent a promise not to do it again. Which I would accept. Andyvphil (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso continues to violate interaction ban

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

---

I really don't like to do this, but this is a clear, willful and blatant violation of the interaction ban between Ihardlythinkso and me. What was he even thinking? Obviously there is another side to the story with regard to the narrative he presents there, but you probably don't give a damn so I won't go into it unless you request further information. The pertinent point here is that the interaction ban has been explained to him in unambigmous terms on several occasions, yet he continues to violate it. This is the fourth violation. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No, no, no: we don't archive a debate within minutes [89]; especially when a hasty block has taken place [90]. This place becomes dafter by the second. Giano (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no debate. The topic ban was unambiguously violated, and a block was applied in keeping with the ban. Keeping this thread open is what's daft. Enjoy! Doc talk 08:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The link provided does not mention "Max Browne," only a wiki dispute resolution board insider would know that's who IHTS was referring to. MB's monitoring of IHTS's contributions looking for violations is as much the cause of the disruption as IHTS's comments. Now, would someone please unblock IHTS? NE Ent 11:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Would that you were as forgiving with me as with IHTS, who was clearly violating a topic ban. Nothing against IHTS as such. But topic bans must be enforced against all violators, not just against users you don't like. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This has a bad taste to it. It would have been better if another editor had made this report. GoodDay (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

What's the right way for user A to report it when user B violates their interaction ban? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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

GoodDay You're correct. The comments he made didn't specify who he was talking about, so no it wasn't obvious that he was breaching his IBAN, nor was he posting on Maxs page, nor actually "Interacting" with him in anyway. however, since the IBAN concerned MaxBrowne, it could be argued that MaxBrowne violated his IBAN for sure. I'd say Ihardlythinkso needs to be unblocked, this was hasty and not obviously an IBAN. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There is only one person who IHTS references with the line "classic narcisist" so its oblique yet specific reference. I had spotted it yesterday but I was hoping he would retract it prior to someone bringing it up on ANI. Unfortunately that did not happen. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violations by editor

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

---

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

Marcellenchmob has been repeatedly copying the text from here into [91], [92], [93]. No response to warnings: [94], [95]. The article is currently a redirect, and the album may be notable now, but copying text from another site is obviously not the way to go. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked with a longer explanation about how to verify license, since he very likely is connected to the record label. This is one of those instances where indef is not intended at all to mean infinite; he's an irregular contributor with a tight focus, and it's important that he understand that this is not optional. I've also explained COI. I've left him a suggestion for further participation. At this point, I think there is the possibility of IP editing or sock puppetry, though, given lack of communication before. Just in case, good idea to keep an eye on that article. :/ I'm doing so, and it looks you were anyway, User:NeilN. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Filedelinkerbot is malfunctioning

Filedelinkerbot is deleting entire pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.194.124 (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you please provide a diff. I do not see anything suspicious in the contribution of the bot.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The deletion log of Filedelinkerbot as a performer has no entries whatsoever. Not to mention that the account does not have administrative rights and therefore would not be able to delete any pages. De728631 (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Cicciononno

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

---

Maybe someone else can reach this user; I've tried and failed. For the past month, Cicciononno (talk · contribs) has edited film-related articles. The vast majority of these edits are disruptive and have been reverted within minutes. The problem is that Cicciononno likes to convert numbers in the infobox to use periods instead of commas (in violation of MOS:DECIMAL). Cicciononno also strips the infobox of citations, sometimes changes the values (without a citation), and adds wikilinks to every single name: [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], etc. Cicciononno's talk page is littered with ignored warnings, and I really don't know how to get this person to stop. If someone can get Cicciononno to communicate, maybe a block is unnecessary, but cleaning up after Cicciononno has become a minor aspect of my daily routine now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thrown over to WP:AIV for a hopefully quicker repsonse. Amortias (T)(C) 20:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Byelo userpage

Byelo made two edits to José Pozo back in September [103][104] but otherwise all of their edits have been to their userpage. 89.165.168.18 has been editing Byelo's userpage as well as the userpage of Bogudan who seems to be another editor who made a couple of perfunctory edits and has used the rest of their time editing their user page. Both userpages seem to be used to keep track of a tournament of some kind and this seems to violate WP:NOTWEBHOST. Helpsome (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Helpsome: did you try discussing this with either user before coming here? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

SMH Records Spam and possible meatpuupet/sockpuppet

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

---

Could use some eyes here, :Either we have a sock or a meatpuppet haven't decided on which, for relevant past history please see [[105]], you can also see via edit summaries here [[106]] and attemptes to direct to relevant policies here [[107]] and [[108]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

1. It may or may not be a case of sock-/meat-puppetry, but it is not obvious that it is, without your saying what evidence makes you think so.
2. The place to ask for possible sock-/meat-puppetry to be investigated is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, not here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Offering cures to Ebola at the Ref Desk

Users User:Wnt and User:Aspro have decided that we should be offering links to unreferenced cures to Ebola at the reference desk, and have reverted hatting of such material. This is not only in violation of WP:RS it's in violation of Wikipedia:General Disclaimer. The material should be deleted, and the editors admonished, if not blocked for obvious violations of WP policy. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Cures? More like comments on the observance of good hygiene practices. The question of references on WP articles vs Ref Desk has come up before. The sun will rise tomorrow- do I need to add a reference to that? Yet μηδείς (who until very recently, has added some very good contribution) recently added Nitrous oxide works largely as an asphyxiant, and regularly kills those such as dentists who abuse it. Google laughing gas death. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC) [109]. I would have thought that that needed a reference, as I myself have had more than one tooth extraction with nitrous oxide and that is not how it works. Oxygen is given with nitrous oxide to prevent hypoxia. Is the pot calling all the other kettles black? This editors appear to have changed of late and wants everybody to dance to thier tune.--Aspro (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

My response to this is at [110]. My sources are in my original comment as linked in the unhatting above. To claim that I "violated WP:RS", let alone the General Disclaimer (!) seems very peculiar. The purpose of this discussion should be to encourage people to think about the question and try to bring relevant sources and concepts to bear on it, and I think I've done so. Wnt (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Here are a few thousand Google hits on Nitrous Oxide suffocation: [111]. Here are zero hits on curing Ebola with fossils: [0]. This unreferenced and unreferenceable bee ess needs to be hatted, and I suggest an admin do so. Wikipedia:General Disclaimer μηδείς (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• It seems that the CDC's Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse program missed the problem of editing wars breaking out on Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• The OP on that question asked about some quack remedy for ebola. We don't need Wikipedia's ref desk being cited as a potential source for such misinformation. The question had been answered, namely that there is no remedy proven so far, except treating the symptoms and letting the immune system take over. There was nothing else to say about it, and no reason to keep it open. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think Medeis has built a nice straw man here. The word "cure" only appears where Bugs says there isn't one. Wnt was just generally offering related scientific findings, without making any claims of cures. Aspro's response was mostly about disinfectants and information access, and made in response to questions about bleach. There's clearly no false "cure" for Ebola being offered there. Aspro's repsonse did seem slightly WP:SOAPy to me by bringing up the cost of cruise missiles, though I see that as a very minor issue that doesn't need investigation (I also happen to agree with the sentiment re:missiles, so that might bias my interpretation of how serious the potential SOAP issue is :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• The information at issue here, while somewhat speculative, was appropriate and well-cited. No "cures" were offered or promised. There was no reason to hat the thread. The stated reason for hatting, "medical something", proves that there was no reason to hat the thread. We have a well-defined and well-applied prohibition against offering medical advice. We have no prohibition against discussing medical information. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Strong quacking sensation

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

---

Hi

User:Riotr, User:99.247.39.80 and User:Riotr911 appear to be making a strong quacking noise with regards to their article their username and their edit histories, not sure its worth the SPI givent he blatentness of it but if nessecary I'll go there. Amortias (T)(C) 21:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously the same guy. And even if that Giganaut article weren't a hoax, the wording of the article is very poor. For your user page, you might want to consider asking for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I prefer my Userpage unprotected, it keeps the vandalism off the mainspace and anything improper is unlikely to get spotted by anyone looking for somethign useful. People tend to get a bit frustrated by my anti-vandalism work and some damage in a corner is far less problematic than damage somewhere else. Amortias (T)(C) 21:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Aha, making yourself a lightning rod for the good of the team. I can dig it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And this was quick but think weve got another - blanked this section of the page User:50.101.91.90, Amortias (T)(C) 21:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the accounts and IP for disruption and abusing multiple accounts. Chillum 21:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Any chance you can flatten the one above as well he even posted Giganaunt on my user page... Amortias (T)(C) 21:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If you google "giganaut" there are a few entries, not necessarily anything to do with the now-deleted Wikipedia article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Deletion Review -- All open reviews accidentally hidden?

This is wayyyyy beyond my expertise, but when I go to Deletion Review Active Discussions [112], it appears that the close of a 19 October case has accidentally hidden all prior open cases. If I'm right, could this be fixed? --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure this fixed it. Table wasn't closed. Stickee (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Look good. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

User talk:RubySea

Not sure what to do with this: user has been blocked for 4 years for block evasion (being a sock of someone, presumably) and had their talk page deleted per G7 the same day, but is now using their recreated talk page to store a cut-and-paste copy of a page up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Windows Phone 8 devices. There have been no comments on the AfD by IPs or low-edit/relatively new accounts, so presumably the user stumbled upon it independently. The talk page has also been used to store another article cut-and-paste, of Neumont University, back in 2012. Can the page be deleted, and if so, should it be? I'm not sure if any WP:CSD fit, or if such an argument would be better suited for WP:MfD. It certaintly doesn't follow WP:TPG, that's for sure.

As for what admins can do about this: should talk page access be revoked again? It was in the original block, but User:Dcoetzee (now arbcom-blocked, unfortunately) restored it the same day that the first cut-and-paste was made, apparently per a request on IRC. What the page has since been used for seems like abuse of TP privileges.

Also pinging User:Vianello, the blocking admin, but as they've (sorry) been inactive for a couple months, I wouldn't hold my breath. Also, not notifying the user beyond the talk page ping (I think it does work if it's section header?), for obvious reasons. I'm not watching; ping me if anything important comes up. ansh666 07:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• I just reverted it and left a note, it's been years without any changes, let's see. Problem is the first block was for block evasion so without knowing the main account or the extent, I'm not sure I would want to unblock but I've seen people using their talk pages for drafts and it just create headaches for no reason (one of which being ripping history apart if they want it moved to articlespace) so I'll give them a chance on it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sweet, another double secret block. --NE2 07:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering this it's probably either self-requested or justified - not that it makes it any less unfortunate. ansh666 07:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how this works, obvious vandalism is this page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality

Read under Kosovo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:72:0:E1A:3CE0:5CE8:29F0:44BC (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see vandalism there. I do see a point one could raise, about whether that section about Kosovo is misplaced there (the erection of a single poor-taste statue of a foreign politician hardly rises to the level of what all the rest of the page is about, even though some commentator in some newspaper once remarked that it is "reminiscent" of such patterns), but that's a matter to be discussed on the article talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Abuse of user talk page

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

---

I hate doing this, but User:Viriditas has been told politely, firmly and repeatedly told to stay off my user talk page after posting a series of bizarre, ideologically-driven, conspiracy theories in addition to offensive commentary that suggested I was racist, racially insensitive, or blinded by my "white privilege". There is no reason why any editor should be forced to deal with this sort of behavior on their own talk page, especially after telling the perpetrator to take it elsewhere. This sort of baiting, taunting and provocation should not be tolerated by any editor. I would be grateful if any administrator would simply warn Viriditas to stop doing this on my talk page (or actual consequences will follow). Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff to the message where you asked them to stay off your talk page? Amortias (T)(C) 11:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I also notified them of this thread while I was taking a look. Amortias (T)(C) 11:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for notifying Viriditas, Amortias. I make ANI reports so infrequently that the procedures are not ingrained; I apologize for not adhering to ANI standard operating procedure in that regard. Requested diffs: [113], [114] and [115]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thats fine I only remember this sort of thing as im one of those people who reads the instruction manual before doing anything. Amortias (T)(C) 12:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving the personalized request on Viriditas' talk page. Hopefully, that will be sufficient to put a stop to this. If Viriditas will acknowledge this, I think we can safely close this thread without much further discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1:Have spoken to Viriditas and hes happy for me to act as a go between for the two of you, if he has a concern they'll raise it with me and if you have a concern you can raise it with me. I'll then pass it on or deal with it directly. Should mean they shouldnt need to post on your talk page and you cant be accused of goading them by posting on theirs. let me know if thats acceptable and i'll close this off. Amortias (T)(C) 21:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Amortias: If you need a second editor to consult with on this, I'm happy to try to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Feel free to stalk my talk page, I've asked if both editors can post concerns there. Amortias (T)(C) 22:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

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

New editor making usual edits to political party categories. Sock?

New editor Huge456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who's first edit was to change an infobox photo, has been adding entertainers to political party categories if the entertainer has ever even mentioned support for the party, and even if they have since disavowed that support. Examples: at Gary Numan's bio and Tracey Emin's bio. Huge456 justifies these edits by referencing inclusion criteria that they added to the category itself here ("Past and present members or supporters of the Conservative Party (UK)"). In the case of Gary Numan; he has specifically disavowed support for the Conservative Party ("...there was a Scottish newspaper that ran a big feature that had me down as Conservative, which was an absolute bloody lie."), making Huge456's three insertions WP:BLP violations. I have tried to explain to Huge456 why this is a problem.

The editor seems WP:PRECOCIOUS, and engages in edit warring and other conduct reminiscent of user Goredog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was blocked by Callanecc for similar behavior. Notice also the bracket bot warning on both user's talk pages, and the swapping of infobox images. I don't have time now to investigate this thoroughly, but I wanted to see if anyone else thinks Huge456 might be a sock of a previous user. Thank you. - MrX 14:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The category clearly states that it is there for current and former supporters of the various parties, however I think it is a joke that you are trying to claim that I might be a sock because I am adding categories to articles, as any user can evidently see that you were the one who first started edit warring by reverting my editions. You say that because bracket bot has mentioned that I accidentally did not add a bracket to certain edits that means I'm a sock? I have just taken a look at various other editors talk pages and so far 5 of them have bracket bot mentioning that they have not added brackets, does this mean they are socks as well, no it does not! Swapping info box images, you mean I added a more recent and up to date image of someone however people disagreed with it because you could not see the face clear enough, does that make someone a sock puppet also, once again it does not! I can see that you are being quite petty be accusing me of various things, when all I have done is add a category to Gary Numan and you didn't agree. To claim i'm a sock because bracket bot has written on my talk page, as he has done with countless other users, is both ridiculous and absurd. I am honestly quite shocked by your behaviour and others who read your accusations will undoubtedly view your accusations as absurd. Huge456 (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The category name is Conservative Party (UK) people, which strongly suggests a link to the party itself, not merely a political support for conservative (small c) principles. The description was only extended to include "or supporters" by your edit.

The scope of this category needs to be clarified. I see a clear value to "party people" meaning a declared connection with the party. There could also be scope for "conservative supporters", although this is both different (likely a parent category) and also hard to validate per WP:BLP. It should have defined conditions set out clearly beforehand, as per the comments at talk:.

I don't much care whether "conservative supporters" is created or not, but it should not replace the separately notable "party people" category.

As to the issue at Tracey Emin and Gary Numan then we have to meet BLP first and foremost. There is a source at Emin that says she claims to have voted Conservative (and claims no more than that). That is not adequate alone to include here in either of these categories: it could equally be said of millions of UK voters and probably thousands of notable UK BLP subjects. I don't believe a category framed to be quite so wide would have any encyclopedic value. A category of "Famous household names who voted Conservative" would also fail WP:SYNTH.

We have sourcing to say "Emin voted Conservative". It may be true that Emin is a prominent supporter of conservative politics, but we would have to additionally source that. To say that she is "Conservative party people" we'd have to both show a connection (not merely support) to that level and also sourcing of this to meet WP:BLP. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that this edit by the user shows a worrying wp:POV trait, by a user who also seems to shun wp:RSs and wp:ESs (except when he's giving his/her point of view). Also, it's dubious behaviour to remove warnings from one's own user talk page. Trafford09 (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Your last sentence is contrary to policy and I suggest you strike it. WP:REMOVED: "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so." --Obsidi (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I take your point, Obsidi, but I think my point is still worth keeping, as it may help others detect if Huge456's MO is similar to others'. S/he could have left the warnings or archived them but - counter to WP's preferred course - simply deleted them. I was careful not to say that this is scorned, as I knew the policy to which you rightly refer. The user might have used the warning to argue his/her case, in constructive & AGF-inducing spirit, but chose otherwise. Trafford09 (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Users are free to delete anything they want to from their talk pages, provided they don't selectively delete and hence distort the picture; or if they've filed an unblock request that was rejected, it has to stay on their page until the block is done. The "preferred" way is nothing more than a recommendation. The user talk page history effectively serves as an archive. If you're looking for similar MO's, don't put too much weight on deletion instead of archiving, as many users do it that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

user:Nitramrekcap

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

---

Indefinitely blocked editor Nitramrekcap appears to back to his old tricks at Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, as promised at User talk:Jimbo Wales in August: see here (BTW, membership of the PRB society does not in any way imply expertise. All you have to do is pay their extortionate £14 per annum fee). Special:Contributions/2.30.207.16 is editing with the same pattern. Paul B (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for block evasion, and some fairly disruptive editing. Euryalus (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Request to lift a hastily placed block

Per this incident , Ihardlythinkso was accused of violating his interaction ban between himself and the filer of the report MaxBrowne. First, the evidence given for IBAN is this edit . Ihardlythink so was blocked 12 minutes after this incident was reported, and while Ihardlythinkso and MaxBrowne are under an IBAN to be sure, this post doesn't give any indication that Ihardlythinkso is talking about MaxBrowne, although he refers to the IBAN itself. Further, this block is contested by Giano, Ne Ent , User:GoodDay and myself.

As there is no credible evidence that Ihardlythinkso was actually referring to MaxBrowne, I would request an unblock. Obviously, no investigation can be made as to whether or not MaxBrowne actually broke the IBAN by actually referring to Ihardlythinkso, since this would be an exception to the ban. I have notified the above mentioned users about this posting, I have also notified blocking sysop Spartaz and closing sysop Chillum. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 20:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. The posting "doesn't give any indication that Ihardlythinkso is talking about MaxBrowne"? Bollocks. He was talking about him, as was crystal-clear from his description of that specific incident – anybody who remembers the incident knows that it was M.B. who was the other party in it. Whether he names the name is completely irrelevant. People who knew the event (and there are many of them out there) know who he meant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose It was clear that the person who was referred to was MaxBrowne. There is also evidence that this is a repeat offense. - Knowlegekid87 (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• on the subject of hasty! don't you think it's a bit hasty to raise this here before having a discussion with me first or does your AGF not extend to admins? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose(I was one of the closers) This was already reviewed and was also closed by 3 different administrators(including myself) with the same conclusion. If the matter is not apparent to you then it is likely because you are not familiar with the case.

  It was not hasty because it was not a ban discussion, it was a case of administrative discretion based on an already existing ban. There is no need to have a protracted debate when the conclusion is obvious to the acting admin.

  There was also a similar incident where IHTS was warned that this sort of gaming would not excuse him. Chillum 20:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am going to ping @Doc9871: as this admin also closed the discussion. Chillum 21:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Please don't make unsupported statements about about other editors, Doc9871 is not an admin [116] NE Ent 22:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• I do not think Chillum knew that, it is common that editors close discussions but some have so many info-boxes it is hard to tell if they are admin or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• My mistake, thank you for pointing that out. Chillum 00:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm no admin and have never claimed to be one. Per IHTS:

"I am unable to tell any of the abusive treatments because any reference direct or indirect will be interpreted as IBAN violation with the offending user, who filed the AN request for IBAN immediately after the ANI closed where he used the abusive name-calls. So effectively now, I have a sock stuck down my throat, and am unable to voice any complaint about the incidents without receiving an escalated block."

Who here does not think that the one "who filed the AN request for IBAN immediately after the ANI closed" was Max Browne? Anyone? And is the "immediately" thing meant to throw suspicion on this "offending user" for filing it so quickly? It looks like it to me. Max Browne filed the request for IBAN, did he not? A thread that was then open for 8 days. It's quite obvious that IHTS fully knew he violated the IBAN when he said, "If WP:NPA policy can be ignored, allowing a user to repeatedly be abused with "classic narcissist" name-call, then please tell me a rational/reasonable argument why WP:IBAN policy is to be respected!"[117] This thread is just wikilayering to get a buddy out of the trouble he made for himself. Doc talk 04:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• The IBAN prohibits discussing the other party, either directly or indirectly. You don't have to mention the other guy's name in order to have enforcement come down on you. When it's clear who the guy's talking about, to those familiar with the case, the IBAN has to be enforced. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware the Ban prohibits direct or indirect discussion. It's not clear that Max Browne is being discussed. Ihardlythinkso mentions his IBAN, but given no detail, nor really any indication that he's talking about MaxBrowne, bear in mind, I'm currently under a TBAN "Broadly Construed" so I'm well aware that a ban typically means no talk to or talking about whatever the subject of the ban is, anywhere on Wikipedia.

Also, I wasn't the sole user that objected, as I noted three others did as well. Spartaz , I've been down that road before. I've actually spoken with sysops and have had consensus in my favor only for the sysop to just flat ignore it, so I no longer think it's the thing to do, to be honest. I believe in consensus, and if consensus says you're fine, then so be it. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 21:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware of how bans go. If it's clear to those "in the know" that the ban was violated, then the violator and his buddies have to accept the block. Trying to wikilawyer around it is not acceptable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this should be closed, it was already as pointed out by Chillum closed by 2 different admins, 3 after this. I think the WP:STICK should be dropped. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The easiest way to "drop the stick" is to stop arguing about the close, which is a practice thing, not any sort of policy. So, anyway, it's not unreasonable to conclude IHTS violated the ban because he mentioned the editor who called him a narcissist. However, the context of the comment was replying a post by Jimbo Wales (also an admin) following up a discussion on Wales' talk page, and the primary thrust of the comment was that an admin not-named-Max-Browne whom IHTS does not have an interaction ban with also called him a narcissist, so I don't see it as a violation, especially as IHTS did not mention MB by name. So perhaps a refactoring could have been asked for, or maybe a shorter block. Anyway, the most important thing is IHTS has not posted any sort of unblock request, so perhaps we should wait and see what he has to say about it. NE Ent 22:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of ways an editor can slip a hint about another editor hoping to draw attention to that person but thinking that it is not enough to get themselves caught. The point is that MaxBrowne picked something up in it. It could very well be a misunderstanding but seeing the evidence of past things like this that Ihardlythinkso has done It becomes harder to trust the editor. In addition 2 admin have weighed in on the matter and all have considered it a closed discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs I'm hardly one of Ihardlythinkso's buddies. He doesn't know me from a hole in the ground, to be quite honest, so if that comment was directed to me, it's not true and you should strike it. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 23:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall mentioning you by name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support unblock - Much has been made of User talk: Jimbo Wales being a "community noticeboard" rather than an individual user talk page. Much like ANI; users go there to air their grievances, demand action, demand justice or otherwise opine for change. Of late, that has involved extensive interaction with Wales himself, subsequent to a demand (here) for an interaction ban between Wales and an editor. IHTS's comments should be seen in that context - ongoing discussion of an interaction ban proposal while he himself was subject to an interaction ban. He tried to give a full account of that ban in the context of that discussion and went as far as to describe certain things. Did he technically breach his ban in doing so? Yes. Does it serve any real purpose to block him for it? No, not really. Does anyone think MB's editing here was impacted by IHTS's giving an account of how the interaction ban came to be (in his view)? I... (sorry for this in advance) ...hardly think so. The issue here was the technical breach - there was no melodrama on MB's part. I don't think MB or the blocking admin were wrong (they called it as they saw it and I don't think it was "hasty") but a broader reading of this suggests a block is fairly pointless and obviously punitive rather than preventative. It also had the unintentional impact of disallowing IHTS's involvement at User talk: Jimbo Wales which, again, editors have come to accept as a legitimate venue for broader discussions. I suggest the block be limited to "time served". St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• So you are saying he should get a get out of jail free card for breaking an interaction ban on Jimbo's page? No, it shouldn't be okay and it is not okay. I quote the WP:IBAN policy "make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly;". if you want to propose a change to the policy with "With an exception to Jimbo's talkpage" then feel free to do so. Jimbo's talkpage though is a part of Wikipedia just like all other user-pages are. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact the IBAN violation was made on IHTS's own talk page Want to think again? Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you're absolutely right - it was on his own talk page in response to a comment from Wales which was a continuation of an ongoing discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales. And I'm not suggesting an exemption or a get-out-of-jail free card. Only that it should be looked at in context. From memory, I supported the original IBAN, so I certainly endorse its enforcement. I just wonder what point it serves to enforce what looks like policy wonkery given the intention doesn't seem to have been to break the ban but to explain it. My question, which applies equally regardless of location, is whether he would have been blocked had he posted the same here in asking for the ban to be reviewed? I'm thinking possibly not. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Let me ask a silly question. If blocks are supposed to be to prevent disruption (not to punish bad behavior) and the disruption in question is a comment the user made on their own talk page, how is that goal achieved by blocking them from every page on Wikipedia, except for the one page where the disruption (allegedly) occurred? --B (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Under WP:BLOCKDETERRENT I feel that this falls under #2 and #3. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment- I'm not sure why MaxBrowne feels the need to patrol Ihardlythinkso's talk page. Whether or not IHTS's comment amounts to a violation of the topic ban, this continued hostile scrutiny could easily be seen as baiting and I'm not sure we should be rewarding it. Reyk _YO! 07:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • In any kind of limited ban, it is best to take anything connected with that ban off your watch list. In the case of an interaction ban, it is best to treat the other party like the ebola virus - keep as far away as possible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Unblock...but this whole thing is bollocks. IHTS remains rather pissed off that someone called them a "classic narcissist". Personally, I don't consider it a violation of WP:NPA (really, so what if I was a narcissist, it's not a horrible thing to be called)..., but IHTS REALLY believes it was an attack on psychological condition - PERCEPTION IS EVERYTHING in this type of situation. However Bushranger apologized for the statement, right here on either AN or ANI. Yes - apologized. Case-closed, one would have thought. I believe I even said at the time "now we won't have to hear about it anymore". So,

• IHTS perceived the comment to be an attack
• IHTS does not perceive the apology to have occurred
• IHTS perceives that an admin got away with a gross personal attack

This therefore can be easily resolved:

• Bushranger repeats the apology for one, final time
• IHTS acknowledges it, and gets unblocked
• MaxBrowne takes IHTS's talkpage off his fricking watchlist
• Everyone drops their sticks and goes back to bloody editing
• Any FUTURE repeat of this stick behavior can lead to whatever else the community wants

Problem solved. the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

IHTS's failure to acknowledge Bushranger's apology should not require Bushranger to apologize again. As far as this block goes, oppose lifting it early. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of that incident knows exactly where IHTS was going with it. There are two simple facts here. 1. he violated his ban. 2. He needs to let it go. If he can't do the latter, he will continue to do the former, and will continue to get blocked. The solution here is for IHTS to serve his two weeks, drop the stick, and find something productive to do. Resolute 15:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Resolute: I concur: failure to acknowledge shouldn't be our issue. But we really could save IHTS and the entire community (obviously) a lot of ridonc pain if Bushranger either a) repeats his apology, or b) someone's wise enough to re-link to where it was, get it confirmed, and move on. IHTS deserves formal closure of what they feel to be a "psychological-wellness-based personal attack" and they and the rest of us deserve to move on once and for all. We're just going to continually get jabs about how admins are immune until it happens the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Just saying, admins are not immune, there is nothing stopping someone from launching an investigation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what the fuss is about. There was a consensus that there should be an interaction ban, there was a clear cut violation of that and the community consensus has been enforced. This seems to be a case of some people simply not liking the outcome.

While some people may not like it the fact is that there was an IBAN and it was violated. This issue is resolved. Chillum 17:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

On hastyness

Interestingly, none of the users accusing me of hastiness have taken time to contact me to establish what due diligence I undertook before making the block. This seems hasty in itself and is yet another example of users assuming bad faith on the part of an admin in favour of stoking drama at a noticeboard but perhaps we can let that slide for the sake or harmony. Just for clarity, I saw the report as it was posted, read the post, the comment and also researched the IBAN and associated discussion as well as IHTS's block log. Only then did I act. Please can someone tell me what part of that sequence is hasty or lacks due diligence? Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing hasty at all :-) the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Userpage (ab)use for political campaigning

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

---

When patroling recent uploads at Commons, I stumbled over the image at right and found that its uploader uses this image with the caption "This user knows for a fact that Scott Walker is unfit for governor" on pages User:Gourami Watcher and User:Gourami Watcher/antiscottwalker. Though I never heard of Scott Walker before and have no interest in him, IMO this is an inappropriate (ab)use of wikipedia userspace for political campaigning. --Túrelio (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) When I come across crap like this, I remove it as a BLP violation, but I can't delete files and have found it frustrating to navigate the CSD criteria there. It's presenting the user's derogatory opinion about a living person as fact, and we don't do that here. Delete the file, delete the userbox, warn the user. Ivanvector (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated it for speedy deletion on the commons as an attack image. Chillum 20:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated the userbox and removed the link to it. It has been deleted since I started typing this. Ivanvector (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I've deleted the image as out of Commons' scope, and deleted the userbox as an attack page. BLP applies Wikipedia-wide and Wikipedia is not for political campaigning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, Scott Walker is the governor of Wisconsin, and a figure who evokes strong opinions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Yankees10

This user has been stalking me aplenty. I've been editing a TON a sports articles lately and it seems that this user has been eavesdropping or stalking me whenever I edit some articles. For example, I have edited numerous articles like Geno Smith, J.J. Watt, and even Luke Kuechly. Sometimes, when I update these articles, he reverts them, claiming them unsourced, despite that they are up to date and correct so far. And get this; I'm not the only victim to being watch over by this user, he's probably doing the same thing to other sports editors. But luckily, we've never had any edit wars before. So I'd like to give you a head's up about this User:Yankees10. He has a lot of barnstars despite being such a strict editor but does not have any rollback rights, patrolled rights, or reviewer rights. I could use some help if you'd please. Thanks for your support. EternalFloette (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Glancing at the histories of the pages you mention and Yankees' contribution list, it looks to me that the both of you simply like editing lots of sports pages. Regarding the example articles you gave, Yankees has performed 6 edits to J. J. Watt and another 6 to Luke Kuechly over the last few weeks, the majority of which don't involve you - looks to me that Yankees simply has these pages watchlisted and keeps an eye on them. I'm also not sure what a lack of rollback, patroller, or reviewer rights implies - not everyone needs or desires these tools for editing. Hopefully Yankees can provide their own input. As for the reverts themselves, they do seem justified to me. It might be more constructive to find and add sources before simply reverting, but additions should be sourced nonetheless, especially for biographies of living persons. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Well, this, for example, looks like a BLP violation, and it makes sense he would revert it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Now I just revealed the truth that this user, User:The Writer 2.0 is very good at posting references to make the additions sourced and I don't understand why most other sports editors aren't quite experienced at adding referees quite yet. But now I'm starting to know the truth beyond the sheer force of BLP policies. Thanks anyway for keeping me up to date about the truth of all this. I really appreciate it. EternalFloette (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing - I posted a few links on your talk page with referencing guides, if you want to take a look at them. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@EternalFloette: You say that Yankees10 hasn't "rollback rights, patrolled rights, or reviewer rights", but out of these three rights, he does have autopatrolled and reviewer. Anyway, what does his user rights have to do with this? – Epicgenius (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any proof of those rights. He doesn't have the templates beyond those rights either. There may be something hideous about him but the admins might investigate it soon. EternalFloette (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Or better yet, lets investigate the fact that you are more than likely a blocked user--Yankees10 00:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Close of a stale RFC

Today, I closed a stale RFC at Talk:Ebola virus outbreak in the United States. It was a fairly standard close. Now, an involved editor, Floydian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reverted the close for the second time. After the first one, I restored it, but as he has chosen to edit war over the close of a stale RFC, I will leave it to an administrator to deal with him. I won't restore the close again, but I strongly think it should be restored, and this editor warned that reversion of an uninvolved editor's close of a stale RFC isn't appropriate. (Note: I have zero edits to the main article there.) LHM^{ask me a question} 00:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• It should also be noted that his last edit summary ("not by a non-admin it isn't") seems to assume that a non-admin closure by a completely uninvolved editor should be given less deference than one by an administrator. There is nothing in policy to support such a view. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am involved at the content at Ebola virus outbreak in the United States but not in the specific RFC mentioned here. The request for the close was made here at WP:AN by SW3 5DL, current status here. It requested a close by an admin specifically. I commented at the WP:AN request that the RFC also included a discussion about possible canvassing, and that needed looking into. While content RFCs can be closed by non-admins, requests to investigate and close possible behavior issues need an admin. Editors on both sides of the aisle, SW3 5DL here and Floydian here, have indicated that an admin is needed. Given that this has become a contentious close with possible behavior issues attached, I agree with both that an admin is now required. Zad68 02:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I had no objection to a non-admin closure. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

here you said Still need that closure and, obviously, it must be an admin to save further disruption.... I don't know what else to think. Zad68 02:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It's very clear that he meant that in the context of Floydian's out-of-process reversion, it should likely be an admin that re-closed it. I was about to post something similar about your misrepresentation of SW3's position as well. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

At this point I need to just let others review the edits and make their own determinations. Zad68 02:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Lithistman, it's not me objecting to a non-admin closure. It's Floydian who reverted the closure twice, demanding an admin. In an effort to quell the disruption, I simply asked for an admin. When Lithistman closed it, I didn't object at all. In fact, I believe I thanked him. I still don't understand the issue. He's not really stated it. He's only reverted. And he's not come here or gone to AN. Don't know what to make of this. And, I'll add, why Zad68 has involved himself at all, makes no sense. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• I stand by my actions and statements. This needs administrator investigation, and LHM is not up to the task of looking into the allegations raised. That is all. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  You edit warred to revert a legitimate close of an RFC by an uninvolved editor, citing as your "reason" only that I am not an admin. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Aye, which begs the question, why now? Floydian, if you thought something was amiss, why not go to ANI to sort it? Why wait until the RfC goes stale and then edit war with a non-involved editor? Don't understand any of it. One day you're contributing a template that solves a huge problem, next you're reverting and making sweeping accusations. As far as I can see, Lithistman should close and an admin should let you know that if you revert again, you'll be blocked. As for going on about the RfC, if you've a complaint state it now with diffs or be done with it. End of. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I should mention one of the closures I reverted was performed by SW3 5DL themselves. The whole RfC was a joke, but since the articles have had time to be filled in with trivia and unconcise news events and information already present elsewhere, I fear the damage is now irreversible and we are stuck with a mess that could have been handled so much better if you didn't make so many maverick edits. The diffs are at Talk:Ebola_virus_outbreak_in_the_United_States#This is a joke, where they have been for some time. I wish I had handled this the day the RfC was opened and curtailed the cancer, but hindsight is 20/20. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No canvassing done at all. On the contrary, all RfC rules on publicizing the RfC whilst waiting on the bot were followed. The RfC was posted at the Village Pump here, on the talk pages of 10 editors chosen at random from the Feedback Service List, per the RfC rules/suggestions for publicizing, and editors from the immediately preceding AfD were notified, per the RfC page. Only two of the editors chosen at random responded, JBarta and Silvo 1973, and both voted "Merge." I voted "keep." I've not made that many RfC's in the 6 years I've been an editor. The RfC page was most helpful and I followed it. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Would an administrator please handle this close? I know that closing RFCs doesn't require an administrator, but Floydian has edit-warred to remove my uninvolved, non-admin close, and from his angry comments above, I'm fairly certain he'd do it again, if I again closed it myself. LHM^{ask me a question} 04:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

LHM, it can take a while. Don't worry, somebody will come along. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

A suggested resolution

We have:

• Two overlapping RfC's - the first not advertised as an RfC but showing a rough consensus for merging; and the second started before the first had closed and showing consensus for keeping the articles separate;
• a legitimate close of the first and informal RfC by Floydian;
• a legitimate close of the second RfC by Lithistman, but only if considered in isolation from the overlapping first and informal RfC which had a different result;
• with respect, legitimate concerns about forum shopping and canvassing (both linked earlier in this thread). SW3 5DL, you did indeed notify some apparently random editors, per the guidelines. You also notified every editor who voted to keep the separate article in the AfD, in the same order in which they cast their !votes - but not for example, the editor (Floydian) who !voted the other way, or other editors like Gandydancer who had expressed opposing views on this issue on the West Africa page. Let's assume it was an oversight, but it certainly reduces the credibility of the second RfC.
• proposed article merges without the use of merge tags, though this is perhaps okay given the poor intersection between proposed merges and RfC notification rules.

Am leaving this open for the sake of any further discussion but here's a proposal, time-wasting though it may be:

• A new RfC, opened by me as an uninvolved editor, at Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, to be flagged on all the other "Ebola in.." pages and via talkpage message to everyone who has commented on either side since October 1.
• No action on the conduct issues except a general admonition that duelling RfCs and the appearance of canvassing are detrimental to collegiate editing, and may become disruptive if repeated. The tools at an admin's disposal are too blunt to be useful here. At the heart of the discussion is a genuine content dispute. It would be great if everyone could offer their opinions in a collegiate forum, and waving big sticks at one side or other doesn't tend in that direction.

Views welcome. If no one objects I will open the new RfC in a couple of hours tomorrow.Euryalus (talk) 08:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'd support this. Protonk (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually I do object. You claimed I did not notify Gandydancer and Floydian. That's not true. I had to individually notify the AfD editors because there was no common board where I could reach them. But the main article talk was a common board for the other editors and they saw it there. The RfC notice was posted on the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa on the talk page here and

here.

They were holding what amounted to a closed discussion on merging all these articles. Notice, they didn't put merge tags on the affected articles to let those editors know that they were planning to quickly blank and redirect the new articles. They didn't link to their discussion on those pages. They did not communicate their plans to the editors of those pages at all. If you're going to 'investigate' you need to look at the whole picture here. I opened that discussion to the wider community and the wider community has agreed that these articles should exist. I don't know any of those editors who commented, and as you can plainly see, only two of the editors I notified per the RfC rules even showed up. And they voted 'merge' whilst I voted 'keep.'

You'll note also, that Gandydancer, Floydian, and the other editors did appear and commented. It was their choice to not participate at the RfC. They could have participated and made their views known. They did not. Additionally, one of them socked as an IP and made personal attacks, then logged into his account and agreed with himself in the same conversation. He posted on my talk page, the West Africa talk page and the RfC page. His comments had to be rev deleted.

Sorry, but the disruption by a handful of editors who have two involved admins joining them, does not mean the community's decision on this is to be discounted and overturned. Look at the diffs I just posted in this comment. Look at the discussion section I link to. I did notify those editors. I notified everybody who edits the West Africa article. It was plain as day and I included the link to the RfC. No, sorry, this is a valid discussion. Sour grapes does not trump the opinion of totally uninvolved editors who came from the wider community. Also, do not call Floydian's thread on the main talk page an RfC. It was anything but that. Floydian is using disruption to subvert the community decision. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support keeping the decision of the community on the RfC. The wider community of uninvolved editors have made the decision to keep these articles. That decision should be respected per WP policy. And everybody who commented at the RfC must be notified of this ANI thread. I'm happy to post the ANI notice or an admin can do it. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on the content dispute. I also think that a new RFC would be unnecessarily time-wasting, but if other editors wish to spend their time in this manner, I have no objection to that. As for this being a "genuine content dispute", I would have agreed, right up until the point that Floydian edit-warred to remove the proper close of an RFC by an uninvolved editor. At that point it became actionable. However, as the issue became stale, and any block would be punitive instead of preventative, requesting one of Floydian would serve no purpose. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, first off there was a discussion at the West Africa article about remerging SW3s maverick forks. The discussion was swaying to remerge them, it got quiet, and I announced I'd close it in 24 hours if there were no further comments. An RfC wasn't necessary (and any level headed editor probably thinks the RfCs that keep popping up on the Ebola articles for the most trivial questions are the signs of a lost puppy), and the comments from the editors who have worked on the articles were more than enough. But, SW3 did not like the idea that his articles were gonna be merged back into one succinct coverage of the topic. So, rather than open an RfC on THAT talk page, like any rational person would, he subverts the discussion by opening it on another page, not linking back to the ongoing discussion, and then only contacting the people that held his viewpoint. The claim that he contacted everyone in the AfD discussion is a bold faced lie because I started that AfD and was not notified. None of the editors who voiced a merge opinion at the West Africa article were notified. Next off, the RfC question was posed in a loaded way (and I honestly should have edited it when it was created to be a neutral question), and yada yada yada, this whole thing has become an irreversible clusterfuck of epic proportions. To quote Gandydancer, "This has been an example of Wikipedia at its worst." - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification of editors on the main article talk page was made in two places on the day here and

here. The diffs are clear evidence of that. And let me add, that if there'd been an AfD spot where I could post, I'd have used that instead of going to all the trouble of notifying individual editors. That was a huge time sink for me and I'd have much preferred a single spot for them. But no such spot exists. Or if it does, I wasn't aware of it. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, admins take note, that these complaints came AFTER the articles already existed. NOBODY put up any objections to their creation. It was AFTER the fact that this began. I'll collect the diffs later. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it has been Wikipedia at it's worst. Floydian's account is accurate. It was my impression that editors at the Africa Ebola article did not object to splits but rather the maverick manner in which it was done with no previous discussion on what we'd include in them, etc. Now we are left Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia articles that truly are a disgrace to Wikipedia. I have tried to edit them but have been reverted to the extent that I am just not willing to attempt it anymore. Almost everyone else is just ignoring them. SW3 has just totally ignored WP guidelines for how we are supposed to conduct things here and now the whole situation is totally FUBAR. And now he is apparently accusing me of something or another - I can't quite figure out quite what it is. I've been here since 2006 and I've worked on a lot of difficult articles, but I've never seen anything like this. It is not at all surprising that we have reached this state where everyone is confused and does not know quite what to do, considering the manner in which this whole thing was initiated in the first place. Gandydancer (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You yourself voiced acceptance of the new articles. You and the others NEVER OBJECTED to them. It was only AFTER the articles were created that you suddenly decided that there'd been no consensus. I'll collect the diffs. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Well please do and hopefully you will find something better than what you've been using such as my "maverick" statement? Has it occurred to you that we did not OBJECT to splits because we are not mind readers and could not foretell the future in which you would ignore WP guidelines and do four splits without discussion? To editors that are not familiar with this ongoing dispute, I have been through this issue so many times with this editor that I am just sick to death of it. BTW, has anyone notified Doc James of this discussion, though he is most likely pretty sick of it as well. Gandydancer (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Gandydancer, Did you or did you not make these comments?

• We are now left with the individual country sections and I'm about ready to agree to separate articles for them. It seems to me that as the epidemic has grown from an "outbreak" to an epidemic, with even a few suggestions of "pandemic" being dropped here and there, the news such as xxx country had this or that happen within it's borders is less important than the overall effort to confront the ever-spreading disease. Thoughts?

• Well, another maverick split - two down and two to go... I think that we should wait to remove our individual coverage of the affected countries until the new articles are cleaned up. What do other editors think?
• discussing a new article which was later created.
• Suggestion for condensing the article.
• 2014 Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola virus outbreak was split off, as well.

SW3 5DL (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Gandydancer, you just said, I have been through this issue so many times with this editor that I am just sick to death of it. Where are your diffs? You can go on all day about this, but where are the diffs to back up your comments? As an admin on an Arb page once said, "No diffs, no case." Shall I retrieve more diffs of your comments? SW3 5DL (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Because this is a developing topic the second, wider, more official RfC should win out, to keep the articles separate. I should note that there's been a bad tendency of editors to rehash half the parent article in the separate articles, which should be rejected -- that stuff should be centralized -- nonetheless, the rules will be different from country to country. For example, Western Ebola survivors fly around donating blood to their compatriots apparently as a personal decision, whereas Liberia as I understand has been suppressing "black-market" donation. The U.S. took an infected dog to a naval facility for ... isolation, while Spain euthanised one. Even though the number of cases is small, they will have a disproportionate impact in demonstrating the unique social and medical situation in each nation. Wnt (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and shenanigans at Molly Ringwald and related articles

Since early this summer, there have been on-and-off efforts to add peacock phrases and promotional content to Molly Ringwald, associated articles, and a few other actress articles, like Heather Langenkamp and Amy Weiss. A few examples are edits like these: [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] (The last one is a giveaway that something screwy is going on -- the film's budget is changed to a fabricated low level so the article can claim that the film was a commercial success rather than a money-loser).

There are a batch of accounts involved, with similar behavior patterns -- aside from the promotional tendencies, none have a user page, all rarely if ever use edit summaries, and at least two use screen names matching up to Ringwald characters. But until this weekend, there wasn't quite enough evidence to conclude that we weren't dealing with a cluster of like-minded fans. But in the last few days several of the accounts have been uploading obviously nonfree images for (obviously inappropriate) use in BLPs, and two of the accounts have been using the same defective NFCC rationale -- see File:Molly Ringwald in For Keeps.jpg, uploaded by User:Clairestandish, and File:MollyRingwaldBetsysWedding.jpg, uploaded by User:Darcyelliot. Further evidence of coordination between accounts: once the Clairestandish account had been warned to discontinue the misuse of nonfree images, that account stopped -- but User:AintNoOther promptly resumed the campaign, uplolading File:Ringwald on the cover of Time.jpg and adding a nonfree movie poster to the Ringwald BLP [123]. In addition, User:IAmUnbroken has added nonfree images just uploaded by these accounts to the Ringwald BLP (eg, [124]).

The accounts involved that I've spotted are:

• Clairestandish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Darcyelliot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AintNoOther (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• IAmUnbroken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Risetonight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mendie12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There may be more.

User:GB fan and User:Dismas have also noted irregularities at the Ringwald article, and have discussed an SPI, looking primarily at the misuse of nonfree images [125]. I think there's certainly enough evidence for a checkuser to act on, and quite likely for a few expeditious blocks. Whoever's behind this (whether one user or several) has become more active lately, and the problems, especially with nonfree images, are spreading to more articles. See, for example, the recent history of Lori Hallier and Tuesday Knight. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: If this is a request for a sockpuppet investigation, WP:SPI is the place - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 08:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Editor 68.204.113.233 repeatedly removing well-sourced genres from Duran Duran

Duran Duran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
68.204.113.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Over the last six months or so, the Anon has repeatedly removed well sourced genres from Duran Duran and been reverted by at least five editors including me. There are no fewer than four cites for Duran Duran being new wave in the infobox. The talk:Duran Duran page is full of discussion on Duran Duran being new wave with numerous sources citing such. There are currently 144 mentions of new wave on the talk page.

Anon states (here Duran Duran have never been the Americentric new wave. Many sources prove this beyond all doubt. Please do not change this. Personal agendas should not be given space to distort proven facts. Thank you for your attention. (formatted / sentence case). S/he seems unwilling to accept sources that contradicts personal belief. Anon has not supplied more than one cite quoting a band member as saying they are not new wave. S/he has added somewhat to talk:Duran Duran, and has removed legitamate talk appearantly in contradiciton with beleifs Removed trash talk What part of 'removed trash talk' did you not understand?

Some of the removals in reverse order: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The IP's edits have taken place over the last six months and has been blocked for edit warring once.

I personally don't care what Duran Duran's genre is and couldn't ID a Duran Duran song to save my life. I would like the genre warring (reduced considerably since the addition of the cites) to be reduced or stop. Would it be possible to get resolution on this matter? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 07:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for six months. It would have been faster for you to use Template:Uw-vandalism3 and Template:Uw-vandalism4 and report it to WP:AIV I think. I'll keep a watch on the article but I don't think semiprotection is warranted at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Raymarcbadz

Raymarcbadz has been removing content from "nation" at the XXXX Olympics articles. Here is a summary of his disruptive behaviour:

1. [126] - Congo at the 2008 Summer Olympics (20/10/14)
2. [127] - Indonesia at the 2008 Summer Olympics (20/10/14)
3. [128] - Benin at the 2008 Summer Olympics - (20/10/14)
4. [129] - Vanuatu at the 2008 Summer Olympics (20/10/14)

• Older examples:

1. [130] - Congo at the 2008 Summer Olympics (10/3/13)
2. [131] - Indonesia at the 2008 Summer Olympics (9/3/13)
3. I can spot seven here

• Warnings:
• I gave him a 4im due to the amount of content removal ([132]) which s/he reverted quickly ([133])

Raymarcbadz has made 35000+ edits and he has been a great service to WP:OLY. I just think he has gone a bit far. Maybe a official final warning saying: "If you remove content again from WP:OLY articles, you'll be blocked without warning". Just a suggestion though, as it is up to a sysop. - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 08:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Ownership issues on Joan Smalls

There seems to be some (semi) long-term ownership issues at the Joan Smalls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article that likely won't be remedied through traditional avenues. Also, the participants are various IPs and the one user involved, Friendlypete2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has not edited under that account since July 2014. I edited the article last night in a vain attempt to bring it up to standards. It was full of fan puffery, a questionable source (wordpress), style issues galore and other minor issues. My edit was reverted as vandalism by 208.54.45.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) today. I reverted back and, while leaving a note on the talk page, my edit was reverted as vandalism again by 50.12.126.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). After looking through the article history, I decided to bring the issue here as it seems various IPs and Friendlypete2014 have been reverting nearly all changes made to the article by anyone (diffs below).

• 1st attempt to clean up/tag article by Prayer for the wild at heart. Reverted by 172.56.18.29 78/no reason for revert (March 22)
• Prayer for the wild at heart reinstates changes, is reverted by FriendlyPete2014 with the claim that the changes were "unsourced" (March 24)
• Prayer for the wild at heart explaining changes were not content related, FriendlyPete2014 "changing tone" (but not really) and adding fake protection template (March 24)
• FriendlyPete2014 reverting Lowercase sigma bot to re-add protection template (March 24)
• IP user attempting to clean up content, mentions ownership issues/inactive protection template. Reverted by FriendlyPete2014/added another fake protection template (March 26)
• Jdanek007 tagging article for issues. FriendlyPete2014 reverting addition of tags with some minor rewrites to lead (Jdanek007 also left a talk page note which was unanswered - April 2/3).
• FriendlyPete2014 reverting addition of "advert" and "peacock" tags with a edit summary telling people to "Please do not alter or vandalize article" (July 19)
• My edit reverted by 208.54.45.145 as "vandalism" (October 20)
• My edit reverted minutes later by 50.12.126.142 as vandalism

I'll notify the IPs and the one user involved but considering the amount of IPs and the fact that FriendlyPete2014 hasn't edited in quite some time, I have not left them a personalized note about ownership, style guides, what vandalism actually is, blah. Seems pointless really because I don't think the D in BRD is gonna work in this situation as they're determined to keep the article their way. I think some long term semi-protection might force the participants to go to talk or, at the very least, give others a chance to bring the article up to standards for more than a day. Pinkadelica^♣ 13:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Lia Olguța Vasilescu should not be deleted!

It is well sourced and a fact from Lia Olguța Vasilescu appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 11 October 2014. It is against the spirit of wikipedia to remove a fine article like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osugiba (talk • contribs) 14:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you know that: ...DYKs have been deleted before (see Chihiro number)? – Epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok then, let that argument go. But it is a well-sourced uncontroversial article. Osugiba (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Created by a sock - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi. Deleted. Dougweller (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Norden1990

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

---

I want to draw the attention of the administrators to the Norden1990 case. He has an indefinite block and he has made lots of illegal contributions since he was blocked. But unfortunately, administrators ignore his investigation page. The last investigation request was reviewed after 15 days and the closing message was "IP appears to be dynamic and the last edit made was over two weeks. Sockmaster has likely moved on to another IP, so I don't see how blocking would prevent anything. Closing. ". How can administrators be so sloppy here? They ignore his case and after 2 weeks they say "now it is too late" ? A reasonable administrators would have immediately have made a IP range block for the group of socks 84.236.42.94, 84.236.42.0, 84.236.7.157, 84.236.16.49.

I strongly suggest administrators to look at his case as soon as possible, before he "likely moves to another IP" again. Some range blocks could be shaped there (there are some clear favourite IP formats there). and maybe a site ban after so many months of continous socking. Osugiba (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The above message was brought to you by a self-confessed sock of User:Iaaasi, who is blocked. (I'm leaving the message here as the sockmaster clearly has enough energy to create yet another sock to repost it if deleted.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Topic-ban request for User:Der Statistiker in Paris articles.

- Constant aggressive edit warring, constant disregard for/gaming WP rules and reverting in disregarding (even denying) talk-page discussions, ... for starters.

I could make a long list of events, but I think the present state of the Talk:Paris page is enough of a case. Der Statistiker has some very original views about what Paris "should" be (but isn't), and goes to any length to make sure that they become "reality" in the Paris article, all while remaining just inside Wikipedia rules, of course. Repealing their efforts has always been a headache, and that since almost ten years now.

(edited) This is a mess. I'm withdrawing the meat puppet and sock puppet accusations for now, because I'm now not sure who started what, but for sure at least two few-edits participants are from the www.skyscrapercity.com page where (Google translated) 'troops' were coached how to edit Wikipedia, and both Minato ku and Sesto Elemento are present here (read forward and back for more): [134], and a former 'vote' campaign originated there too [135], but it was not reported by participating contributors. (added) No, wait, yes it was! [136]. Der Statistiker is absent from all these discussions, oddly. And we still don't know who started brought them in the first place. Admitedly, it might have been Minato ku, and Der Statistiker was just jumping on their cause. Neither party spoke up to clarify (or even deny) even after being asked, anyhow. THEPROMENADER 23:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Good example of Der Statistiker's general attitude towards discussion and other contributors: [137]

Sockpuppet case against Der Statistiker: conclusion: Editing another language under another name [138]

Der Statistiker, latest bout of reverts: First revert (diff): 2014-09-23T02:33:20 [139]

contributions: [140]

Minato ku first revert: 2014-09-23T22:23:19 [141]

contributions: [142]

Sesto Elemento first revert: 2014-09-21T17:23:56 [143]

contributions: [144]

Through all of the above, Der Statistiker and at least two of the above participants appear always at the same time for the same 'cause'. I hope Der Statistiker's general bad attitude, unwillingness to discuss anything (except how others are (expletive) and wrong), the general disingenuousity (especially in false/'kettle black' accusations) is evident enough throughout all that... I think it more than is, but I'm hardly looking at this objectively.

Right, so you recognize yourself that you're not sure anymore who started what, you open a case here to ask for my banishment, but then say it's in fact Minato Ku who might be responsible (then why did you open this case about me in the first place??), then post some diffs showing some reverts from myself and two other editors which are similar, but dear Sir, I can also post some diffs from you and other editors which are similar. ThePromander's reverts ([145], [146], [147]), SchroCat's reverts ([148], [149], [150]), Jeppiz' reverts ([151], [152]), Dr Blofeld's revert ([153]), all perfectly the same, reverting to the same photomontage (notice how each guy stops before breaking the 3 revert rule and lets the other ones continue to revert in turn).

You then accuse me of always showing up at the same time as other editors. It's funny because I always see you popping up in the Paris article at the same time as User:SchroCat, User:Dr. Blofeld, and User:Jeppiz, and always, always to block any change in the montage at the top of that infox. So are you guys informing each other of the changes in that infobox to act together? Or are SchroCat, Dr. Blofeld, and Jeppiz your meatpuppets, or are you theirs?

Your accusations can be thrown back at you, and do little to improve the editing atmosphere in the article. For more than a year now I've seen the three of you (ThePromenader, Dr. Blofeld, SchroCat), with the occasional help of Jeppiz and one or two other editors, acting together to prevent any change in the article that you don't like. On that I second what Metropolitan said today: it looks like WP:OWN to me. Der Statistiker (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Ownership? Coming from you, and your staggering displays of ownership so far, that's incredibly rich. - SchroCat (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The only thing anyone can accuse me of is being very bad at arguing. But thanks for insinuating otherwise.

Whether the others show up by your bidding or on their own, you are using them to promote your own POV, which would be impossible without misguided 'like-minded' support.

Actually, it would be great if Minato ku and Sesto Elemento gave their input here. THEPROMENADER 05:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you got some evidence of the sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry otherwise you would be better to strike those parts of the report. Amortias (T)(C) 20:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I already withdrew the sockpuppet part (this user may have been condemned in the past for this, but I have to check that). For meatpuppetry, what should I provide? THEPROMENADER 20:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

For meat puppetry you would want to provide links to other contributors providing similar or identical additions or removals of information that have limtied or few other contributions. Amortias (T)(C) 20:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Echoing Amortias above. Additionally have other dispute resolution avenues been tried (WP:DRN or WP:RFC)? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that DerStatistiker is a user whose behavior at Paris hurts Wikipedia more than it helps and I could support a topic ban. I agree with Amortias that every accusation has to be supported by evidence and diffs.Jeppiz (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Please bear with me, in all my years here, I've never done anything like this before. Isn't the talk page itself a good start? The edit history of all those involved would help, too... okay, I'll go get those. Sorry, cheers. THEPROMENADER 20:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Might be worth looking at WP:D&L for advice on producing the diffs for evidence. Amortias (T)(C) 20:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I should have been better prepared. I withdraw the meatpuppetry accusation (I have yet to sort out who did what first, I may have been wrong about that), so my bad, Sorry. THEPROMENADER 22:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I must make another correction: I did make a case against the same user, but for sockpuppetry. I added it into the links above. THEPROMENADER 22:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

All I wish to say about the matter I have already said elsewhere (repeated in the thread below, as applicable. – SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Endorse, And strongly so. You only have to have to look at his behaviour and lack of AGF last July/August and in events since such as recently and forum shopping to make this an appropriate action.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Dr. Blofeld and User:SchroCat have contacted me off-wiki, asking me to weigh in here as a non-involved admin, so here are my remarks and a suggestion as to how to resolve this.

I realize AN/I is not normally a place to talk about article content, but in this case I can't help weighing in on that first. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a special-interest site, and in the case of an article about a millennia-old city, it is not surprising that the most iconic structures in the city would be ones that have been around for a while. The presumably most iconic skyscrapers of the region, La Défense, sit outside of the city itself. The recent dispute about the infobox image strikes me as an enormous waste of time that could be better spent improving the article. The image is entirely suitable, whereas (for example) the "landmarks" section is frankly an almost unreadable laundry list. And, yes, the article probably needs to say more about modern Paris, and possibly the image isn't perfect, but it would not be on any reasonable person's list of the top 10 things that ought to change about this article.

But on to the process matters that belong here at AN/I.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox and it is primarily about building an encyclopedia rather than about experiments in process. Yes "anyone can edit," but we seem to be dealing with a matter here where all but one of the contributors with significant experience here are on the same side of the issue and, even if none of the people weighing in on the other side are "meat puppets," let alone sock puppets, the fact remains that they are not people who have made any signficant contributions to Wikipedia, nor have they shown any indication that they are coming in here with expertise rather than with an agenda. (I'm all for people who haven't contributed before joining discussions, especially if they have knowledge to contribute, but clearly if a bunch of people showing up at once to weigh in on one side of an argument, some off-wiki canvassing is going on.)

So here is my suggestion. User:Der Statistiker: have the sense to back down when all the other experienced editors disagree with you. And, going forward if you don't do that, yes, I will support a topic ban, which would be a pity because you obviously have more of a clue about the topic than you do about how to collaborate. If you think you can propose some hunks of prose that could be added to the article to take up the topics you think have been neglected, and that there is any chance of actually getting consensus for them, go for it, but bow out gracefully if you can't get that consensus. And if you want to round up people from off-wiki, round them up to work on articles that actually need a ton of work, in areas where they actually have expertise, not to weigh in as useless extra voices. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and when someone comes out of nowhere and weighs in on a disagreement on a talk page, they are not effectively casting votes: they are just wasting everyone's time by obscuring the strong, though not unanimous, consensus that obviously exist among the relevant parties.

And the other people working on this: the article is already protected. Don't feel like you have to answer every point Der Statistiker raises on the talk page if he's clearly proposing something against consensus. You don't have to repeat your view for each time he repeats his, or someone with no contributions to Wikipedia echoes his. And you could put some of the time saved into proposing some edits that would improve the article, especially to remove some cruft and make it the readable overview it should be.

Probably not what anyone wanted to hear from me. Oh, well. - Jmabel | Talk 02:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with that... and happy to finally see some attention and an objective voice of reason. This has been going on since almost ten years already. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 07:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I now gather that there is a related sock puppet/meat puppet investigation that was not linked here. If that comes up positive, obviously I would support appropriate warnings or blocks. - Jmabel | Talk 15:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Update and Comment - The earlier 'kerfuffle' over the Paris Lede photo caught the attention of France's national newspaper, Le Monde [154], and their article brought some attention to French wikipedia. Because of this, this user's behaviour has bled over to there as well, and their battle there is the same (Paris-related articles) as here. They are now posting as multiple anon IP's, and still pushing their 'this photo or nothing' agenda : [155] and [156]. A lengthy ad hominem-filled 'this photo or nothing' argument was posted on both pages [157] [158] by IP 86.195.249.77, later just-as-rude and personal-attack filled comments later came from 86.195.16.25 and 83.204.251.169, yet later 86.195.16.25 and 83.204.251.169 came to change 86.195.249.77 and 83.204.251.169's signature to Der Statistiker [159][160]. What's more, the same is imposing the same photo on the French Paris article (in ignoring the ongoing discussion) as user Pointois [161], the same that surfaced in the Der Statistiker sockpuppet case here. Why not post as Pointois? An admin asked them to disclose this link, but they never complied. Der Statistiker was User:Hardouin here before, too... and with all the single-purpose 'parachute contributors' appearing out of nowhere with every conflict they create, it makes it hard to tell where the canvassing ends and the multiple usernames begin.
  
• Anyhow, I am trying to use the attention the article brought to recruit Paris-knowledgable French-wikipédia contributors to help bring the English Wikipedia up to WP:FA status (I offered to help with the translation), but Der Statistiker's belligerant behaviour, lack of consideration for other contributors (ignoring them or treating them as 'stupid obstacles' if they don't side with him), lack of participation in discussions (if not only to obfuscate them in wordy condescending language, false comparisons and details they know participants won't understand), canvassing 'like-minded' (for their agenda) off-wiki contributors (who tend less to know/care about silly things like 'references' and 'rules' ) to 'support' their 'cause', general use of subterfuge and gaming the system in general, all serve to disrupt the editing atmosphere and to dissuade any new contributors from participating. I wouldn't be surprised if that was exactly their goal. I think ten years of this is long enough.THEPROMENADER 12:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

WARNING This case was closed by an admin and moved to the archives: [162], but ThePromander, who is engaged in a personal feud here, has resurrected this case by removing it from the archive and pasting it here. WP:HARASS? Der Statistiker (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Um.... no. It was not closed (pending the sockpuppet investigation related to this case) and it was archived... by a bot. I moved it here again because you've recommenced exactly the same bad behaviour you were warned about earlier in this thread. Thanks for drawing attention to this, though. THEPROMENADER 22:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Endorse. A topic ban for Der Statistiker seems to be the only reasonable option. The repeated disruptive behavior (including grossly obvious off-site canvassing by the same user) has gone on too long, and continues to date, on both the French Paris Talk page and the English Paris Talk page. Consensus has been attained (notwithstanding outside help from meatpuppets or otherwise), and yet Der Statistiker continues his/her disruptive campaign of personal attacks while blatantly pushing his/her agenda. Enough is enough. It's time to move on constructively, in the hopes of improving further still the quality of articles here at Wikipedia. Coldcreation (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Support topic ban. I was in two minds about it, until I saw Statisker shamlessly canvass on French Wiki for people to vote on the issue here, even though consensus was reached some time ago, as well as to engage in personal attacks on editors on this site. That is a rather shameful stance. - SchroCat (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

a- you were never in two minds about this. You have always been biased against me, and have repeatedly insulted me on the Paris talk page ("fuck off" and the likes). I can provide diffs if requested.

b- I have not "shamelessly canvassed". What's shameless is your unfounded accusation. WP:CANVASS explains clearly that "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions", which is exactly what I have done. I have not told anyone to vote in this or that way.

c- all I see here is a rogue group of usual suspects who have resurrected an archived case because they hate me so much they wish to have me banned (not just temporarily blocked or warned or whatever, but banned for life, perhaps eradicated if they could). Probably the article published by Le Monde which talked about my work at Wikipedia has greatly angered them: [163]. None of this is going to improve the reputation of Wikipedia. You guys are not living in a dark box, and the rest of the world is watching you and what you're doing. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

a. Yes, I was in two minds, as there had been no additional issues on the talk page, so please do not try and double guess what I may or may not have been thinking;

b. You have canvassed, and it is a lie to claim otherwise; roughly translated you have said: "Your help at all would be welcome to end the deadlock. We cannot accept that a handful of Canadian-English publishers impose their vision of Paris to the world".

c. I'll ignore this: it's not worth addressing. - SchroCat (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

a- Your history on the talk page shows you were never in two minds. In fact your first edit ever in the Paris article consisted in making a wholesale revert of my contributions to the article [164], even though we had never ever known each other or talked to each other before. Did you try to discuss things with me before reverting me? No.

b- There is a handful of Canadian-English publishers who try to impose their vision of Paris, and I'm not ashamed to repeat it here. All I've asked is for knowledgeable French editors to come to the Paris article and express their opinions about this, because there is indeed a deadlock since none of you is willing to compromise. I have not told the French editors what opinion to express, in fact it would be rather counter-productive given how independently minded the French usually are. All I've said is they should air their views to see if we can move from there.

c- You ignore it because you know it's true and have nothing to respond to it. Pitiful. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am going to disengage from further comment here. You are not listening to explanations, and are only seeing what you want to see, while denying what can be seen by anyone in your bad faith comments on French Wiki. - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse a topic ban for Der Statistiker. I generally lean on the side of dispute resolution rather than topic bans but the outright off-wiki canvassing and battleground mentality presented here is too much not to attract a topic ban. Blackmane (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse a topic ban for Der Statistiker. Looking at diffs it is clear disruption going on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Important notice: coverage of the story in French media
The conflict between contributors of the Paris article has already been published in Le Monde newspaper [165]. A story which has also been mentionned on the French major radio Europe 1 [166]. The conflict opposes contributors such as ThePromenader and SchroCat who pushes a WP:POV for a purely heritage/tourist description of Paris against those who want the city to be portrayed in a more multi-dimensional way, emphasizing also its no-less significant role as an important node in the global economic system [167].

In this context, resurrecting a closed file as it's been done here, with journalists starting to follow this affair, is clearly not the good way to calm things down. I should also add that the file is totally empty. Der Statistiker is clearly not the most aggressive contributor in the conflict. He insulted no one, which is not the case of other contributors as shown in these examples: [168] [169] [170] [171] [172].

The Paris article will be unprotected on 25 October 2014. At this stage, the most important thing in my humble opinion is to calm down heated temperaments so that we could bring back a more constructive spirit to the work on the article. Asking admins to choose their side in the conflict, as proposed here by ThePromenader, is clearly not the good way to achieve that purpose. Metropolitan (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Important to who? That article was but a wee appeal-to-emotion blurb about the 'kerfuffleness' of the 'debate' that neither asked nor answered questions... it was anything but 'important', and I was in it. I can provide a link to it if anyone likes.

Metropolitan's 'solution' for 'calming the debate' is letting a few fulfil whatever goal they were summoned here to fulfil in spite of a consensus (that they deny exists) - this is called 'an agenda'. THEPROMENADER 15:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What all this is about is a wikipedian (or not) with an agenda off-wiki canvassing others for the sole purpose of 'forcing' one photo. THEPROMENADER 15:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Jesus Christ. This is still going on? It's been well over a year now. I haven't looked into this article since then, but given the same names are involved now as then, chances are that more than one person needs to step away from this article. Resolute 15:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Resolute, plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Review of RfC close/revert at Neil deGrasse Tyson

Last night, after spending a couple of hours reviewing the discussion at Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson I closed an WP:RFC at Neil deGrasse Tyson. The RfC had been open for 28 days, and the conversation regarding that specific RfC had died out roughly two weeks ago with the last contribution to the RfC being on October 5th. The RfC specifically requested that only WP:DUE weight be considered in the closing, and I closed based on that policy and WP:BLP writing: "Closing this as do not include on the basis of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. It is clear that this is a contentious issue, so without excellent sourcing - which establishes the weight of this incident in the context of Dr. Tyson's life and career - the default of non-inclusion applies." The closure was reverted by a !voter in this edit with the summary: "there is no need to close a still active RFC, particularly the way this editor did so." I suspect that the reverting editer may have been referring to one of the four other non-RfC proposals on the talk page: Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#terse_NPOV_proposal, Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#Alternative_proposal, Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#alternative_text, and Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#alternative_text_2 -- none of which appear to be gaining consensus. Could someone please review the close/revert/etc? aprock (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This closure occurred at a time in which there was consensus that "only an uninvolved administrator close this RfC." It was specifically requested by me before the closure, that we let an uninvolved administrator preform the closure given how many people had commented on this and the contentious and unclear nature of if we had a consensus or not. No one else had objected to that request as the time of the closure. I still hope that when the full 30 days is complete that it is closed by an uninvolved administrator. --Obsidi (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please link to this claimed consensus: "only an uninvolved administrator close this RfC." Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The request for an uninvolved administrator to close the RFC was made before closure here. At the time of closure, no other editor had objected to that request. --Obsidi (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I specifically spent time reviewing WP:CLOSE before closing this to make sure I was adhering to policy. Unfortunately, your specific request was lost in the WP:WALL of text. In the future, if you wish to make a request for closure, the best place to do that is at WP:ANRFC. aprock (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't ready yet to request a closure (as I wanted to wait the full 30 days), but I did want to make sure that whenever it was done, it was done by an uninvolved administrator. The request was on its own bullet point at the end of the RfC, not mixed into a wall of text (I don't understand the link to WP:WALL which is about walled gardens). --Obsidi (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, the appropriate wiki essay is WP:WALLS. aprock (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Huh? There was consensus that "only an uninvolved administrator close this RfC"? This is the first I've ever heard of it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This editor is not an administrator. This RfC is unusual in it's weight and is high visibility inside and outside the encyclopedia. Closure by a respected administrator is indicated, not an unremarkable average editor. In addition, his rationale for closure is practically non-existant, consisting basically of citing "BPP", "Contentious", citing a couple policies and then saying no. That's the limit of his rationale. We have been debating this issue heatedly for about a month, and to have it closed with two quick terse sentences, without citing examples and rationale using the actual case at hand as discussed is insulting to the amount of time and effort invested in debating this issue. Furthermore, this editor closed the RfC with BLP rationale. This has implications towards it's includablity throughout the encyclopedia. BLP was not the subject of the RfC. WEIGHT and UNDUE were the issues stated in the RfC. To let this RfC stand would be a travesty. Marteau (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I suggest that where a closure is likely to be contentious per se, that it is wise to have an admin do the closing. I demur that any substantive BLP concerns were involved once Tyson specifically admitted to the misuse of a quote, (or proper use of a misquote?) Deprecating the !votes weight which relied on there being any doubt as to the events would seem proper here. Once the doubt was removed from the table, the claims cease to be contentious. I would also suggest the !votes based on there being a "conspiracy" to make the charges should be deprecated per common sense. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: Please read WP:CLOSE which states However, requests for closure may be made to an uninvolved administrator for discussions that have been open at least a week and are particularly contentious or unclear. Then look at the edit by @Obsidi: Given the contentious nature of this RfC, I am asking that only an uninvolved administrator close this RfC when the time period is up? Frankly, I think the wording needs to be tightened, can anyone ask for this at any time, but I do not see any objection, or anything at WP:CLOSE to justify ignoring the request. Do you? What should Obsidi have done differently, put it in red text?--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You bet. I couldn't agree more. This was an extremely poor choice as a WP:NAC given the contentiousness. Msnicki (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• That close was very short to be the result of a "couple hours" of review. That said, the main problem with it is that the text of the close itself cites no such research, only alluding to ephemeral "BLP concerns" that have not, as yet, been elucidated. And given the fact that Dr. Tyson himself has now addressed this incident in a very public way, such "concerns" are now moot. Any close (admin or not) should weigh the arguments, not just count noses, so-to-speak. This close seems like little more than counting and seeing that there were roughly equal numbers of each, without weighing the merit of the arguments. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:RfC#Ending RfCs clearly states than an RfC can be closed by any editor. Criticizing the closer for not being an admin is basically an ad hominem attack. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticizing the closer for being an "unremarkable average editor" isn't just a personal attack, it's also pretty uncollegial and, really, revolting, esp. since the person making that claim managed to rack up around one-fifth of the article edits that the closer collected. Their 177 edits on the NdGT talk page suggest they have a big dog in this fight. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Its possible LHM considers himself an "unremarkable average editor" as well. --Obsidi (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This is possible, but that's not uncollegial. Calling someone else "unremarkable average" is. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not use that phrase, but I would not be offended if someone used it in regards to me. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am the unremarkable, average editor who said it and I stand by it as a proper categorization of the closer. Perhaps someone could enlighten me about what makes him remarkable beyond his entry into this affair. Marteau (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I will admit to being uncollegial for I feel the close was a disgrace and reckless and my language reflected that. I will, however, strive to use less contentious verbiage in the future. Marteau (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Considering that Jimbo weighed in on this discussion with an opinion the opposite of that of the closing person, perhaps an admin with impeccable credentials should have closed this RFC. This solution is not ideal. Kelly ^hi! 16:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Already getting attention by the people who highlighted the controversy to begin with.[173] Kelly ^hi! 17:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, we should be mindful of any off-Wiki canvassing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is Jimbo's opinion more important that any other editor? It isn't. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want uninvolved admin eyes on this thing, I can have a look over it; if I find something seriously faulty with the non-admin closure, I might re-open it. However, it is my understanding of policy that closing RfCs is not automatically a privileged domain of admins, and if the closure was otherwise properly done, the non-admin status of the closer as such won't invalidate it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Fut.Perf.. Sure, if a close is contentious, admin endorsement may count for something, though the presence of the admin-abuse crowd has a tendency to render that point moot as well. In addition, that something "was specifically requested by me before the closure" is neither here nor there. Anyone can specifically request anything, but it doesn't always mean anything. In this case, it means nothing. For the record, I don't think I know the closer from Adam, but if they say they spent a few hours reviewing the case, I trust their ability to summarize it in a sentence or two. It's called AGF. Besides, not getting what you want out of the close is hardly a good enough reason to argue it should be overturned, and Jimbo's opinion is just that, an opinion, worth no more than yours or mine--that is, if argued with equal strength. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed, there's an entire thread above falsely alleging admin misconduct in this very topic space: Participation by Admin Dreadstar in edit war at The Federalist (website) AFTER fully protecting the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., thanks for agreeing to wade into this contentious issue. Just a head's up - the RFC has already been re-opened although I'm not sufficiently conversant with RFC closure process to know whether a non-admin re-opening the closure is proper. I'm sure we'll sort it all out eventually. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have posted my review of the closure at the RfC [174]. It boils down to an endorsement of Aprock's close. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm astounded that a non-admin would decide to close this. But the problem may be in the RfC guidance, which doesn't even hint that it would be best for admins to close such a contentious issue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sphilbrick. Permissible according to policy, but poor judgement. Contentious issues should be closed by admins only because a sysop has, generally, community consensus about their understanding of policy.--v/r - TP 19:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I started a discussion Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Guidance_on_who_can_close --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) ::::This view doesn't conform to the language at WP:CLOSE or the related policy WP:DELETE. If the language there is out of date it should be updated to reflect a new community consensus. Reviewing the talk pages for WP:CLOSE and WP:DELETE, I don't see a lot of discussion of editor vs. admin. Thanks for starting the conversation about closing. aprock (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

See below.--v/r - TP 20:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"Astounded" is a very odd reaction - nonadmin closes regularly come to this board and AN, and over and over again - we get back the same result - nothing is done to restrict it any further than it already is (for delete) primarily because there is an apparent belief that admin is no big deal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the point is that we cannot write hard rules into this. It has to be a judgement call. And we believe aprock made a bad judgement call.--v/r - TP 20:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we could write hard and fast rules, but we have not done so, even though it's an issue that arises again and again. As for Aprock's judgment, the response again and again has been not to look at the User's status but at the substance of the decision -- here the editor and the admin confirm the same judgment. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• • Why? What admin tool is required to close this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my astonishment.

• The underlying incident required full protection of the article, not once, but twice.
• The site associated with the website first reporting the incident was the subject of a contentious AfD, which involved over 100 editors and generated about 30,000 words.
• The incident spawned a stand-alone article which was deleted after a 6,000 word discussion involving 41 editors
• The incident spawned discussions at noticeboards including Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_177#.28thefederalist.com.29_Source_directly_targets_Wikipedia_editing._Special_Conflict_of_Interest_concerns_for_this_source.3F RSN, another RSN and a 28,000 word discussion at BLPN
• The attempted deletion of The Federalist (website) lead to six external articles about the attempt.
• The incident itself was the subject of 12 external articles
• The RFC itself has 21,000 words, and roughly 100 contributors
• More than one participant argued the result were quite close
• I am a fast reader, but I cannot read the over 85,000 words in a couple hours, much less do any sort of analysis. (My count doesn't include the article itself, or anything on the talk page other than the RfC, doesn't count any of the 18 external articles about Wikipedia or any of the sources used to support the claim.)

Can @Alanscottwalker: point me to some RfC closures by non-admin which are comparable?--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you pinged me to respond, what is astonishing Sphilbrick is, even despite your apparent deep involvement in all aspects of the minitua this episode, as made manifest by your laundry list of all the apparently to you, important swirling miasma, you are apparently unknowledgeable about basic process. If you want a special closing regime for some RfC, you need to propose it and get some consensus for it before the close is made in the ordinary course of business. In other words, you are casting blame where it does not rightly belong -- someone just may come along and close it in the ordinary course of business, and you have apparently had a failure of judgement or foresight that you did not propose it be done otherwise, when there was much time to do so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I did propose it and not one objected. At the time I had reason to believe we still at a few days left until someone would close it (as the normal time period for an RfC is 30 days, which would end the RfC on Oct 22nd). What more do you want? --Obsidi (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Get some consensus for it earlier. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

How much earlier is enough? --Obsidi (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Often, it's done in the first week, but how about the second week or the third, well before now, at any rate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

So if I had done it in the 3rd week, what is to stop me from being told "well you should have done it in the second week". Or if I did it in the second week being told "well you should have done it in the first week", etc. --Obsidi (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, they can, but it is very much doubtful that that objection would succeed in my experience. But you won't know until you have an actual discussion with others on it, well before now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"I did propose it and not one objected." That's called raising a flag and no one saluting. You made a comment and no one responded. Possibly no one objected because no one took it seriously. We can argue about what exactly consensus means. But, it certainly doesn’t mean not one of the scores of editors on the Talk Page paid attention one way or another. Objective3000 (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• As Pope Julius repeated to Michalangelo: 'When you will make an end of it?” I can’t believe this discussion continues. How many bites at the apple do you want? So many articles, so little time. Objective3000 (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• From the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment, there is a link to a previous RfC which discusses this type of situation explicitly: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Archive_12#Review. aprock (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on ISIL by User:Gregkaye

Gregkaye (talk · contribs · logs) has repeatedly reverted or reinserted edits that violate NPOV and talk page consensus. He has been notified of the Syrian Civil War/ISIL sanctions. I warned him on the article talk page the he should not continue to revert, then warned him level on his talk page of 3 for disruptive editing, then level 4 when he did it again. He seems not to get the wp:point. I suggest a block to prevent further disruption.~Technophant (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs for what he has "repeatedly" inserted? I can only see one large insertion. Also, a link to the talk page discussion re the material in question is needed. Thanks, Number 57 17:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated warnings have been placed on my talk page as at User talk:Gregkaye#October 2014. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The editor has ferventaly argued against the use of the word "jihadist" in this thread then continued the same to the point of disruption on this more recent thread. The editor has also reinserted previously reverted criticism section which he original inserted here in the lead. I'll continue to look for more diffs. Keep in mind that this article has a strict 1RR policy.~Technophant (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Summary:

1. [175] 16:13, 19 October 2014 - inserted paragraph into lead
2. [176] 22:49, 19 October 2014 - reverted by User:Felino123
3. [177] 08:19, 20 October 2014 - User warned on talk page and on user page of disruptive behavior level-3
4. [178] 16:15, 20 October 2014 - material reinserted without edit summary (2 minutes! after 24-hour limit)
5. [179] 16:21, 20 October 2014 - reverted by myself, user warned level-4

The editor also won't "drop the stick" and has continued to argue on the talk page despite being warned to drop it. I think this is enough to warrant some action.~Technophant (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I actually like this editor and he has made some important contributions (see Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Animated_GIF_showing_territorial_evolution). I don't want this editor topic banned, we just need to see this POV pushing and edit warring to stop.~Technophant (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Like me? I suddenly have a host of "Technophant mentioned you" messages in my notifications. Maybe so. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC) sorry to have placed this out of sequence.

Gregkaye I do value and respect your contributions. If you can just agree to stop the discussed behaviors perhaps this whole thing can be closed without any further unpleasantries.~Technophant (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You stick with your values and I'll stick with mine. You made very very blunt interventions on my talk page and when I raised query you could not be bothered to reply. I have not found you to be too consistent with your pleasantries. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

On the face of it, this editor seems to be doing exactly what editors are supposed to do. You and he are both very active on both the article page and the talk page, making countless positive contributions to the article and discussions. You appear to have an issue over two things he has done: a single 1RR >24+ hours of a summary of some article material in the lede, and his strong argumentation on the talk page that "jihadist" is an inappropriate label for this group. His reversion without an edit summary is indeed not optimal, but it was after discussion on the talk page. If he is engaging in a non-technical violation of 1RR then so are you by jumping into a revert. It appears that you and some other editors considered the original insertion (which would seem to be simple BRD editing) to be a problem. Am I missing something? The material appears harmless and appropriately sourced, although if consensus is to keep it out of the lead then so be it. As for arguing that "jihadist" is an inappropriate term, again, on the face of that it looks like a reasonable and perhaps correct opinion — I certainly hope the Arabic Wikipedia doesn't use a similarly loaded word, "crusaders", to label every religiously-tinged issue coming from the West. Consensus and sources may fall otherwise, but unless you can show that this has gotten to the point of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and disrupting the orderly flow of discussion I see nothing wrong with discussing the matter on the talk page. If you think that simply continuing the discussion of the point has gotten disruptive, how is that so? - Wikidemon (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear it's more like 1RR=24 hours with a +0.14% margin. Also, Felino123 (an editor whom I've no previous interaction) made the first revert and I made the second so I'm not in violation of the 1RR rule. Also the second insertion (#4) was done after he was given a warning not to reinsert both on tha article talk page and user talk page (#3). It show a certain degree of stubborness an unwillingness to respect consensus. Also, it's BRD, not "BRDRD". ~Technophant (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, technically neither of you violated 1RR, which is why I called it a non-technical violation, meaning the spirit of things. I'm not accusing you of anything, just pointing out that it's not really clear what the problem is. BR-DDDDDD-RD is probably an acceptable editing pattern even if BRDRR is not: if the intervening discussion establishes either that the revert is for an unexplained or clearly bad reason, or there's consensus for inclusion, then it's fine to re-insert. In this case Felino123 had a well-explained and appropriate reason for rejecting this material in the lede, but I just don't see why Gregkaye was warned against reinserting it, or why any warning not to re-insert it would have any force. Reverting again with the summary "repeted insertion of controversial material" isn't really a good reason, that's saying that BRDRR is preferable BRDR; a second removal based on it being weak content, or against consensus, seems more reasonable. But back to the issue, is Gregkaye really being disruptive here? If so would they agree to take it easy, or is administrative counsel or intervention necessary? I'm not an admin, just passing by. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The material inserted into the in the lead isn't controversial as I stated. It's a summary of information in the Critism section. The reason for removal (clean precise lead) I agree with. This is more of an issue with "technical" 1RR (presumed intent to keep reinserting every 24 hours despite objections). Another user recently received a 3 month topic ban from an univolved admin for just DDDD with no R's without much (if any) warning.~Technophant (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• I honestly don't see a problem of a WP:DEADHORSE. Amongst the dead are numbered Iraqis, Syrians, Sunnis, Shias and a whole host of other people who have either lost life, loved ones or liberty. Horses however aren't among the dead. Problems with jihadist terminologies have also been independently raised by other Wikipedians. See: Category talk:Jihadist organizations Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have actually not been involved in the "jihadist debate" at all. I'm on the top contributors on this page however I am mostly involved with gnomish technical issues and participating in discussions. I was just informed of a user problem and did my best to try to deal with it.~Technophant (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You have recently been the primary mover in the pushing of the use of "Islamic State" terminology which flies in the face of the example set by great swathes of the Islamic community and world governments. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a completely different topic and isn't relevant to this discussion.~Technophant (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This is looking more like a dispute resolution issue. Perhaps that is a better way of dealing with a content dispute. Still, the edit warring must stop.~Technophant (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I have been a regular and active editor on the ISIS page since June this year and have become so concerned about this editor who joined the page recently that I even went to the WP:HD about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2014_October_14#Editing_problem. This outlines my concerns. You will see another request on the Help Desk two above mine from another editor on the ISIS page about this editor and one other, expressing the same concerns. Before I say anything else, let me stress that the specific problems I raise there aside, this is a good editor who has contributed much of value to the page. I haven't had time to sort out any diffs yet, and will confine myself to one issue for the time being, which has caused more grief than any other on the Talk page. The debate over the word "jihadist" has been going on for what seems like weeks, getting nowhere, it has taken up an enormous amount of editorial time, and there are at least four editors who consistently do not agree with the editor that "jihadist" should be kept out of the Lead. The editor rejects WP:RS completely, which WP is supposed to reflect. He disputes the use of the word by Reliable Sources to describe ISIL and sets his own views above theirs, which sounds like WP:OR to me. I have lost count of the number of times he has removed the word from the Lead, against consensus, and warnings lately about editing against consensus have been ignored. My basic objection is that the editor ignores WP:NPOV, which I will give some diffs for tomorrow. I am not very happy about this ANI, but something had to be done to stop the edit-warring and editing against consensus. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - The only edit warring, disruption, and ganging up is by Technophant and his (very) small local consensus, including P123ct1, most likely via secret e-mails against Gregkaye. Gregkaye is extremely knowledgeable, is doing what is supposed to do, and has tolerated them more than he should. To be fair, this should have a Boomerang effect on them. I no longer edit the article because of the same (very) small consensus that act as if they own the article and drive away editors, but I could not remain silent in the face of this injustice. I will also not get sucked in into this again. All I had to say, I already said it!. Worldedixor (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I cannot let that biased comment go unanswered. Please refer to RFC/U and the Talk page in particular. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - this looks like a thorny question. I see some pages of discussion (which to be honest I didn't read carefully) but I don't see any clear vote where consensus was firmly established. Stronger enforcement is not a good substitute for a better consensus. Put ANI away for at least a week or two and get some third opinions; my thought though is you just say sources X Y Z call them jihadist and I J K disagree, and move on. Sometimes it really is better not to peek at the pig in the poke (not to argue the underlying philosophical point) when making this sort of decision. Wnt (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support I essentially agree with P123ct1's description above regarding POV and OR. Gregkaye has removed jihadist calling it "terminology as bastardised by western media" in his edit summary. Many of us have shown that reliable sources in all newspapers use this word in a particular sense. He insists that Western sources are wrong and his particular Islamic sources should veto our usage. Stats show that jihadist and extremist are the most used terms. He rejects the former and says he can not "morally" allow its usage. As he has just said above "You stick with your values and I'll stick with mine" when it is a question of applying our common standards and not our personal values. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Fooladfc2013

This use is making a mess by creating almost empty pages for all red links in this page Taekwondo at the 2014 Asian Games. even though other users including myself improved some of those pages but I think it doesn't change the fact. he also created so many not-so notable pages like this one without any references. he also doesn't answer his talkpage at all. I assume he can't understand English at all, I also tried other language but I'm not sure if he even knows he has to check his talkpage ! I'm not necessarily asking for him getting banned because he tries to help wikipedia but I think someone has to stop him from making unreferenced and unnecessary pages. Mohsen1248 (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive creation of AFDs (again)

Frequent visitors here may recall that User:MayVenn created several disruptive AFDs because they disliked an editor who had contributed to the articles in question. Well now we have a "brand new" account, created just a few days ago, doing something similar. That user is User:Geoffreyofmonmouth and the user who is being targeted by their AFDs appears to be User:MJT21, as was first noted by User:Andy Dingley. I, like Andy, think something is suspicious here, but I'm not sure what. I am requesting admin input regarding whether this is just a coincidence, or a blockable offense, or something in between. Sockpuppetry seems to be the most obvious explanation. Jinkinson talk to me 01:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Sarr X

Switched Geranium and Germanium articles

• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Geranium&diff=630450439&oldid=630445333
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Germanium&diff=630450684&oldid=629085641

Announced so proudly on user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User%3ASarr_X&diff=630453573&oldid=628871558

Was already banned in the past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sarr_X#April%202014

--Wikieditoroftoday (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)