Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 91.182.126.147 (talk) at 13:48, 5 March 2014 (→How to stop a page being 'gamed' ?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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)



    User:84.127.80.114 and Debian edit war

    BEING DEALT WITH AT DRN
    --Guy Macon (talk) 06:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I have been recently blocked for 48 hours. I insist that I was not the one edit warring. I even reduced the amount of my changes to a minimum. I got a WP:AN3 warning to not be disruptive in the article. I only reverted the disputed changes that used non neutral language. I was not disruptive. I was blocked because I made a change to the article.

    My unblock request is not answered. I see that administrators are busy but I cannot work without an answer. I am worried this will be an excuse to block me for a longer period of time if I try to make any changes to the article. My ability to bold edit and revert is virtually blocked. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You're not blocked - if you were, you could not have edited here DP 18:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you been edit-warring at Debian? Yes. Has Mthinkcpp been edit-warring? Yes, but to a much lesser degree. You were more insistent with your reverts, having reverted twice in the same day, while the reverts that Mthinkcpp had made were spaced days apart. Neither one of you violated the three revert rule (reverting more than 3 times in a 24 hour period) but Bbb23 made the decision to block you as being the more aggressive editor in this case. I'm not sure I would have made that decision, but I don't think it was the "wrong" decision either; I can see the logic behind it.
    In either case, you can and should be blocked again if you insist on reinserting the information that was disputed through reverts and is being discussed on the article's talk page. The proper way to resolve this is to convince other editors that you are correct. If you can't do that, and can't achieve consensus, it can't be added. If you can't understand that, or refuse to accept it, and continue on this path you'll be blocked again. Just continue the discussion at the article talk page, and resolve it there. Also, look at our page on dispute resolution for advice about how to best deal with an issue where you are unable to come to an agreement with another editor. -- Atama頭 18:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I am not technically blocked. But I "should" be blocked again if I repeat my actions. Therefore another bold edit or revert will mean a new block. I do discuss. I did discuss then. Reverters do not. Atama says that content without consensus cannot be added. I reverted that content without consensus and I got blocked. If what I did is considered edit warring, why cannot these changes be made to WP:WAR?
    Will my next bold edit/revert to the article mean a new block? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably. The reason why such blocks are made are to force people to handle these disputes as they're supposed to be done; through the article talk page. For reference, read bold-revert-discuss, which is the usual course of events. (Someone makes a bold edit, another person reverts it, and they settle it by discussion; you're at the discussion stage now.) -- Atama頭 21:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Atama says someone is at the discussion stage. I certainly am. Will I be blocked again if I try to reintroduce the changes more slowly? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggested dispute resolution, and linked to it for a reason. It has suggestions for how to proceed. If you feel that you are trying to facilitate discussion, but only one other person is participating, then go to the link I just provided. It suggests asking for a third opinion to weigh in. If that third opinion isn't enough to sway either side, you can try asking at the dispute resolution noticeboard for assistance, or if you want to continue the discussion at the talk page, start a request for comments and try to get input from even more people. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that if you can't convince others to your point of view and find that you are either alone in your opinion or you are in the minority, that you're not going to succeed. Move on and find something else to contribute to the article or another article. -- Atama頭 16:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP 84.127.80.114 has filed a case at WP:DRN so this discussion should be discontinued as DRN does not allow multiple conversations in multiple venues. Thanks Atama for your good advice to the IP and thanks to the IP for choosing dispute resolution over edit warring. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Reporting an administrator

    Hello,

    I had a very negative interaction with the administrator User talk:RHaworth, and hope someone there might have some time to assist him, as he seems to be struggling with positive communication.

    This admin has privileges which seem to include deletion and rollback. My interactions all occurred on his talk page, and I took a moment to look at the interactions above mine. Nearly every entry was responded to with rudeness or worse. For example:

    • A very polite but scattered letter got a response which began: "What on earth is this "self-reference" rubbish?"
    • A very polite letter written from the president of a drama club inquiring about a deleted page. The response: "three infractions - so I ignore."
    • A very polite letter inquiring about an email. The response: "Please give details of the alleged "notification". Your email of Jan 4 reached me perfectly well. But why on earth are you trying to email me. Two other things you should have learned in two years of contributions: wikilinks and that refs need a reflist tag but in any case they are inappropriate on user talk pages. OK, your article has been waiting some time for its third review but you must be patient. I do not usually get involved with AfC review so I have no comment on the suitability of the article."
    • A very polite letter inquiring about a deleted article. His response: "May I introduce you to the concept of links? You do not clutter this page with article material - you provide a link to your draft. What does it say at the top of Thierry Noritop and fr:Thierry Noritop? "Needs additional citations for verification" and "ne cite pas suffisamment ses sources". This is the hurdle you must overcome if you want to create the Bernie Adam (get the capitalisation right) article. I suspect you are fluent in French so I suggest you create fr:Bernie Adam first. If it sticks it will provide a slight boost for the corresponding article here - which you should launch via AfC."
    • A comment about a deletion review. His response: "I don't mind people opening DRVs without telling me - it is my job to watch the article - if I am interested."
    • An inquiry which stated: "I am curious to understand why you deleted the Orhan Sadik-Kahn page. Interested in learning how to best position on Wikipedia articles. Thank you!" His response: "Possibly mainly because it did not look like a Wikipedia article. How many articles start with == Summary == ? How many bios put the dates of birth and death at the end instead of in the first sentence? Have you noticed that other Wikipedia articles contain wikilinks? Did you think that putting some in yours might make it look more like a proper article. Have you considered the possibility of creating the refs as external links? Please learn the format to de-duplicate references. He is mentioned at least once in other articles - why did you not create incoming links to your article? I have restored your text to User:Kgardner1/sandbox - attend to the matters above then re-submit via AfC."
    • A message from an editor who, I assume, had a previously deleted page about a prayerbook restored. He wrote: "I have taken pity on you," and then, "You will receive no further kindness from me until you explain..." Then, "In the highly unlikely event that the text agrees with what you posted, I shall report your priest to the bishop." Then, "my reference to your church was a joke".
    • An editor writes: "Hi, I am a brand new editor working on the article of an animated film festival in Kosovo Anibar. I don't know much about Wikipedia, please bear with me. I am working on my personal space before I post the article on mainspace. Thank you for your understanding." His response: "The parrot has not squawked for several days and not yet on this generation of this page so — kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your festival is notable and writes about it here".
    • To the next editor: "What colour is this link?"
    • To the next editor who clearly didn't realize she had deleted something from his talk page, he writes: "Before I even look at your enquiry, I need an apology for this vandalism." She responds, "Please accept my sincere apology if I have offended you but I am thoroughly confused. What vandalism? " He responds: "Did you see that the words this vandalism are a link? If you follow that link, it will take you to what we call a "diff report". That report shows the effect of an edit that you did. Please explain why you did it."
    • To an editor asking why this administrator had made a rollback, he responds: "It was a knee-jerk reaction. Feel free to re-instate the speedy tag. I shall take no action."

    My interaction was next, and was equally negative.

    In the real world, people get fired from jobs when they behave like this. The biggest problem though, is it turns new editors off. No kindness. No encouragement. Few suggestions of where to access help.

    All of us here are volunteers. None of us deserves to be treated like this. If someone could please take a moment to offer this administrator some strategies for writing to others in a civil way, it would be a big help. Thank you very much. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to reply because I don't want to give the impression that you are ignored. I looked over RHaworth's user talk page, and what I saw as responses run the range from brusque to acerbic, and I can definitely understand your concerns. Nothing there crosses the line in my eye to actual misbehavior, not even per incivility which is a much lower bar than personal attacks or harassment. But it's also not kind, either.
    To put it in perspective, I wouldn't see any actions from this administrator to be worthy of any templated warnings (even ignoring the fact that templates generally aren't appropriate) but if a request for adminship were run today, these would probably be raised as objections.
    I'm not going to offer advice to RHaworth. I don't suggest that administrators are above reproach (I certainly am not!) but for me to suggest to RHaworth that they need to change their communication style feels like arrogance on my part. At least not in the case where another administrator's "style" may be different from mine, but they aren't breaching any policies or guidelines. So I apologize, but I'm not going to take the action that you very politely suggest. All I can offer you right now is an assurance that I do understand and don't entirely dismiss your concerns, I just don't feel that it's my place to try to correct it. -- Atama頭 23:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Atama is exactly right. Nothing here rises to the level of incivility as defined by Wikipedia, and even if it did sanctioning other users for civility is controversial to say the least. There are over a thousand admins, with as many individual styles as you'd find in any group of 1000 people. You cite this quote, for example: "I don't mind people opening DRVs without telling me - it is my job to watch the article - if I am interested." That isn't insulting, uncivil, or even curt--it's just saying the facts: specifically, that he's not bothered by the DRV and if he cared about the article he would've watchlisted it. Someone who took 3 paragraphs (plus seven links and a picture of a kitten) to say the same thing wouldn't be a better admin, just a more verbose and blustery one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    If someone is acting like a bully and a douchebag, about 40% of the time they turn out to be an admin. Though some of the nicest interactions I've had have been with admins. Power goes to some peoples heads, and couple that with being behind a screen can make people act in ways they would never act in person. Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This should be a caution towards a boomerang. RHaworth, an excellent admin, does not need to be dragged through the mud over this bit over oversensitivity. The OP brought it right here... for what? An admonishment? Move along. Doc talk 09:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How on earth can saying " "It was a knee-jerk reaction. Feel free to re-instate the speedy tag. I shall take no action." be construed as in any way as uncivil? The other comments are at a minor level compared to some on Wikipedia - a number of them are clearly meant to be humourous. I suspect that there are also instances where the quotes have been taken out of context and regardless of history. It's a dirty job out there on the front line and RHaworth in my book is doing a fine job. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 10:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What on earth is this "bit over oversensitivity" rubbish? Magnolia677 (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. Doc talk 14:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What admin action are you requesting that you could not do yourself, Magnolia677? I don't see any of these as more than grumpiness on User:RHaworth's part, and we can all be grumpy sometimes. He isn't going to get a warning or a block for that, and it isn't because he is an admin either. So I don't see what anybody can do, other than maybe have a word with him. Would you like me to do that? --John (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    After I wrote on his talk page "your inability to show appreciation to others who volunteer their time to Wikipedia is disappointing", he responded with rudeness. So sure, have a go. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's funny, I was just over there reading that again. When I review the whole thing I think you just got off on the wrong foot. We are all volunteers here, and RHaworth did everything you asked him to do, and everything that his status demands that he do, promptly and competently. That you found him brusque was probably just him being business-like. Honestly, I would just move on from this and put it behind you, if I were you. --John (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    So, it's clear that no action will be taken against RHaworth because while he might have a brusque style of communication, it doesn't cross the line into incivility. Therefore, I think this case should be closed. Editors should feel like they can bring their concerns, especially regarding admins who wield more power than they do, to AN/I to seek counsel Magnolia677 has done so and I don't think they deserve a backlash for believing like this was a safe space to bring their concerns. This should not be discouraged and I don't think questions about admins should cause a defensive reaction. IMO. Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

    I agree with the above comment. The user was justified in bringing his concerns here and talk about boomerangs is inappropriate. I think there will be a good outcome as I am confident that the admin complained about will improve his level of civility to other users after this incident. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

    I never meant to say that this was a board that would earn any user a "boomerang" for reporting any alleged malfeasance by an administrator, as if admins are above reproach. I was speaking only to this case specifically. Doc talk 04:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    RHaworth can be a grumpy old man (by his own definition), but he's usually got a point. I had a look at the discussion over Rutherfurd Hall and can offer the following conclusions: 1) New editor creates unreferenced article in a bad shape 2) NPP tags it as G11 three minutes later 3) Admin declines the speedy but userfies it instead 4) Editor copypastes the article back into main space and improves it 5) Admin histmerges the two versions and reminds the editor that not attributing properly is a copyvio 6) Everyone gets confused and it spills onto ANI 7) Tea and biscuits are served. Did I miss anything? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, you missed my most important point, or chose not notice it. RHaworth has been granted the role of gatekeeper of new articles, an important and necessary job. This means he must frequently interact with inexperienced editors who have had their articles deleted. These editors appear enthusiastic and well-meaning, but naive of the wiki ways. They also have no choice but to deal with self-described grump RHaworth. So when this administrator deletes a newcomers user page, and tells them they don't deserve one until they make 50 edits [1], I get a bit concerned. Stating "before I even look at your enquiry, I need an apology for this vandalism", to someone who has absolutely no idea what they did wrong, also concerns me, as does seeing an editor's ideas described as "rubbish", or jokes made about their church. I'm disappointed to see so many comments defending this rude behaviour, but maybe I'm just being unrealistic expecting that the front-line face of a volunteer organization should be a kind and helpful one. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree with Magnolia677 on this point, and i have asked RHaworth on his talk page to restore the user page deleted for "freeloading" and to give an account of his admin actions in that matter. I have mostly had positive contacts with RHaworth in the past, but he is often a bit overly grumpy in my view, and WP:BITE is particularly important for admins to remember. DES (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly wouldn't defend any admin coming across as being rude or biting newbies. The way I interpreted the conversation I mentioned above though, it seemed that rather than being rude or curt, RHaworth was simply trying to explain policy to you, but making a bad job of it. Clearly, it came across as rude to you, which is why you responded in kind. Atama is right - unless RHaworth is regularly violating policy or competence as an admin, there's not much practically that can be done. Expecting him to change his manner and tone just isn't going to happen, and somebody has got to keep an eye on the CSD queue. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course there's something that can be done. Wikipedia is a social environment, and most editors respond to reasonable feedback, especially if given by multiple editors. The problem is the "all-or-nothing" black and white mentality of this place (ANI) -- we don't have to block, ban, template, admonish, revert, fold, spindle or mutilate an editor to have a positive impact on their behavior. So, RHaworth, let's tone it down a bit. NE Ent 11:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    RH, that's my impression also. DGG ( talk ) 16:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Who's a "douche-bag" ? - theWOLFchild 19:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Family / friends tag-teaming on an article on fringe claim of vaccine killing someone

    The family and friends of Al Plastino are tag-teaming to perpetuate their edit-warring with a WP:FRINGE claim that a flu vaccine gave him Guillain-Barré. One editor on the article talk page misrepresents the CDC, which contrary to this editor does not say flu vaccines give people Guillain-Barré. The article states clearly that Plastino suffered from Guillain-Barré, with citing. But no disinterested, unbiased source claims the vaccine killed him — only the family, which has something to gain by putting that claim on Wikipedia as a way to bolster any lawsuit. They also make an additional claim that's untrue. This hijacking of a Wikipedia page by the subject's family and friends to push a fringe view unsupported by any source other than themselves is shameful. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left JohnRTroy a warning about adding original research to Wikipedia. I see that the page has also been protected as well for the duration of this dispute. -- Atama頭 21:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Protected for a week. Miniapolis 21:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    While I appreciate the claim originated from the family one of who wrote something asking for wikipedia to be changed, is there any real evidence they are the ones editing? Seems more likely to be people who didn't know the subject personally but were influenced by the article such as fans of someone who looks likely to have many. Nil Einne (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it matters who's doing the editing (they're registered accounts, hence the full protection); the repeated insertion of the unreliably-sourced claim is the deciding factor. All the best, Miniapolis 21:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A few quick notes. Mark Evanier is a noted comics journalist, and he's actually considered a reliable source, being quoted several times in the actual article, so if Atama is going to say I used "original research", then all the Evanier quotes would need to be removed. There is precedent of him being considered a reliable source in the comics field. Secondly, I tried to act in good faith, citing the source accurately and leaving it alone. The argument seemed to start with the Guillian-Barre claim. I saw nothing suspect in that claim, as the WP itself cites a reliable source that links GBS to any form of the virus including vaccines, although I can see why people might be concerned. I regret that it escalated to this point--however, I do feel that Tenebrae could have avoided this by not suddenly and completely reverting the article and responding in a confrontational manner like he did in the talk page. I have never encountered this issue before, and I also felt rather than assume the page was "under attack" (it certainly wasn't), he immediately went here, bypassing even getting the working group on comics involved. JRT (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The page was under attack, whatever the intentions are. When 3 editors arrive at an article to tag team and inject information into it, inserting information on 5 different occasions, that's an edit war. I will concede that Tenebrae violated WP:3RR by reverting 4 times in 24 hours, and if he had not brought the issue here in an attempt to stop the edit war I would have blocked him (though that would be punitive at this point). -- Atama頭 22:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops. You're right — I'd honestly thought I was right at 3, and even said something to that effect on one or more of the talk pages. I shouldn't have gone over, but it was inadvertent. Thank you for being understanding.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    JRT is mixing apples and orange. Mark Evanier is a reliable source on comics and TV, not medicine. As well, the post this editor mentions is not Evanier's independent reporting: Evanier himself did not research and make the statement about vaccines causing GBS. All Evanier did is accept a family member's quote at face value and disseminate it with a headline literally reading "Let's Correct Wikipedia on Something!" That's not what I would call rigorous journalism, and it's certainly out of his field of expertise.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's back up a second, I think you are comparing apples and oranges. This is a biographical article about a comics professional, and Evanier is quoted a lot and has provided reliable information in the past. At least in the past he's been considered a reliable source, even in that very article. I think he's reliable when he wants to correct the cause of death of Plastino, and he's got the connections to be a reliable source for the quote of family members based on his track record and his own quotes as sources. Try to understand something--From my own perspective, you seem more offended he used that title in his article (in the talk page, you rant about it), when I can understand how exasperating it is to have to be quoted in print before you can correct an error on WP (I've been on WP longer than you, though not as active, so I'm no novice), then used the GBS quote as an excuse to revert, apparently not understanding that it can be linked to flu vaccinations, at least according to all the research, which was the main reason you reverted the page. Then we got into an argument over the cause of GBS, and all I saw was somebody make accusations over my editing motives, then immediately escalate it here without even wanting to discuss it with the other Comics group right away. From my perspective, you came across (and are coming across) as somebody who's hostile and letting his own personal ego get in the way of edits, and are getting emotional over having your own edits changed. Even in the talk page and the WP:Comics page, you are coming across as hostile, thinking I'm "threatening an edit war" on the WP:COMICS talk when I just want other comics experts involved in evaluating the statement. (Since it ends up being a class of egos if just two people disagree) JRT (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You make a good case for accepting as reliable the report of a claim by a family member. For the specific point that this injection actually caused Guillain–Barré syndrome, and that it did so in this case, I suggest that we would need relevant expert opinion. Not, on this point, the report of comics experts. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, I honestly don't care if the claim of his death by the vaccine should be part of Wikipedia, just that he died of the disease. The only two things I'd want to correct in the article would be (a) to find out if he did have Prostate Cancer and (b) that he died of GBS. The only other thing I'd change is I would bring back my reference to Evanier's blog (which was deleted on revert), but I wouldn't put the actual claim about the vaccine in the text of the GBS itself. In fact, I didn't actually write that, the only place the claim appeared was in the quote text in the reference. Beyond that I'd be happy. I do think the blog entry should be sourced since other references to that blog are sourced and it would be hypocritical not to source it unless you want to challenge all the other sources in that article. I simply don't think Evanier had any "hidden agenda" in his post other than to correct a cause of death. JRT (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Mark Evanier is certainly a reliable source in several fields and a person for whom I have an enormous amount of respect. I take him at his word that he indeed verified that the email was from a family member and by extension that a family member would know the cause of death. But that said I see no reason to include the flu-vaccine claim in the article. If a prominent scientist were killed in an auto accident, we wouldn't generally need to include the make, model, and colour of the other car. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well put; I myself have quoted Evanier on comics history many times, and find him a knowledgable and engaging host of comics panels at conventions. But we can't cite his blog for medical information. He's not even quoting a medical expert stating concretely that the vaccine killed Plastino, but a biased, non-disinterested family member who is not a medical expert and who stands to gain by disseminating a claim that would make the vaccine makers and medical personnel liable. And in concurrence with Andrew Lenahan, is a cause of death even particularly necessary when we're talking about a 91-year-old?
    No one mentioned anything about Evanier having an "agenda," but the cited item certainly does mention his dissatisfaction with his own experiences with Wikipedia, so I wouldn't necessarily call him objective.
    RE "to find out if he did have Prostate Cancer" — why does JRT refuse to read Maryann Plastino's own quote to the New York Post a month before Plastino's death that, yes, Plastino had prostate cancer. It's right in the footnotes, for heaven's sake.
    And P.S to JRT: Please stop using words like "rant". And your comments about my "ego" and "hostility" are uncivil. All I see is a host of editors here and on other pages in agreement that Evanier's blog is not a reliable source for the killer-vaccine claim. So I'm not sure who's the one being unreasonable here. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Evanier's dissatisfaction with WP seems more like frustration. Criticism of WP doesn't imply he's biased against it, or that he was trying to start a protest, just a correction. In fact, if he's considered a bad unobjective source, he shouldn't be quoted elsewhere in the same article. I did not "refuse" to read the source, as I have reviewed the sources better you are correct about the prostate cancer (unless MaryAnn is trying to recant that statement or was misquoted), and I have already admitted I jumped the gun--while there is some concern about vaccines and GBS it's not likely to be provable cause of death unless it's on their death certificate. But as far as "civility" goes, I'm sorry, I think you deserve some criticism for being antagonistic. I doubt this would have escalated to this state if you had been a little more welcoming, not immediate reverted an edit, and instantly assuming that there was a deliberate attempt to bias the article. In fact, if one of these other uses brought up the same point as articulately as they've done here, there probably wouldn't have been an issue here. JRT (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And as far as "ego" goes, I was making a statement when two people get into a WP edit war, it's mostly a battle of individual egos, so I'm making fun of myself here as well, which is why when this comes up I always try to solicit others to review and break the ties. JRT (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two things here. I agree it doesn't matter who is editing the article in terms of protecting it, but that's beside my point (you'd note I never said anything about the protection) which is the second thing we shouldn't forget about. Family and friends of the subject is likely a select group of people at least some of who would be easily identifiable. Tag teaming a wikipedia article would often be seen in a negative way and therefore accusing identifiable living people of it should not be done with out some evidence they are actually involved for WP:BLP reasons. This is even more so when we have no evidence of any involvement of said people in editing wikipedia at all (which from what I can tell, is the case here). And in a case like this where as I've emphasised, there is good reason to think there would be plenty of people who should not be called 'family and friends' who may come to edit. Just because we aren't happy about something that's going on or other stuff that people have done is no excuse to accuse those people of involvement in something related with no evidence. The fact is doesn't matter is a reason not to make such accusations in the first place. It doesn't mean we should ignore it when such accusations are made. Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my biggest objection to the whole thing. It was being accused of both being a family member--I am not, I simply read Evanier's blog regularly--and engaging in "Fringe Science". When my edit was rejected for that reason, I looked up GBS, and discovered that at least one time it has been linked to a vaccine, and it sounds like a legitimate concern. Obviously I was wrong and it's inconclusive, though there does seem to be enough caution regarding GBS to have some warnings. But also, the simple quote may not have enough information--perhaps the family meant to say he died due to complications from it and it didn't come out clearly in the quote. But Tenebrae instantly took an accusatory tone, saying "This evident desire to use Wikipedia to help the family score a big lawsuit settlement is shameful.", as well as assuming this was some coordinated effort. That's actually a potentially libelous statement since nothing in that source says anything about a lawsuit or the like. If the tone of the discussion had been kept on the civility levels that have occurred here, I doubt we'd even be talking about it. Sometimes, being nice is important in these discussions. JRT (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a lot of people try to use Wikipedia to promote FRINGE ideas, and there are lots of places where one can lookup information that is totally bogus. The cause of death of the individual (last time I looked) is not known. The fact that someone might think that a vaccine was involved is irrelevant and cannot be used as the basis to assert the cause of death. There is no reason for an article to note what uninformed people think about the cause of death. Johnuniq (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Australian sport naming rules; please review this process and my block of Macktheknifeau

    See here for a taste of the regular and frequent disruption that has been caused to our project by the long-term dispute over whether the game Wikipedia knows as association football should be known as soccer, football or something else in an Australian context. With a view to clarifying different understandings of the consensus here, I asked some of the disputants to comment here. Most have responded positively, but User:Macktheknifeau has continued to post personal comments after being warned to stop here, and in spite of the clear instruction at the discussion (For now, please restrict yourselves to stating your own opinion in your own section about the article titles and content, and how this is justified by the consensus. Comments about the opinions and supposed motivations of other editor will be removed.) I have therefore blocked him for 24 hours. Please review the process generally and the block specifically. Thanks for your time. --John (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I think John has A Tiger by the Tail, in that he is attempting to concurrently mediate an interaction nominally about content and enforce civility on the participants with admin tools. The problem is, as indicated by the arbcom finding and the dead in all but name RFC Civility enforcement RFC, we don't have a functional civility policy, which inevitably makes enforcing it ultimately subjective and arbitrary. I've been watching the conversation unfold and participating in my minimalist fashion -- I don't think there is really much of actual content dispute, as there was an RFC last August with a pretty clear consensus ("soccer"). What I saw was tedious WP:IDHT pov-pushing -- including arguments that a local consensus can override commonname with ad hominem attacks against the editor (HiLo48) trying to maintain the article in accordance with policy. Unfortunately, while HiLo48 is a decent editor, they are not skilled at wiki-politics / infighting, which leads to a seriously tl;dr merry-go-round talk page, which makes it time consuming to pick out the signal in all the noise. It is an interesting experiment in dispute resolution and I'm curious to see how it will turn out; 1K WQA and 2K ANI edits have made me a bit cynical about the chances for success but I've been wrong before and hopefully I'll be wrong this time. NE Ent 12:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    After checking User talk:Macktheknifeau I agree that User:John made an appropriate decision to block. To get the flavor of this user's attitude, notice their unblock request: "There is an ongoing attack from users connected to Project AFL to destroy football on Australian based wikipedia articles and they are deeply involved in this issue. You cannot silence me and are merely showing yourself to be a pawn of their wiki-lawyering by letting their ludicrous attacks get the better of you." In my opinion the unblock request was correctly declined by User:Jpgordon. The latest consensus discussion that led to the naming of football-related articles seems to be the one from August 2013 at Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 3. EdJohnston (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • NE Ent correctly points out the difficulties surrounding the type of mediation that John is attempting, but the effort is very much worthwhile. I have been supporting HiLo48's attempts regarding this issue since seeing it erupt on some noticeboards, but I would put NE Ent's comments more strongly: HiLo48 has switched to being part of the problem—this is a website based on a self-governing community; badgering John (example) shows that HiLo48 is in full battleground mode. It's obvious that John is attempting to get the participants to actually think about what the August 2013 RfC said, then think about whether any new evidence is available that would justify continuing the dispute. The fact that people are unable to stand back and let that happen shows a topic ban might be required because perpetual bickering is intolerable. The block of Macktheknifeau is clearly justified, and if other participants cannot let a week pass without kicking an opponent, more blocks will be needed. In case people are unaware, the bite in John's mediation is that if it blows up, the matter will be brought to ANI where recent examples of the behavior of those involved will be hung out to dry. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel the need to apply some self defence here. In recent months I have not broken rules here. Others have. It was primarily because of persistent abuse directed at me and others at Talk:Soccer in Australia that John's process began. It's still happening. I am NOT part of this problem, but I am being treated by John as if I am. I am being asked to again go through a process I've been through many times before. This repeated process apparently includes still being insulted. John gave a "final warning" (his words) to one of the editors in question, shortly after this editor returned from a block for throwing insults at me on my Talk page. Within hours that editor told me I needed "think a bit more rationally". John has declared that's not a personal attack. I disagree. In trying to be even handed, John is treating me like an offender, and allowing what I see as unacceptable and unhelpful behaviour from others. I find it incredibly difficult to maintain faith with that process. I don't see that as a battleground mentality. I've made a massive effort here to conform with a culture different from my own, and am still being treated like dirt. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Tristan.andrade.136 - Concerns about competence

    Hi, I'm concerned that User:Tristan.andrade.136 may not have the competence to edit constructively.

    The user, who we are to believe is a kid, has been warned at least six times not to submit unsourced content, three times not to misuse flag icons, at least five times about disruptive editing, and twice to be mindful of spelling. User has created misspelled articles on Mari Tranior (presumably Trainor), Luitenent Gadget (Lieutenant), has submitted the word "vocied" instead of "voiced" at least six times: ([2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]) and continues to add flag icons without any rationale, requiring the assumption that the user is describing two different language dubs, maybe? User has made other peculiar edits like this one. User created an article on Walter's Christmas, which is written very poorly, contains no references and appears to contain copypasta, possibly from here or here. User has created another article here. (Come to think of it, here is a list of all the articles they have created.) User has removed proper {{Start date}} and {{End date}} templates here. More misspellings here, which could have been prevented as "its" and "premiere" appear earlier in the same sentence. It doesn't seem to me that the user understands our procedures and I question their ability to contribute constructively at this time. User was previously blocked in October 2013 by Zad68 and indicated that he wouldn't continue the disruptions, but it's clear that the user (assuming they aren't doing this deliberately) doesn't understand what they are doing is disruptive and doesn't have the ability to preempt or fix the problems they create. Rather than do nothing but template, I have tried on at least two occasions to make an impact through explanation, and I have also recommended the mentorship program to the user. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I spelled "Lieutenant" as "Leftenant" for years. In fact, I still pronounce it that way, just like others seem to do. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect your right to pronounce it as such. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Mentorship seems best? Obviously a kid who doesn't quite understand dangers of revealing personal information, has undeveloped language, lacks understanding why refs are important etc. If someone would like to kindergarten this guy, that would be the best, I think.Arildnordby (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps. It's unclear what their primary language is. Based on their other interactions with users I don't know how easy it will be to help them, because they don't seem capable of expressing themselves well, or comprehending what others communicate.[8][9][10][11]. I'm personally a little suspicious of behavior this consistently poor, particularly when I've seen a number of vandals who feign naivety and promise to improve, then don't. But that's just my own hangup, I suppose. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    His native language appears to be French Canadian based on this edit on his page where it states he lives in Montreal  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   20:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've sent the user a note encouraging him/her to reply. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Having read a bit further, I am now not altogether convinced your intial concern was false. He might be "just a kid" as I initially thought, but time will tell.Arildnordby (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Arildnordby Well, it's not like we've never seen vandals feign incompetence and naivety to skirt past scrutiny, while committing good hand/bad hand edits. Not saying that's definitively the case here, and I've AGF-ed my fair share, but it should definitely be on the table as feasible. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, I regard, as for now, your initial argument as definitely rational and well-founded, if a bit cynical (from experience, perhaps??). If he feigns, but desperately wants wiki-inclusion, he'll switch tracks. If he's a well-meaning kid, he'll try his best. If he feigns, but isn't too interested, we've heard the last of him. :-)Arildnordby (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the kind of account I wouldn't mind seeing separated from the project for a lengthy period of time. Bad edits despite months of pleas, poor and insufficient attempts at collaborative communication over the history of the account, continuation of the same kinds of bad edits despite a few Talk page comments. As a result the editor is eating up a lot of editing time and patience of others. I believe it's a well-meaning kid and not an intentionally malicious editor but the only thing that matters is the quality of edits and demonstrated capacity for improvement, and I'm not seeing enough of either. If it's a kid, he can come back later; if it's an editor who would be more comfortable editing in another language, then the editor should go edit that language's WP. Zad68 06:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to agree with this. Based on his edits at Slugterra: Ghoul from Beyond and other articles (Slugterra: Ghoul from Beyond is just the most recent involvement that I've had) it's fairly clear that he is just a well meaning kid who doesn't seem able to learn from his mistakes. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    United Russia

    It appears this article has been vandalized by user User:78.56.70.222, who has no other edits than to vandalize this page. I have not done many vandal reports, but I think the page should be protected, with what is going on in Russia/Ukraine right now (not that I support UR, but wiki is not the place to vandalize the pages of parties you don't like)--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, that was certainly vandalism. Thank you for reverting it, Bellerophon, and your request for protection makes sense. Even though the IP has only made one edit, I've given them a strongly worded warning on their talkpage, because of the nature of the vandalism, and semiprotected the article for a few days. For another time, it's generally best to request protection on WP:RFPP. I understand these boards are a labyrinth! Thank you very much for reporting. Bishonen | talk 21:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    Bishonen Hi, the user returned with some disruptive, POV wikilinking here. I referred them to AIV and they've been temp blocked for 36 hours. I've also asked that the Ukranian national anthem article (Shche ne vmerla Ukraina) be protected for 24-48 hours, although I dunno if that will fly since there have only been two recent disruptions. My thinking was, however, that the recent political situation in the Ukraine makes the article a high profile target. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, current events make that article too an obvious vandalism magnet. Semiprotected for four days. Bishonen | talk 22:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

    User:Tbhotch

    This user keeps harassing me and threatening to block me and is coming across a bully can someone sort them out for sake of mind? 217.43.162.104 (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note this user is THE GTA Guy (talk · contribs), aka AlisaJay (talk · contribs), aka MariaJaydHicky (talk · contribs), and evidence can be found at the respective sockpuppet investigation pages Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MariaJaydHicky/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlisaJay. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 21:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that this user has a few screws loose if all they think they can do is accuse people without facts 217.43.162.104 (talk)
    You want facts. One page: Loud (Rihanna album), a constant target of you. Including a reversion of a reversion of the user 86.142.54.16 (talk · contribs), who is blocked and also comes from the same state you are currently located. Your personal attacks and EMPHASIS matches with those of Maria and your IP matches with already confirmed socks of Maria. I don't need CU evidence to know you and Maria and GTA and Alisa are the same person. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 22:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you're going 'round calling it a personal attack; ever heard the expression "The pot called the kettle black?" 217.43.162.104 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    IP blocked for block evasion. Acroterion (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So calling me "freak" and to ask some one to "fuck me off" are not personal attacks. Neither "dumbass", "you are pathetic", and multiple of your attacks are not personal. It has no sense to talk with you (edit conflict).
    In a side note to other users, is it possible to get this guy/girl banned from this site now? Nothing has changed since the User:MariaJaydHicky era, and now this person has decided to play to be a victim of circumstances s/he provoked her/himself. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 22:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If no admin agrees to unblock, that's a de facto ban already. Epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Community Ban proposal for AlisaJay/MariaJaydHicky/etc

    I propose the following:

    For persistent sockpuppeteering and ban evasion, which has exhausted the patience and assumption of good faith by the community, MariaJaydHicky is banned from English Wikipedia by the community.

    • Support as proposer. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 06:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support in principle - Penwhale The last time I raised such a question, I was informed that an indeffed editor is de facto banned as long as there are no admins willing to unblock. And I believe we are still able to revert on sight, and report to AIV without any of the L1, L2, L3, L4 warning formalities. From some of the really incivil things she has penned, this actor seems committed to this hostile "chav" bit and doesn't seem capable of participating constructively in this community project. To formally "ban" might be to deliver a badge of honor. Just a thought. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    silly season in full force and vigour at Michael Grimm (politician)

    Previous discussion here at [12]


    Edit: [13]

    IPs and "new editors" are in edit war mode to get the "extended cut" of the Grimm story into his BLP. The editors involved are unlikely to be "truly new" here, and the use of IPs for reverts stinks IMO. Will someone please tell them how the prior discussion here went? All they are saying is "notcensored" and similar stuff now. And the claim is now that it requires consensus to remove the contentious material. Please someone, anyone, help on this. They even push the anonymous claims again -- and I think a stand should be taken on this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I took the unusual course of reverting out the BLP material which was previously discussed here, and full-protecting the article. I thought this was better than blocking people. I'll be happy to unprotect once the dispute is over. --John (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks -- though I think the miraculous IP edits are less than likely to not be socking :(. Collect (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sanitization of this article and protection with tools is complete bullshit. The news event wasn't an "interview," it was a televised threat. BLP claims are bogus. Carrite (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I charge User:John with tool abuse. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Video links for context, by the New York Times and Alternate Version to YouTube. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd better be afraid yourself if your actions are treated with the seriousness they deserve. Carrite (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • A case where policy and common sense go hand in hand. The first says to edit BLPs conservatively and with very reliable sources, the second says to not pay undue attention to minor events and to limit first-hand accounts since, after all, we're writing an encyclopedia and not a tabloid. Activism is for your Twitter account. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Bogus. "Very reliable sources?" How about: New York Times. Atlantic magazine. This is a politically-motivated whitewash. Carrite (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you saying that Collect, John and Drmies are engaging in a "politically-motivated whitewash"? It is not satisfactory for people to have their sins amplified in articles just because a source says it is so. An encyclopedic article is not a place to right great wrongs—wait until something of consequence happens, such as a conviction for an unlawful action, or an independent analysis saying that the politician lost an election because of a bad event. Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Constant arguing over parapsychology

    Basically a new user PhiChiPsiOmega has joined Wikipedia a few days ago with plans to do "major" revisions on the parapsychology article, unfortunately this user has not read Wikipedia policy on pseudoscience or fringe theories. So he has ended up ranting on the talk page of the parapsychology article and using it as a forum [[14]] and basically disagreeing with pretty much everything and anyone has said to him. He's now arguing with users here [[15]]

    PhiChiPsiOmega (talk · contribs)
    69.14.156.143 (talk · contribs)

    If you check his talk page he admits he disagrees with the scientific consensus about parapsychology and even wikipedia. He has left some aggressive comments a few times (both on his account and on his IP) on my talk-page, I am not too bothered about this but he's done the same thing on the parapsychology talk-page and elsewhere. I don't see anything positive about this user on Wikipedia. His existence here seems to just want to argue with people because his belief in psi is not supported on Wikipedia. I think he should be topic banned on the topic of parapsychology.

    To make things worse, he's now hooked up with a fringe proponent Tom Butler (talk · contribs) (an anti-Wikipedia editor who talks about Wikipedia editors censoring his paranormal views) who has written "Ah, but that is my point: in Wikipedia, they are not real people, and not being subject to social norms, are technically immune to embarrassment. They do become aggressive when cornered, though, and band together to eliminate opposition whenever possible ... with great success." [16] amongst other nonsense.

    I can just see these two editors getting worse and worse and they are obviously not on Wikipedia to improve any articles or doing anything productive but just argue with editors so I think a lid needs to be put on it now before their trolling spreads to other places on wikipedia. Goblin Face (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Parapsychology is subject to discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBPS, so the correct venue for this would be WP:AE. I recommend withdrawing this complain and filing it there instead. Noformation Talk 03:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I think PhiChiPsiOmega needs to learn about Wikipedia policy in general and WP:AGF, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:NOTAFORUM in specific. However, as a slight mitigating factor, he is a very new user and I don't want to bite the newcomer. It's clear that he believes very passionately in his topic and there's nothing wrong with that, however the situation on the constellation of parapsychology and pseudoscience articles shouldn't be changed just to accommodate one passionate editor. I think the best thing to do would be to pair PhiChiPsiOmega with an editor who has absolutely no involvement with anything even remotely related to parapsychology as a mentor. Encourage him to learn the ropes of Wikipedia somewhere where he's less likely to enter into antagonistic situations with long-standing editors. After all, passion speaks to boldness and we want bold editors here. However we also want editors who are willing to seek consensus even when it might chafe their passions. Simonm223 (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. He's a new user (very new) and I think he is allowed some leeway to picking up an understanding of WP policies and guidelines. I know many editors who had a bumpy landing when they started editing WP and, unfortunately, PhiChiPsiOmega wandered into one of the most conflicted areas on Wikipedia. I think that editors who regularly police this area are on the lookout for potential "disruptors" and are overly vigilant. But Parapsychology is not the DMZ or the old Berlin Wall and any editing errors can be reversed. There is no call to block new editors who are not aware of ARBCOM sanctions and the history of these articles. Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Liz but you have done comments like this which doesn't help. "Welcome to Wikipedia, User:PhiChiPsiOmega|PhiChiPsiOmega...where if you aren't sufficiently skeptical, you're considered "fringe" and a quack. Happy editing!" [17].

    Two issues remain here. PhiChiPsiOmega existence on Wikipedia is to just stir up trouble over the parapsychology article (psi is even in his name). He's made it clear he is not convinced by the scientific references on the topic (the hundreds that are on the article), and he rejects the scientific consensus:

    Here he even claims the arbitration committee is wrong:

    Basically everyone is wrong apart from himself and he isn't going to stop arguing about the subject. I am bringing this to the Administrators' noticeboard now because if it doesn't stop now it's just going to go on and on. The second issue is that this user Tom Butler (talk · contribs) is a troll off and on Wikipedia. Off Wikipedia he's created countless blog and forum posts against Wikipedia like this, and even an entire website against Wikipedia policies [21]:

    Tom Butler anti-Wikipedia comments
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    "After being remained about the futility of trying to reach consensus with Wikipedia editors, my natural reaction is to take my efforts for balanced reporting elsewhere. Perhaps a wiki titled: “Wikipedia Truth Watch.”

    In their devotion to mainstream ideals, skeptical editors are well organized and help one another while more moderate editors are not inclined toward activism nor are they inclined to organize.

    Reliable sources are required for every statement of substance; however, that rule is used to say that virtually all publications supporting the study of things paranormal are not allowed as references while virtually any publication negative toward things paranormal are allowed–This is a result of skeptic control of the encyclopedia." [22]

    "I would like to add my two cents worth. I have been an editor for a number of years and was involved in the decisive administrative action that resulted in a permanent ban of probably the last truly effective editor who was a supporter of fair treatment for paranormal articles." "Editing Wikipedia is truly an exercise in futility. I let myself be drawn in from time to time to at least put my point on record, but also to see how the problem has evolved. I learn more about people each visit, but my wife Lisa and I have otherwise concentrated on countering Wikipedia with education."

    [23] and he has an entire anti-Wikipedia website here: [24]

    "The problem is that Wikipedia policies have made it possible for Skeptics to dominate parts of the online encyclopedia. These faceless people have run off virtually all of those of us who think an encyclopedia should say what something is without characterizing it as good or bad. Those who persist in making what they consider more balanced entries are often subjected to abuse that is more like the Lord of the Flies than a collaborative community." [25]

    And you only need to look at his Wikipedia user page and comments on Wikipedia to see he is only here to cause trouble. Here is encouraging a user to quit Wikipedia and "give up here" to join his own paranormal alternative [26] On his very own user page it reads "Editors blocked for attempting fair treatment of Rupert Sheldrake The public will know these editors as maters of the search for fairness." and now he's encouraging the user PhiChi [27]. I have no idea why this editor is still on Wikipedia considering all the damage he is trying to do to it on and off Wikipedia (he's even hosted online petitions against Wikipedia). The way for this issue to be solved is to ban these users because they are not here to edit Wikipedia, they are using the site to stir controversies over parapsychology and it is going to spread if they are not warned. That's all I am going to say on this. If action is not taken then in a few weeks time someone else will just be coming back here complaining about these users and it is going to get worse and worse. Goblin Face (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd rather go there than deal with the lack of objectivity and quote-mining I get here. Look, GF, I understand that psi is an uncomfortable topic for you, but he has good reason for posting those things: You are not looking at this from a neutral point of view. I disagree with the skeptics because they DON'T represent their opponents very well, and that their opponents represent a small niche in the scientific community. Appealing to the "hundreds of articles against" (while ignoring the hundred articles ' ' for ' ' ) psi is just proving my point. Don't you dare do anything to Tom Butler. Neither he nor I are here to cause trouble, as I've said (and as can be seen on my talk page!) several times over. My name comes from the last four letters of the Greek alphabet, not an appeal to "psi". Quit reading into things. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we're supposed to call editors trolls, and one could argue whether "troll" is strictly accurate because it looks like an editor who is not trolling but who genuninely believes a bunch of FRINGE stuff, and is disappointed that it is so hard to push it at Wikipedia.

    PhiChiPsiOmega has a highly original manner of editing, changing the opening sentence of Parapsychology to read "Parapsychology (or psi phenomena) is the somewhat controversial scientific study of psychic and paranormal phenomena." (diff). Clearly PhiChiPsiOmega's edits will need extensive scrutiny, and WP:AE can be used if nothing is learned within a week or two. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Johnuniq, but I'm not a "pusher". It is fact that Wikipedia isn't citing the full spectrum of scientific opinion. Not all parapsychologists are woo-meisters or New Age gurus, and a great deal of them are well-respected physicists, psychologists, and statisticians. My point is that the debate can't be just given over to everyone uber-skeptical of psi. I even cited a skeptic who thought parapsychology was a science, but its findings inconclusive. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the inevitable result of this will be that PhiChiPsiOmega (talk · contribs) gets shepherded away from Wikipedia articles. He's going to waste editor's time because he seems incapable of understanding basic policies. The break is either going to be voluntary or enforced under WP:ARB/PS, and it's either going to happen sooner or later. Right now, I wouldn't be pushing for a ban, but I think it's ultimately inevitable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    via my crystal ball and potent psi powers, i can see it is only a matter of time before the user is escorted off the premises. its merely a question of how much disruption we allow before the inevitable. WP:ROPE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    TRPoD, that was so funny I forgot to laugh. Look, the only reason I'm here isn't because I irrationally believe in the face of evidence, or that I believe non-scientists over scientists, or that I am a woo-pusher who wants to cause trouble. I am here because there is a wide spectrum of opinions on psi, and that, at best, you can call it an extremely controversial science that few defendants hold to, but not pseudoscience. Just because a lot of people think psychoanalysis is pseudoscience doesn't mean it's classified as such. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fully agree with noformation. ANI threads about disruptions in the topic area of pseudoscience are always problematic. That is why we have discretionary sanctions and this thread should be filed at WP:AE to stop the TLDR text and the peanut gallery. Second Quantization (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wolfie, WP:AE limits us to providing diffs of WP:ARB/PS issues. Tom has a long history of WP:COI, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:IDHT issues. If this isn’t the right venue to deal with a chronically disruptive editor then what is? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discretionary sanctions available apply across pseudoscience and fringe articles, broadly construed. This includes all contributions where there are issues such as IDHT, NPA etc in that topic area. Second Quantization (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really trying not to be a peanut gallery. I just think it's better classified as "fringe science" than "pseudoscience". PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that Wikipedia is not about what you think it's about what the reliable sources say and there are hundreds of scientific references which classify parapsychology as a pseudoscience, it's not Wikipedia's problem that you disagree with the reliable sources. In response all you are doing all over the place is offering your own opinion and stirring up arguments. You are a single purpose account who is just going to keep arguing about the subject. You have made it clear you disagree with Wikipedia policy on pseudoscience and fringe theories. You seem to be using this website as a forum and just using various talk pages or places to argue about what you think about the subject. It really has got boring and if this isn't stopped now you are just going to log in everyday doing it and more and more articles or places on Wikipedia are going to be disrupted. When Tom Butler next logs in there's just going to be even more arguing over this issue and he feeds off it. I would appreciate an admin's response on this current issue but also this Butler character and why he has not been banned considering his purpose on Wikipedia is only to stir trouble. Goblin Face (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And the reliable sources indicate that parapsychology is fringe science, but not outright pseudoscience. For the record, reliable sources also say psychoanalysis is pseudoscientific. That doesn't make it so. And I presented reliable sources to you, which you ignored repeatedly (which makes me wonder why I'm still talking to you). Once again, I've made my position clear: I am not just a pot-stirrer. I'm saying this topic needs to be looked at more. I only disagree with parapsychology being placed as pseudoscience, and even Wikipedia protocol seems to be open to just calling it controversial or questionable, but not completely pseudoscientific. Tom Butler may have bizarre beliefs, but he's right in saying this has gone in the wrong direction. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    PhiChi says "And the reliable sources indicate that parapsychology is fringe science, but not outright pseudoscience". This is nothing more than trolling and it' utter nonsense like all of your other unreferenced personal beliefs that you have spammed on Wikipedia talk pages (you have failed to present a single scientific reference to make your case). It's trolling because there's countless references on the article which indicate it is a pseudoscience but every time you say it isn't. Can you not read the parapsychology article? There are over 10 references which indicate it is an obvious pseudoscience and many listed on the talk-page. It is even mentioned in the lead, and is cited in mainstream books on pseudoscience like Massimo Pigliucci, Maarten Boudry. (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University Of Chicago Press p. 158. "Many observers refer to the field as a "pseudoscience". When mainstream scientists say that the field of parapsychology is not scientific, they mean that no satisfying naturalistic cause-and-effect explanation for these supposed effects has yet been proposed and that the field's experiments cannot be consistently replicated." This is just a waste of time. No matter what is said you are just going to continue to promote your personal fringe beliefs on the subject, arguing, ignoring what people have said to you and causing disrupt. If someone wants to take this to another venue they can, but I am not wasting anymore time on this. Goblin Face (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I gave you plenty of references! Your failure to look at them is indicative of something else other than objectivity at work. I gave you plenty of articles from scientific journals and I could have given you more! It's not trolling. There are several authorities who claim psychoanalysis is pseudoscience, even though you still represent the counters of those who support psychoanalysis. They're saying many people refer to it as pseudoscience, not that it's completely pseudoscientific. And even if it is disagreed with, cite the esteemable people who actually support the stuff and are credible enough to get the material published in academic lit: http://books.google.com/books/about/An_Introduction_to_Parapsychology_5th_ed.html?id=rPlsF2BJiHUC. This counters several of the criticisms, and I don't see you even looking at it once! It's hardly something not worth citing like SIGNATURE IN THE CELL for evolution or something similar. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok guys, let's not have this argument here as well. Let's either take this to the appropriate venue, as suggested by Second Quantization and Noformation or just simmer down and let people cool off a bit. Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    There is only one reason I spend pretty valuable time on Wikipedia. The online encyclopedia is read by the public, and as such, the articles that slander living people and give people a false impression about subjects have become effective propaganda for a demonstrably biased point of view. None of my edits, none of my comments on Wikipedia have been contrary to the belief that the public deserves a balanced view. In fact, that is the nonprofit charter of Wikipedia.
    As a manager of a nonprofit myself, I am obligated to serve the best interest of the public in the nonprofit's literature. To knowingly falsely represent a subject violates that charter. As representatives of the Wikipedia nonprofit, the editors here are equally obligated to be truthful and slandering people and intentionally giving only one side of a subject, while as a policy, rejecting the other is something I have difficulty being quiet about.
    You can ban me, but all that does is confirm my point. The real answer is to get off your pompous seat and try balancing the articles. I am sure editors like PhiChiPsiOmega will help. Tom Butler (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Proponents of Flat Earthers proponents have no claim to be equally represented in their views than Round Earth proponents. Not even at Flat Earth page.Arildnordby (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Arildnordby: How does parapsychology fit in with flat-Earth and YEC nonsense? They have no peer-review, no textbooks, and no wide range of academic literature behind them. Parapsychology, on the other hand, does. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Tom, you serve no purpose on Wikipedia but are just here to cause trouble. You are anti-Wikipedia and both on and off this site you are promoting libel about various editors who you classify as "skeptics", you even have an entire website against Wikipedia which you believe is "biased". Look over your edit history there's nothing constructive but you are encouraging people to cause trouble on here. It's also stupid you claim to be "neutral" but you have written books claiming people can talk to the dead. Basically anyone who is not a believer in your fringe beliefs is "biased" and you attack Wikipedia in the process. Goblin Face (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Goblin, if you had read any of that material, you would understand that my behavior here is a learned one as a last resort. I am also demonstrably neutral in the study of these phenomena. For instance, I am a lone voice against a couple of popular techniques. I may seem biased toward the subject because I write about what I learn. Were it otherwise, then I would be preaching and this is not about religion.
    If you do not consider yourself a skeptic, then why do you have "This user is a skeptic" on your page?
    And to Simonm223, I can support that contention about slander. Rupert Sheldrake was very close to suing Wikipedia for slander. Other living persons have expressed to me similar points. I have even heard talk of a legal defense fund. Do you want to make a case of that? It is the skeptics who use terms like Woo and quack. As a general rule, the most we do is say you are a skeptic.
    I will also note that I would not be aware of PhiChiPsiOmega if it were not that many of you were complaining about him on the Fringe Notice Board below where you mentioned my name. I do not monitor the parapsychology article ... it seems silly to try to help those who do not help themselves ... but it seemed only fair to warn PhiChiPsiOmega you were talking about him.
    I know it is eating at you that I am inviting editors to come help in Citizendium. You should be happy that I am offering them a way to help that is out of your hair. Citizendium is an outpost on the Internet, but is a good place to develop balanced articles. The existing editors there will assure we do not develop propaganda, but they seem dedicated to balanced treatment of articles. If I were you, and looking at all of the complaints, I would be encouraging people to go there.
    I think it is time to stop complaining and either fix the articles or admit that you want them as billboard for your opinions. Tom Butler (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have archived PhiChi's argument on the parapsychology talk page. Goblin Face (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Goblin, it is inappropriate to completely archive a talk page. Also, your reasons are way off base. If I am not mistaken, this is a troublesome pattern of some editors that needs to stop.Tom Butler (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I will not edit war with you over this, but be advised that the archive is deliberate tampering with an open exchange in information and will not hide the conversation from the world. Tom Butler (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    GF: I've talked with Radin before. He only responds to stuff in peer-reviewed journals. Look at the comments here if you don't believe me: http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2006/06/constructive-criticism.html. That said, if you press him enough, he will respond in a private conversation. I've shared emails with him, and I've kept them. If I'm correct, the skeptical criticisms usually repeat themselves like a broken record (you're defining psi by what it's not, lack of replicability immediately means bad experiment and no further investigation is needed, it'll defy the laws of physics as we know them, etc.), and I'm suspecting Park's criticisms are no different. Radin has responded to criticism, but he doesn't have to respond to every single skeptical writer directly in order to do that. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you don't need to quit at all. We're not bullies, and I'm guessing you're valued elsewhere. We'd just appreciate if you would find something of substance to give us and stop playing a victim all the time (which means not accusing someone of being a sock). Mr. Steigmann has good reason to be harsh with Wikipedia. You're only representing one side of the story while pretending that it's neutral. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia reports the current scientific consensus, which is that paranormal phenomena are fringe science (at best). Neutrality does not factor into it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note another user has correctly removed the comments from me to the sock puppet 67.188.88.161 (talk · contribs) and his comments to me as it was off topic and he has openly confessed to being banned on his account Blastikus and others. I apologise for thinking this sock was PhiChiPsiOmega. Tom Butler's behavior is being discussed elsewhere by admins at Wikipedia Arbitration so I think this discussion should be closed. Goblin Face (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    PhiChiPsiOmega, you just need to contact James Randi to set up some tests. If the results of these tests are positive then that will be a notable enough result for Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Count Iblis: I'm familiar with the Randi Challenge, thank you, but the Ganzfeld has undergone far more skeptical scrutiny. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    GF: No worries. It's the internet. It happens. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What matters is to get results that are widely accepted. So, assuming for argument's sake that you are right and that in Ganzfeld experiments a positive result does show up, one still has to demonstrate this in a way that will gain acceptance within the scientific community. If we also assume for argument's sake that you initially don't gain acceptance because of unreasonable skepticism, you still have to deal with that problem before you can claim a positive result (however unfair this is).
    Randi was dealing with the opposite problem in the late 1970s, at that time certain results like Uri Geller's mind of matter results were accepted as proven by the parapsychology community while his criticism of these results were totally ignored. It took several years for him to prove that he was correct and that the entire parapsychology community was wrong. Count Iblis (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little skeptical about James Randi at times. Scott Rogo, an eyewitness to the Targ-Puthoff experiments, seems to have disputed many of Randi's claims. Also, even if Targ and Puthoff's work is as terrible as it seems, more controlled experiments have been done in psi tests since then. In any case, skeptical arguments are often met in the parapsychological literature, which is quite academic, and written by respected scientists who still have their jobs. If the literature shows that the criticisms have been met, I don't see any reason to not include them. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles follow WP:REDFLAG—the science which makes planes fly and phones ring finds there is no evidence to suggest that parapsychology is any different from all other junk FRINGE stuff. Of course some eye witnesses dispute Randi's claims—that's what fringe people do. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Er... WHAT??? You're dismissing eyewitness accounts because James Randi said so? Is that ' 'really' ' your argument? Again, the "science which makes planes fly" is mostly agnostic on the matter. The "professional" skeptics are those who actually care most of the time, and every time someone says "the scientific community rejects it", they're often referring to this crowd of skeptics. Other scientists' feelings about psi being unscientific seems proportional to those who hold that psychoanalysis is pseudoscience. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Er... WHAT??? is exactly the response of mainstream science to parapsychology. My prediction that this will end up at WP:AE for WP:REFUSINGTOGETIT still stands. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    IP vandalising climate data for months

    75.191.173.190 (talk · contribs) has been on a trail of disruption, including undoing the transclusion of established templates, falsely claiming "updates" to data (when most government meteorological agencies only update normals every decade), "adjusting" temperatures that have been verified countless times without changing the source, among other crimes. Since this has been going on since at least New Year's Day, a several-month-long block is in order. GotR Talk 19:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you tried contacting the user? What do they say? --Tóraí (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but to no avail. GotR Talk 00:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you actually discussed with them specifics of what is wrong with their edits? All I'm seeing in the above link is a generic templated message about unsourced material. (Such a discussion would also be helpful to administrators, as I'm not seeing any outright intentional vandalism, not knowing the specifics or intentions of the IP editor. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I told them to: 1) make their edits directly to transcluded templates, not supplant their transclusion with several more KBs of code; an example is Minneapolis#Climate, which transcludes {{Minneapolis weatherbox}}. The user was told by others to obey this custom. 2) False claims, as I find it hard to believe the IP does not notice the main source presently used at {{Seattle weatherbox}} is the same as the "new", and "more accurate" source the IP has been claiming to use; the user may be lying 3) I also hinted to them of the vastly superior quality of normals, which include smoothing for missing and suspect data, over simple arithmetic averages. Therefore, this user has indicated no will to cooperate, and this is a behavourial issue, not a mere dispute over the undisputed official status of Normals. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 23:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    At it again, and even reverting the edits of countless others (this one to Madison, WI has nothing to do with climate, too!). Also, Dennis B, thank you for bringing attention to this matter in another venue. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 16:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So if I go to editing in {{Minneapolis weatherbox}} is it fine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.173.190 (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You are still reverting, and after all these hours, you have finally come here. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 21:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    All my renewed datas are from NOAA include Average temps and there's no any false informations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.173.190 (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It would seem that he's not putting out blatantly false data, so we can't just treat this as vandalism. But he is changing the data without changing the source (or even the time period of the source), which indicates either that all of the data was false to begin with or that the IP's numbers don't actually match the source he's claiming they come from. It may be, however, that he's putting out data that matches the 1981-2010 NOAA climate normals, and just neglecting to say so or change the source. It does seem that at least some of the data he's adding (I didn't check it all; NOAA's data access takes more steps than it should) does indeed match the 1981-2010 NOAA climate normals, and therefore should stay in the templates if at least the source is changed. —Soap— 02:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    These are the official normals; anything else isn't. I had went through and corrected the templates, mostly temperatures, to match them over the past year. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 02:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Repeating the same revert six or seven times in a row, as at Template:Boston weatherbox, is not the way to overcome other editors' objections. 2, There has been no explanation that I can find of why changes are necessary to the climate information for any of the cities involved. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User: JohnRTroy twice today has accused me of libel, and for the last several days has been using insulting language, which I have tried to let roll off my back. But with two legal threats in one day, here and here, I think it's necessary for me to task admin to take a look and seeing if his behavior is appropriate.

    He is already the focus of an ANI, above, for advocating fringe science, which he since seems to have back away, after User:Atama warned him about about adding original research to Wikipedia [28] and User:Miniapolis protected the page he was editing, Al Plastino, for a week. Redlink editors, some evidently connected as friends/familky with the subject's daughter, had been trying to add a fringe claim about a vaccine — with this editor in one case misrepresenting the CDC [29] and in another claiming, "If you read enough, there is a link to vaccinations causing GBS. This is not 'fringe science'." [30]

    He's called me "hostile" [31], again "hostile" [32], "antagonistic" [33], "hostile" and "passive-aggressive rudeness" [34] (evidently since I don't name-call, I'm being "passive-aggressive"), and "hostility" [35].

    These may not be curse-word insults, but they are consistent and they have gone on for days without my saying anything. He's not stopping. He's just continued and continued to bait me and poke me in the chest, and I won't respond in kind. But he has to stop. I myself lost my temper elsewhere in early February and paid the price, a one-day suspension ... my only such block in more than 8 1/2 years. My normative behavior can be inferred here. I admitted I was wrong and did my time. Now I'm on the receiving end, and being call libelous to boot. I ask for help. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I would ask those involved to review all of the correspondence between us on this very page, the WP Comics Talk page, and the article in question. My main points were I found this user's tone insulting when making comments--and in part, my comments are to ask him to be a little more civil in his criticism according to WP:Civility. I will agree with what this board says, but I am disappointed that over the weekend I have been part of two Administrative actions. My concern is that others will see this and it will reflect on WP badly.
    Regarding the "Fringe Theories", I've been attempting to find out if there is a legitimate link between the viruses and I think the assumption or accusation of this was a little bit insulting, as there are certain complications that can occur. Ultimately, I think this is an over-reaction. JRT (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither "That's actually a potentially libelous statement" nor "Made a near-libelous statement regarding the family of Al Plastino, implying they were trying to get ammunition for a lawsuit" is a legal threat in he sense of WP:NLT. Not in my view at least. DES (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, it is best to avoid the term "libel" or things near it in discussing the actions of other wikipedia editors if at all possible, as it can be takenm as a legal threat. DES (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with both of DESiegel's points; no legal threats have been made, but try not to bring up "libel" at all when referencing other editors since it just escalates matters and can lead to misunderstandings.
    As to the claimed civility breaches, I see Tenebrae accusing JohnRTroy of being uncivil, and JohnRTroy accusing Tenebrae of being uncivil. Why don't you both try this: ignore each others' perceived incivility. If you do that, it will magically vanish. JohnRTroy, if Tenebrae says something that you think is rude when you are debating a point, ignore it. Otherwise your accusation of rudeness will be seen as hostility. Tenebrae, try the same, if JohnRTroy calls you "hostile" or "passive-aggressive", then pretend those words aren't there, because they don't affect the argument in any way. What matters is what guidelines and policies are best adhered to, and what common ground can be found, and frankly nobody is going to care if one person thinks the other is rude (as long as it doesn't escalate into personal attack territory and so far everything has fallen far short of that). Hostility tends to fall into a feedback loop, where one person says "you insulted me", the other says "I'm insulted that you think I'm being insulting" and so on. It's pointless, and doesn't advance either of your positions. -- Atama頭 21:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this and will no longer make any comments involving that user in this instance. Furthermore, I will refrain from making any more edits in the original disputed article in question and will also end all comments regarding this dispute. JRT (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears the content dispute involved is over the cause of death of comic book writer Al Plastino. In particular this blog says that many news sources got it wrong by saying that he died from prostate cancer and that Wikipedia therefore got it wrong by repeating those news sources. At the time of the blog being published the article did not actually say that was the cause of death, but merely stated that he was suffering from prostate cancer before he died. Strictly speaking based on Wikipedia's rules we should just repeat the allegedly false information published in reliable sources (that he died from prostate cancer), but I am somewhat partial to the way the article is now, which is left ambiguous, as an IAR thing since it is a sensitive issue and we have some reason to doubt the mainstream press. CorporateM (Talk) 22:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Calling someone a child molester

    MOVED TO DIFFERENT NOTICEBOARD
    Issue referred to WP:BLP/N. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Moved to WP:BLP/N
     – LFaraone 22:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Talk page access revocation?

    TALK PAGE ACCESS REVOKED
    Euryalus took away the ability of HRA1924 to edit own talk page. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 21:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can some uninvolved admin please consider the merits of permitting continued talk page access to the currently-blocked HRA1924 (talk · contribs). Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Why are you (Sitush) posting on the page? I suggest Sitush unwatch the page and HRA1924 refrain from pinging Sitush again. There is, depending on one's point of a view, either a) legal threat or b) ridiculous nonsense on the page about getting the Indian government to force Indian ISPs to block Wikipedia access. Probably worth a look if you're inclined (and have a block button). NE Ent 22:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You've kind of answered your own query: they pinged me and the issue is WP:NLT. If you'd faced this crap for as long as I have, you'd perhaps understand why I am fed up of it. - Sitush (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, so the proper response is "don't ping Sitush" anymore and "revert your legal threat," not removing talk page access. (If anyone wants to squabble whether or not they've faced more crap, I'd suggest User_talk:NE Ent to spare the rest of the ANI watchers having a boring, pointless discussion churning ANI). NE Ent 00:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that you are not familiar with what has gone on. Try this for the very tip of the iceberg - a thread that itself resulted in the current block & has several people mentioning NLT. They've done it before and now they're doing it again. How much rope? Agreed, uninvolvedf people will not be familiar but uninvolved admins will presumably take a bit of care to at least check out some of the background before making a decision. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    HRA1924 denies "explicit" legal threats but their posts repeatedly imply legal action. They have also made clear they don't feel bound by Wikipedia's terms of use. Further, they have used the talkpage for personal attacks including calling another editor a criminal.
    Editors, including me, have tried to address individual talkpage questions but regrettably not to their satisfaction. I am now concerned that we are a) largely relitigating the ANI thread linked by Sitush above, and b) straying into a legal discussion that should be something for the user to raise off-wiki with the WMF.
    However I share NE Ent's general reluctance to block talkpage access - this is not a troll, it is someone pursuing a grievance that would be better taken up elsewhere. Absent any other views I propose at this point: declining the current unblock request, warning against personal attacks and implied legal threats and again urging the editor to correspond directly with the WMF and/or await their response. Euryalus (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    They have been warned about the attacks and implicit legal threats for many months now. What makes you think that they will change? They've appealed to the WMF, to OTRS and umpteen other places and are displaying a distinct WP:IDHT tendency which is sort of reflected in the closing comments of the RFM linked to in the prior ANI thread. I'm not getting into the semantics of trolling but this is an organisation that only pays lip-service to our policies when it suits them and won't let it drop on-wiki. How many more warnings and advisories? - Sitush (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Struck a bit: I forgot the crazy rule about RFM being privileged, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    HRA is inappropriately wikilawyering all over their talk page. TPA should be cut off, we're not here to coddle malcontents, we're here to build an encyclopedia. Shut them down and let's get on with it. (And those who spend the vast majority of their time posting on noticeboards in favor of folks like this should also go and edit articles. Wikipedia is not a model community or a fucking debating society. Those "editors" who don't in some way improve the encyclopedia are freeloaders and need to start pulling their weight.) BMK (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A re-reading of the history, and the editor's latest post have convinced me. Striking the previous, and have blocked talkpage access per WP:NLT and WP:NPA. - Euryalus (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with User:Euryalus that a talk page ban is needed. This user just won't take no for an answer. It started out as an issue about India Against Corruption. The legalistic complaints will go on forever so long as we keep listening. The underlying case was heard in several places and it appears to have no merit (at least, he can't provide sources to justify his position). EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Dalton761 disruptive editing of Logan Henderson

    VANDAL WARNED
    Hasn't edited since the warning. If vandalism resumes, suggest it be reported at WP:AIV. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Dalton761 (User talk:Dalton761) has begun his/her Wikipedia career with three disruptive edits to Logan Henderson. We need to prevent further disruption. This is my first time down this path for any disruptive new editor, so I hope I'm doing it right. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    They appear to have stopped, but I've posted a vandalism warning on their talk page. If they resume, this will escalate to a block. In passing, there's a noticeboard for vandalism reports like this - WP:AIV - where you can get a swift(er) response than here. Euryalus (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Blocked user socking

    On 27 February, Worm That Turned declined the unblock request of User talk:Arri at Suburban Express, a user with an already long history of socking and disruptive editing.

    Three days later, there are edits on it's owner's article from 99.67.249.6. Geolocated to CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS; the IP removed substantial information from the article. Can we please get a semi-permanent way to deal with this sock?

    Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 00:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you mean, a ban or something like that? Epicgenius (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that Arri is blocked, has had an unblock declined after functionary review, and is probably socking would strongly imply he's de facto banned (see WP:BAN). As such, and given sufficient behavioral evidence (since CU won't confirm IPs), any admin should feel free to issue lengthy blocks to the IPs in question. If we want to have a formal community ban discussion I think we can do that, though it really wouldn't change anything (and I'm not clear on whether we can have a community ban if ArbCom or the functionaries have asserted jurisdiction over a case, not that I'm sure that's happened here). Regardless, endorse blocking 99.67.249.6 of any length greater or equal to one month (prefer three). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I wasn't sure if a ban was the most effective way or just get an admin to block the IP. Given that either action needed an admin anyway, it was best for me to comment here and let other admins look into this. Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 10:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:Featured picture candidates

    As you may know, FPC is the only featured content process to have a minimum number of reviewers required in a relatively short period of time - 5 supports in 10 days (and a supermajority of consensus in its favour) is required. Unfortunately, like all of Wikipedia, it's prone to the occasional lulls, and could use more reviewers during them, and this is currently one of those lulls. Any help would be appreciated. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Adam Cuerden - I'm not sure this is the problem that you're making it out to be. Images that get promoted generally have no problem getting the requisite five votes, or even more than that, in the allotted time. I look at that page every few days, and for the most part the images that only have one or two votes on them after five or six days are ones that I would oppose. Instead of opposing them, I don't comment at all, which (since there is a minimum support threshold) is a polite way of achieving the same outcome. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 16:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Help wanted

    A user is utterly determined to slavishly follow the rules by insisting on a CSD tag on Lookout Mountain Air Force Station/Draft as a test page, despite having been told that it is NOT a test page but text submitted via OTRS by a veteran who is not computer savvy.

    Having been told it's not my text, and not a test page (because, you know, I have been here long enough not to need test pages), he still insists that I may not remove the tag. Because we must never under any circumstances ignore any rule, however fatuous the circumstances.

    So, someone please remove the tag for me because it's not a test page and this user is adamant that the CSD Test tag may not be removed by me because technically I created the article (even though it's not my text and trhe CSD criterion is blatantly wrong). Guy (Help!) 10:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Shouldn't drafts be created in either the draft namespace or the user space? Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't even know the Draft namespace existed until recently! I do not care at all where it goes, only that we have the text as provided by a reader who took the trouble to email us to try to help improve the encyclopaedia. Feel free to move it anywhere you think appropriate. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Yes, moved. (Draft:: is a super new feature, so no "boomerangs" necessary 'cause JzG created the draft in mainspace). NE Ent 10:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Being told I'm a dick and stupid makes one tune out what the other person is saying and just stick to the rules. Bgwhite (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, two servings of trout: one to JzG for telling Bgwhite to stop acting like a dick, and one to Bgwhite for acting like ... for not just moving an obvious draft to the draft namespace and instead using an inappropriate CSD tag. NE Ent 10:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Only don't forget to serve those trouts with a nice serving of chips. Both were trying to speak the same language, but both failed this time DP 11:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you everybody. Note: I only called Bgwhite a dick when he continued to revert my removal of the {{db-test}} template after I'd explained that it is not a test and that I was not the originator, but was bringing text to the attention of editors on behalf of a veteran - a very decent gentleman who did not feel up to editing Wikipedia. NE Ent said it... I was really very surprised, as I did not anticipate a problem with Bgwhite, but I do take the blame for starting with gratuitous snark - {{db-test}} template notifications on an admin's talk page? Um, right. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Draft:: is a new feature, but /Draft (in mainspace) has not been appropriate for at least as long as I've been editing. Guy should know better. {{db-test}} is inappropriate, but so is the placement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but this is a wiki, and edits don't have to be perfect—if someone notices a problem, they should fix it. When the speedy delete tag was added, the article looked like this. It can reasonably be argued that the article at that time was a "test page", but speedy deleting such content (which included a heap of references although unformatted and unorganized) is not desirable. If it is intolerable for such a page to exist as an article, move it to the draft namespace, or userfy it. It is useful to look at the current page: Draft:Lookout Mountain Air Force Station. Johnuniq (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Pablo Casals

    There is currently an ongoing request for comments on Talk:Pablo Casals. To summarise the issue very quickly (everything is given in more detail on the talk page), Casals is apparently commonly known as Pablo in English, even though his Catalan name is Pau. There is consensus for Pablo Casals to use Pablo, and the current discussion is about whether to use Pablo or Pau on other pages, in particular, articles that relate to Catalan culture.
    I am writing to you because of the concerns I have with another editor. So far, users have considered this matter responsibly and thought neutrally about the usage of the names in English. On the other hand, User:In ictu oculi has ignored the findings of others and asserted his opinion that Pau should be used primarily from a Catalan viewpoint. I was happy to overlook this, but his comments are becoming less and less WP:NPOV culminating in the remark it seems strange for en.wikipedia to be introducing a Franco-era type ban on the name of one of the most famous Catalans. It is worth noting that the user has an extensive history of editing Catalan-related articles amongst the many articles he or she edits.
    I would be very grateful if some administrators could take a look at the situation and try to keep it in order. I am concerned that nationalist feelings are disrupting what should be a sensible discussion. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    We see here an example of Gonzalez's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Franco or fascists approaches 1." EEng (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an admin matter, I reckon, but every fan of classical music in the world will know him as Pablo. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your reply, Guy. Perhaps you might like to make a comment on the page to repeat your observation. The problem is that a lot of evidence has been submitted that supports the use of Pablo as the common name, but this is being ignored by the other user. I have assumed good faith for a long time, but it is starting to become apparent that he is pushing a pro-Catalan viewpoint, as much as I hate to make such allegations. I am concerned that the discussion is starting to become disrupted by his comments. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is an ANI issue as much as it is a content dispute. a posting on the WP:DRN would be more appropriate. Epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comment, Epicgenius. I looked at WP:DRN, but it states there that they do not accept cases that are currently undergoing a request for comments, which is happening at Talk:Pablo Casals. I posted here not because of the underlying content dispute of which name to include in the article, but the general course of the discussion and the possibility of it becoming a problematic, contentious debate about unrelated nationalism and politics. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • THere's an RFC on the talkpage, which seems like the right approach. I've seen both Pablo and Pau used, especially for the Orquestra Pau Casals that he founded. Most sources say Pablo but it's not entirely one-sided. This is discussed in endless detail on the talkpage. The issue is contentious because Casals himself was a Catalan nationalist and came to prefer Pau, but he originally became famous under the name Pablo and then (per his autobiography) he had to keep performing under that name as his booking agents (etc.) wanted this, until he started his own orchestra under the name Pau. So now there's a nationalistic dispute projected onto Wikipedia. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve Lyons: Notability, sockpuppets, personal attacks, edit warring, etc.

    Hi,

    Not entirely sure where to request this. Can an admin please remove the apparent vanity entry in the back history of Steve Lyons? I have corrected it to the disambiguation page as it was before it was vandalised. It was deleted previously under another name at AFD. There are BLP issues here. There are also enough socks to fill a small chest of drawers (including Stephaniemcqueen (talk · contribs) Damian St. Charles (talk · contribs), Kristofmcking (talk · contribs), 24.153.157.118 (talk · contribs). I am also suspicious of DepressedPer (talk · contribs). Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not sure what you're asking (and you didn't notify the Stephanie account, and possibly not the other ones either). You've reverted to an earlier situation and that's fine, but I don't see a reason to remove it from the history. Kristofmcking had one of those drafts in their user space, untouched for a long time, and I deleted that as an abandoned draft. (BTW, you didn't link to the actual AfD: it's here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Lyons (actor, entrepreneur).) You're probably right about Kristofmcking and Damian St. Charles, but that should really be tackled in an SPI (CU won't be necessary, I think). I don't see how Depressed is involved. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I want the revisions deleted publicly from the article history. I also want Stephaniemcqueen (talk · contribs) blocked for socking and/or vandalism. Take your pic. But get it sorted please. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    to add to the rap sheet: I am now being accused of racism. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FUser%3AStephaniemcqueen%2Fsandbox&diff=598014378&oldid=598001564 Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think those revisions meet the WP:REVDEL criteria. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. If this is continually a problem, I could see some of page protection being needed, but there's no reason it needs to be deleted from the page history. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Trolling from Holdek

    Apparently he is back with a vengeance [36]. I have no idea what his templated "warning" is about, but it seem to be payback/harassment after I commented on his behavior in previous ANI thread involving him. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Can somebody indef hem back please? How many times should this user be blocked so that everybody understands they are net negative?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about that; that's Twinkle's automated notification that happens when someone tags a page for speedy deletion--in this case, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Holdek. I think using the "attack page" rationale is a bit much, but not wholly unreasonable; in any event, the post to your talk page is just a side effect of that tagging. It perhaps wasn't deliberate. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I have figured out what that cryptic warning on my talk page was about. It's an ArbCom matter now. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Toddst1.2FHoldek Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you even look at Holdek's talk page before coming here (much less discuss things on it)?unnecessary sass, although the point about discussing things before coming here stands Check out the User_talk:Holdek#Unblocked thread, wherein WormTT explains why it wasn't found to be socking. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's correct: it was an automatic, unforeseen by me, and unintentional result of my deletion nomination for Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Holdek.
    Usually with Twinkle-based delete nominations that I'm familiar with it just gives a templated notice on the creator's talk page that the page they created has been requested to be deleted, with an invitation to object. Indeed, the box I checked was "Notify page creator if possible." I did not know that it would give a warning instead. Also, the other rationale box I checked was "Empty categories."
    I will go ahead and remove the warning, and FWIW I think Twinkle should be fixed so that misunderstandings like this don't occur. --Holdek (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't found it to be "not socking", I found that Toddst's change of block from 1 month to indefinite due to socking but without decent explanation of why to be inappropriate. It might well be that Holdek has been socking, and anyone who feels that is likely should file an WP:SPI with evidence. I'll point out again that Toddst1's 1 month block was good and if Holdek has carried on with past behaviour an indefinite block would be the correct course of action. As it is, Holdek has removed the warning, and blamed Twinkle which seems plausible to me. It'd be a good idea if Holdek and Someone not using his real name did their best to ignore each other. WormTT(talk) 08:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Request Updating Information About Baden-Powell Service Association (BPSA)

    Greetings,

    I wasn't sure if this was the correct place to post this, so please forgive me if it's not.

    I am the Media Director for the Baden-Powell Service Association (BPSA), and today I was made aware of the fact that some misleading information has been posted about our Scouting association on the following Wikipedia article, which we are unable to edit due to the fact that it is a protected page:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Scout_and_Scout-like_organizations_in_the_United_States#Baden-Powell_Service_Association

    There are several problems with the information contained in that article about our association that needs to be corrected. The most important of which is the statement that we are a "secular" scouting organization. This is not the way that the BPSA wishes to present itself, and is indeed very misleading. There are other factual errors as well, and I have corrected them all and have provided supporting links where needed. Can someone please update this section for us as soon as possible? Please let me know.

    Thank you, Jeff Kopp Media Director Baden-Powell Service Association US http://bpsa-us.org Email: media@bpsa-us.org

    Here's how we would like that section to appear:

    The Baden-Powell Service Association (BPSA) is an independent and traditional-style Scouting association that takes its name from the founder of the Scouting movement, Robert Baden-Powell. The BPSA is a member organization of the World Federation of Independent Scouts (WFIS), and is affiliated with the Baden-Powell Scouts' Association of England and works closely with the Baden-Powell Service Association of British Columbia.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/18/9-faith-based-and-secular-alternatives-to-the-boy-scouts-of-america/ http://www.troop97.net/wfis.htm

    The BPSA offers a traditional ("back to basics") Scouting program for youth and adults, girls and boys, men and women, with open and inclusive membership policies that disallow any and all discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion (or no religion) or other differentiating factors. The association's motto is "Traditional Scouting for Everyone!"

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/new-scouting-group-brings-more-inclusive-philosophy-to-st-louis/article_005e6aff-7326-5b25-a56c-92dce7fca425.html

    History

    The Baden-Powell Service Association formed with an adult-only component, Rovers, in 2006. David Atchley, a former Eagle Scout in the Boy Scouts of America, joined up in 2008, after being asked to leave his local Greater St. Louis Area council of the BSA after he attempted to create a non-discrimination policy for his own Cub Scout pack. In the BPSA, David was responsible for adapting the programs of the other Baden-Powell Scouting associations in introducing youth sections to the BPSA's program. In 2009, Atchley became commissioner. By 2011, the association had only a handful of units. BPSA reincorporated in 2012, became an official 501©(3) nonprofit in 2013, and has since grown to include more than 45 chartered Scout groups today.

    https://www.stlbeacon.org/#!/content/26471/boys_scouts_alternative_081012 http://bpsa-us.org/news/ http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wiccans-earth-lovers-do-gooders-theres-scouting-group-your-kid-v19680825

    Program

    Within each BPSA Scouting Group, Scouts are organized in groups called “sections” according to their age: Otters (ages 5 to 7) Timberwolves (8 to 10) Pathfinders (11 to 17) Rovers (18+)

    http://bpsa-us.org/program/ http://www.troop97.net/wrldsct6.htm

    BPSA's highest award for youths (Pathfinders) is the George Washington Scout Award. The highest award for adults (Rovers) is the Baden-Powell Award.

    http://bpsa-us.org/program/pathfinders/ http://bpsa-us.org/program/rovers/

    Hi, I think making an edit request on the talk page of the article in question would have been a better approach, but this is a good start. I'm willing to help, as an uninvolved editor, unless someone objects. It would help to have 3rd party references for the information you provided above (some are 3rd-party, some link to your own web pages). Can you provide any? JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it is a protected page, I could not find a Talk Page.
    Regarding linking our own source material... Well, it's interesting that you would request that, because even if I were to dig around on the Internet trying to find 3rd-party sources for this information, they would all have gleaned this information from our own website or source materials (PDF downloads, for example) themselves. So I am not sure what providing 3rd-party links about factual information about our program could prove to you that reading our website about our own program would not! kopper (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Because all references must be unrelated to the organization, hence the requirement for third party sources. By the way, please also read WP:COI before proceeding, and ensure to propose any new changes on the article talkpage DP 21:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is ridiculous. The relevant links from the protected page have been included in my edit above. The additional links to our site were provided for backup. Why is it a "conflict of interest" that we merely want to correct misleading information that someone, who obviously does not know much about our program to begin with, posted? Why is their information more relevant than our very own? And yes, I'm familiar with your COI guidelines. They also state that "In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged."
    It says "strongly discouraged," not "not allowed." Also, please explain to me how us requesting that FACTUAL information about our association be included here is somehow construed as a Conflict of Interest? There is nothing in the "tone" of my edits above that would lead anyone to believe that this is not a "neutral point of view." We're merely stating facts here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kopper (talk • contribs)
    You're being unnecessarily combative here. We fully agree with FACTUAL information. As the founder of Wikipedia has stated, those with COI should never edit the article directly, they should propose changes on the article talkpage. That's still exactly what we ask not only NEW users but ALL users to do - especially when that information is potentially challengable. All articles have a talkpage - and in 99.999999% of cases, that talkpage is accessible to everyone. Administrators do not determine content of articles - that's done through WP:CONSENSUS and discussion, and in some cases dispute resolution. Please propose changes on that article talkpage, and use links to your reliable sources to support those changes. Note: you unfortunately cannot have any form of creative or content control over that article, but you can work to ensure that no "false" statements are included DP 22:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, the relevant talk page is Talk:Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States and you should be able to edit it. Yes it's ok to use citations from the organization itself, as long as the info being cited isn't promotional or contentious. In this particular situation I think your approach of proposing specific new text is fine, at least for now. Other editors can then identify issues and fix problems before implementing the proposal. (Sometimes a problem develops where someone using that approach tries over long periods to take control of an article, but we can worry about that if it happens, which it hopefully won't). Note: please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) (see WP:TILDE for more info). That puts your username and a timestamp into the post, which makes the discussion easier to follow. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow that article is a trainwreck. I don't see how it passes WP:IINFO or WP:DIRECTORY. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Carriearchdale and Rachel Reilly articles

    User:Carriearchdale has shown a frankly unhealthy interest in Rachel Reilly and articles related to her. Reilly is a moderately successful reality TV contestant with a very few acting credits. Carriearchdale signed up for this account in 2007, but had no edits until two months ago. On her first day of editing, she was blocked for edit warring at Jodi Arias. On her fourth day of editing, two editors asked her to stop reviewing AFC submissions due to her lack of experience, and she responded with accusations of threatening and bullying (User talk:Carriearchdale/Archive 1#Articles for creation reviewing). On January 20 problems were raised with her activity in the GOCE's backlog-reduction drive/competition.[37] At that point, her editing shifted to (mostly) using automated tools to tag-bomb newly created pages with little apparent regard for the accuracy of the tagging (eg, [38], [39], uncategorized tag on properly categorized pages; [40], [41], inline-citations-needed tag on well-footnoted, sometimes impeccably footnoted pages) In February, she moved on to detailed editing of individual articles (rather idiosyncratically), using edit summaries where the term "copyedit" was used to characterize virtually any sort of edit. And, on February 17, she turned her attention to the articles on Reilly and her husband, Brendon Villegas.

    Carriearchdale began by challenging as inaccurate Reilly's declared date of birth, sourced to her own Facebook page (as well removing a citation to a newspaper article discussing Reilly)[42], with a rather specious edit summary. She has proceeded to make a long string of destructive, borderline vandalous edits to the Reilly article. Here for example, she replaces two perfectly appropriate reference citations (dealing with Reilly's college career) with a "citation needed" tag [43] (misdating the tag as well). Here she removes a cite to TV Guide regarding a TV casting, claiming that "show business magazines" are, across the board, not reliable sources for show business information.[44] Here, the article is tagged for COI for no reason other than that the article's subject's husband contributed a picture in which the subject was recognizable (replacing an inadequate one where guesswork was needed to pick the subject out of a crowd).[45] She has repeatedly added zero-value tabloidery to at least two articles about a sexting incident involving Reilly's then-boyfriend, now-husband. [46] [47] And, finally, in a display of truly appalling behaviour, Carriearchdale went to an online pay-for-access "background check site" and created a "Criminal Record" section, even though the "crimes" listed were little or nothing more than routine traffic offenses, many of which were dismissed or otherwise did not result in conviction or the equivalent.[48][49] After I removed the content on February 16; she reinstated it 3 days later, only to have it summarily removed by a third editor.

    I find this fascination with detailing the supposed failings of very minor "celebrities" one has no connection to genuinely creepy, aside from the many violations of editing standards involved.

    I don't know how much of this behaviour can be attributed to gross failure of WP:COMPETENCE, and how much to disruptive intentions. But she was at it again earlier today, removing valid sourcing in favor of citation-needed tags in the guise of a "copyedit".[50]

    I therefore propose that User:Carriearchdale be topic banned from all articles and other pages related to Rachel Reilly and Brendon Villegas; that she be required to use accurate edit summaries, and specifically instructed not to use "copyedit" as a description of substantive edits; that she be prohibited from using automated tools like "Page Curation", which she as frequently misused, for a minimum of six months, until she was demonstrated competence in applying relevant guidelines; and that she be cautioned that further misbehaviour of a similar nature, regardless of the articles involved, is likely to result in substantial loss of editing privileges. I also hope somebody, when this is settled, will RevDel the most inappropriate material she added to the Reilly article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    First of all please everyone review user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and his block log:

    14:57, 2 April 2012 Tristessa de St Ange (talk | contribs) unblocked Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)(Per discussion on user talk) 13:21, 2 April 2012 Tristessa de St Ange (talk | contribs) blocked Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Edit warring: violation of the three-revert ruleand edit-warring under colour of WP:NFCC: Linda Ronstadt) 08:11, 27 January 2009 RandomXYZb (talk | contribs) blocked Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Disruptive editing)

    Regarding the Rachel Reilly article, and all the other ravings of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I would first say that the user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been following me around from article to article wiki-hounding me. You have the evidence right in his "ANI" report. I think that is a bit creepy to wikihound another editor, and try to make a big hullabaloo about miniscule incidents that may have occurred over a several month period. When that user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz started trying to cause trouble, I did the correct thing and posted on the rachel reilly talk page for the article the following statement, which I might add this accusatory user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz who has been wiki-hounding me totally ignored. An invitation to discuss??? No discussion was ever entered there by the user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I guess he was too busy creepily filling out a laundry list of crap so he could get an ANI posted. So be it!

    Here is the post I put on the rachel reilly article talk page. Please ask yourselves, why did the user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz not try to come to a consensus there? and to not even make a comment?

    I propose that the aforementioned user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz be banned from all BLP article issues regarding the Rachel Reilly articles as well as others as the admins may see fit. I would ask that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz be instructed, and or advised to stop wiki-hounding and harassing me, and that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz would be notified on the proper protocol to attempting to come to a consensus on any article. I always thought discussion between editors on a talk page comes before directly going to file an ANI. After all, the post sat there on the rachel reilly talk page since 20:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC). Apparently I am not the first, nor I am sure, will I be the last victim of wiki-hounding by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.


    post that was placed on the RR talk page: at 20:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


    "==This article's factual accuracy is disputed==

    • This article has been extensively edited by the subject, and other persons with a conflict of interest.
    • This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Superfluous references are constantly being added to this article. For example, anyone can write on a facebook page that they are 97 years old. Now if the person is actually 17 years old, but the facebook pages reads that they are 97, then that would be a superfluous references with no true cite value.
    • This article is written from a fan's point of view, or an extremely positive point of view rather than a neutral point of view.
    • This article needs to conform to a higher standard of quality, and to make it simply neutral in tone.
    • More than one person or editor has a very close connection with its subject.
    • The neutrality of this article is disputed.
        • This is quoted from a talk page on a different article, but it may be something to ponder upon.

    "When trying to justify the addition of criticism, please don't emphasize that it's factual and sourced. That is not the issue. Being factual and sourced is NEVER enough to justify adding anything to an article. Just stick to trying to convince us that's it due. HiLo48 (talk)"

        • Any information being added to an article may be due, but the article needs to conform with wikipedia's high standard of quality while remaining neutral in tone.

    Let's all just discuss.

    ciao!!!

    Carriearchdale (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)"[reply]


    Concur Carrie seems to be the victim here. I cannot understand any of Wolf's complaint outside of having and editorial disagreement. I see no reason to believe Carrie was outside of the lines. The accusation of Wiki-hounding and the supplied cot combined with this strange afi does cause concern.Bob the goodwin (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also just to clarify my comment above regarding that I was sure I was not the first nor last victim of wiki-hounding by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz I include for anyone's perusal a true laundry list of "behaviors and their turmoil and consequences regarding user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz": Carriearchdale (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended content

    Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

    each name, Hullaballoo Again deletes the list; a third editor reverts HullaballooHullaballoo again blindly

    30 KB (5,145 words) - 00:38, 5 December 2010

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (section Hullaballoo Wolfowitz)

    Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter

    301 B (35 words) - 08:38, 18 November 2011

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive (section Hullaballoo Wolfowitz)

    Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter

    11 KB (1,814 words) - 08:38, 18 November 2011

    Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-01/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

    trouble with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, they know better than I do the way HullaballooWolfowitz has acted toward

    8 KB (1,418 words) - 11:46, 10 August 2010

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive629 (section Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit-warring across articles with several editors)

    each name, Hullaballoo Again deletes the list a third editor reverts Hullaballoo:::Hullaballoo again blindly

    523 KB (91,839 words) - 09:35, 8 August 2010

    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive131 (section Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz)

    17:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 1. Jimbo Wales' talk page is used as a forum

    210 KB (36,345 words) - 01:36, 2 April 2013

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive680 (section User: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz)

    carrots→ 08:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC) User: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz User repeatedly reverting against admin-placed

    474 KB (74,163 words) - 09:36, 19 March 2011

    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive137 (section Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz)

    11:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz This matter does not fall under the ArbCom

    170 KB (28,934 words) - 01:36, 2 August 2013

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive803 (section Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Margo Feiden Galleries)

    the behavior of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Starting out with his own conclusion, Mr.Wolfowitz used blinders

    571 KB (100,031 words) - 15:03, 26 July 2013

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive646 (section Hullaballoo Wolfowitz)

    --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC) HullaballooWolfowitz Resolved ...apparently gets off on undoing

    510 KB (87,248 words) - 21:32, 17 January 2012

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harmonia1/Archive (section Comments by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz)

    pretty credible. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Wolfowitz, I haven't been

    18 KB (2,992 words) - 20:04, 14 September 2011

    Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 38 (section Abuse from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz)

    (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Abuse from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz First of all I apologise if this is not

    192 KB (33,789 words) - 01:39, 3 September 2012

    Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive68 (section Hullaballoo Wolfowitz)

    04:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Stale Hullaballoo Wolfowitzis reverting my edits on

    164 KB (29,397 words) - 18:08, 1 August 2011

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography

    Starr (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (6 participants)

    32 KB (4,808 words) - 12:15, 28 February 2014

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Article alerts

    Starr (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (6 participants)

    3 KB (434 words) - 06:54, 3 March 2014

    Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey/Article alerts

    Starr (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (6 participants)

    2 KB (245 words) - 06:52, 3 March 2014

    Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple/Archive15 (section Hullaballoo Wolfowitz)

    2006 (UTC) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Please change Harmonica Wolfowitz toHullaballoo Wolfowitz. Thank you

    62 KB (10,668 words) - 05:38, 12 April 2010

    Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

    policy, both on en-wiki and at Commons. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC) What

    24 KB (4,196 words) - 18:50, 3 March 2014

    Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Inland Empire task force

    Leeane (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (11 participants)

    11 KB (1,557 words) - 09:58, 20 January 2012

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

    other ravings of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I would first say that the user HullaballooWolfowitz has been following

    154 KB (26,767 words) - 19:31, 3 March 2014

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Frost

    reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Note:

    2 KB (319 words) - 20:06, 14 February 2014

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Article alerts

    Starr (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (6 participants)

    6 KB (968 words) - 06:41, 3 March 2014

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Dominican Republic

    Martinez (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c) was closed as keep by DavidLeighEllis

    9 KB (1,329 words) - 01:55, 19 January 2014

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (section User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Sportfan5000 (Result: Declined))

    links | watch | logs)User being reported: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs ·

    43 KB (7,206 words) - 18:47, 3 March 2014

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raven Riley (2nd nomination)

    you cite them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC) HullaballooWolfowitz, your continued

    5 KB (787 words) - 20:17, 24 July 2010

    Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Article alerts

    Leeane (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (11 participants)

    23 KB (3,510 words) - 06:57, 3 March 2014

    Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Los Angeles task force

    Leeane (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (11 participants)

    10 KB (1,532 words) - 23:21, 22 September 2012

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabella Soprano (2nd nomination)

    there's no salvageable content to merge. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Delete

    2 KB (302 words) - 05:29, 3 March 2014

    Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Article alerts

    Martinez (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c) was closed as keep by DavidLeighEllis

    6 KB (954 words) - 06:50, 3 March 2014

    Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

    and will be rejected by the community. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Thank

    155 KB (26,489 words) - 19:34, 3 March 2014

    Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Article alerts

    Leeane (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (11 participants)

    5 KB (718 words) - 06:44, 3 March 2014

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers

    there's no salvageable content to merge. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Delete

    125 KB (21,027 words) - 19:13, 3 March 2014

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of post-Ellen American television episodes with LGBT themes

    is encyclopedic -- but this lst isn't. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC) The

    31 KB (5,213 words) - 17:12, 15 December 2009

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive102 (section User:Swancookie reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: wrong board))

    for a period of 24 hours 3RR violation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has also reverted four times but appears

    160 KB (27,881 words) - 01:35, 2 July 2009

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/California

    without explanation or article improvement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Delete

    75 KB (12,290 words) - 06:04, 3 March 2014

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Asian Americans/Article alerts

    Leeane (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (11 participants)

    472 B (78 words) - 06:42, 3 March 2014

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Fong

    and the article has WP:NOTPLOT problems. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Keep

    6 KB (1,057 words) - 22:00, 28 October 2009

    Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 9

    mentioned in the articles on its "winners." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Note: I

    2 KB (306 words) - 15:20, 16 April 2010

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Towers (2nd nomination)

    article expansion beyond the existing stub. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Delete:

    2 KB (329 words) - 18:32, 11 December 2009

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawson (pornographic actor)

    SilverserenC 19:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is being needlessly tendentious and calling

    11 KB (1,723 words) - 01:14, 6 April 2011

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron James (pornographic actor)

    Benjeboi sock. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:40

    2 KB (337 words) - 00:39, 20 May 2011

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurora Jolie

    rather conspicuous porn-industry kayfabe. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Note: This

    4 KB (643 words) - 20:00, 26 May 2011

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fáy András Economic High School

    reason for an exception has been advanced. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC) So that

    4 KB (654 words) - 19:15, 9 October 2010

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boroka

    sourcing for any biographical information. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Delete

    4 KB (654 words) - 21:42, 23 February 2011

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devlin Weed

    the "well-known/significant" standard. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Comment:

    2 KB (312 words) - 22:11, 6 May 2011

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Santiago

    has no significant non-Playboy credits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Keep, weakly

    5 KB (782 words) - 09:52, 18 April 2011

    Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

    include is redundant and less NPOV-balanced. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC) This isn't

    17 KB (2,670 words) - 19:21, 3 March 2014

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Dominican Republic/Article alerts

    Martinez (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c) was closed as keep by DavidLeighEllis

    531 B (89 words) - 06:48, 28 February 2014

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity St. Clair

    reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Note:

    4 KB (690 words) - 17:18, 2 March 2014

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercede Johnston

    was Delete. I considered a redirect per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz put felt that it was not appropriate given

    2 KB (394 words) - 23:57, 8 October 2011

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Femjoy

    virtually all article sourcing is promotional. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Delete

    2 KB (256 words) - 19:24, 2 May 2011

    Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 23

    pointed out by Drilnoth, Black Kite, et al. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz correctly points out that some of the images

    59 KB (9,707 words) - 19:01, 17 August 2009

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dariush Talai

    no other valid rationale for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Note:

    2 KB (324 words) - 19:36, 25 August 2010

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynne Austin

    margin. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Keep perHullaballoo Wolfowitz. Unless

    2 KB (340 words) - 00:56, 3 April 2012

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Della Terza

    2014 (UTC) Merge to Vote for the Worst. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Merge

    2 KB (318 words) - 10:35, 28 February 2014

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean

    Martinez (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c) was closed as keep by DavidLeighEllis

    26 KB (3,770 words) - 19:42, 23 January 2014

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Article alerts/Archive

    PRODed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was deproded 30 Apr 2011 – Megan Mason PRODed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was

    89 KB (14,344 words) - 06:54, 3 March 2014

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ava Addams (2nd nomination)

    updated version of WP:PORNBIO. Moreover as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz previously argued "Fails the GNG, no nontrivial

    4 KB (626 words) - 23:09, 13 January 2014

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Driller

    reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Note:

    2 KB (287 words) - 08:53, 30 January 2014

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claire Dames

    comment by an IP with no edit history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Note:

    4 KB (633 words) - 11:51, 7 May 2013

    Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey

    Starr (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (6 participants)

    21 KB (3,291 words) - 17:30, 16 April 2013

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitten (pornographic actress)

    to "civilians," not a bona fide honor. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Delete

    2 KB (357 words) - 13:45, 2 September 2009

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Addison

    content. All references are promo pages. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Delete Same

    2 KB (409 words) - 20:53, 9 May 2012

    Wikipedia:WikiProject California

    Leeane (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (11 participants)

    93 KB (14,874 words) - 16:02, 1 February 2014

    Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 13

    subject's copyrighted 1988 autobiography. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC) File:Walter

    3 KB (530 words) - 08:56, 18 December 2013

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilian Edwards

    mentioned by others, award cited in article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC) When

    3 KB (587 words) - 23:00, 14 November 2009

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinky (pornographic actress)

    site that is devoted to "free mixtapes." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Keep -

    13 KB (2,294 words) - 19:23, 25 June 2011

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikayla Mendez

    Negligible reliably sourced biographical content Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Delete

    4 KB (706 words) - 11:45, 3 March 2014

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive717

    only person who agreed with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I'll admit having little patience

    703 KB (124,039 words) - 14:28, 4 November 2011

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Radcliffe

    (UTC) Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC) The above

    1 KB (230 words) - 23:48, 4 May 2011

    Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Woody Allen

    Clubintheclub (talk · contribs) – filing party Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) Clubintheclub (talk ·

    3 KB (558 words) - 06:31, 19 January 2014

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricky Martinez (2nd nomination)

    Prior AFD withdrawn over bundling issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Note:

    2 KB (380 words) - 19:45, 26 February 2014

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Lexx (2nd nomination)

    candidate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC) HullaballooWolfowitz (talk) 02:52

    2 KB (327 words) - 04:46, 18 March 2012

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Sagat's Incubus

    promotional. Porn puffery if not outright spam. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Keep: Incubus

    27 KB (4,660 words) - 10:45, 24 March 2012

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Filone (2nd nomination)

    treatment of the notable fictional work. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC) I did consider

    4 KB (654 words) - 18:38, 24 July 2011

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malena Morgan

    to meet relevant notability guidelines. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Delete

    2 KB (251 words) - 18:12, 28 September 2013

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Kerwin McCrimmon

    TV/print media coverage, if only briefly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Well,

    2 KB (321 words) - 16:48, 3 August 2009

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Gay Porn Awards

    Wikiproject. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Delete - PerHullaballoo Wolfowitz, fails

    5 KB (843 words) - 20:08, 3 July 2010

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie

    incident." As constructed it is too one-sided. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Can you

    10 KB (1,793 words) - 02:55, 28 December 2009

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francine Dee

    2009 (UTC) Delete as per my original prod. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC) The above

    2 KB (318 words) - 20:08, 21 December 2009

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misti Love

    of the above and per my original prod. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC) The above

    2 KB (292 words) - 20:53, 8 July 2013

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code

    result was keep. While i mostly agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, there is a clear consensus to keep. Kevin

    11 KB (1,986 words) - 22:51, 6 December 2009

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roca Skolia

    to libraries and colleges, for example.)Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC) It's the

    8 KB (1,302 words) - 18:46, 1 August 2009

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Johnson (Singer)

    why that wasn't noted in the relisting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Keep.

    5 KB (871 words) - 04:08, 28 December 2009

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savannah Gold

    GNG or any other specialized guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Delete

    2 KB (278 words) - 02:43, 5 February 2011

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Victory (2nd nomination)

    significant contribution to notability, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Note:

    2 KB (318 words) - 09:54, 19 December 2011

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Transformers/Deletion sorting

    should take place on the article talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC) The above

    21 KB (3,694 words) - 01:48, 18 August 2011

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cindy Hope

    substantive explanation or article improvement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Delete

    2 KB (295 words) - 23:04, 2 March 2014

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadie West

    reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Note:

    2 KB (310 words) - 17:09, 3 March 2014

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelle Marie (2nd nomination)

    every reasonable editor on the project. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

    5 KB (919 words) - 22:17, 17 September 2013

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Wells

    with no independent reliable sourcing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Relisted

    2 KB (292 words) - 07:41, 18 February 2014

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassia Riley

    any other potential basis for notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Relisted

    1 KB (244 words) - 23:30, 13 December 2009

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Dark

    scene-related, zero sourced biographical content Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Note: This

    1 KB (249 words) - 18:12, 12 May 2013

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Ryan

    retailer to promote products it sells. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC) What

    5 KB (809 words) - 18:49, 26 April 2012

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Red King (novel)

    Cited in reference works, too. [4] [5] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Relisted

    4 KB (646 words) - 19:01, 24 August 2011

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Bangkok

    awards. No reliable/nonpromotional sourcing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC) The sources

    3 KB (529 words) - 12:40, 12 May 2011

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Droke

    2011 (UTC) Keep, appears to meet WP:ENT. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Delete

    3 KB (576 words) - 03:27, 16 January 2011

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm McKay

    provides useful content in problematic form. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC) Keep

    2 KB (365 words) - 01:35, 14 October 2011

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee D'Ass (3rd nomination)

    awards do not contribute to notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Comment

    7 KB (1,258 words) - 10:53, 17 June 2013

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The November Criminals (2010 novel)

    strong keep per the reference found by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. However, I'll keep an eye on the article

    2 KB (259 words) - 14:11, 22 April 2011

    Note: Content was condensed due to its length. Epicgenius (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that a WP:Topic ban is going to do it, unfortunately. Epicgenius (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you elaborate on your thoughts? What would you recommend here? Cindy(talk) 01:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Against my better judgement, I posted on Talk:Rachel Reilly (as 199.15.104.149 - my IP address as I forgot to log in, something I keep forgetting to do lately...full disclosure and all that) after seeing this on AN/I. I re-edited the article last night to remove the excessive tagging because, to put it bluntly, Carriearchdale is making a fine mess of things there. I don't know what her aim is but I suspect it's to muck up the article so much that it either gets deleted or to simply disparage the subject because of some personal dislike of her. I have no dog in this race as I don't even know who the subject is but a quick look at the history shows that Carriearchdale seemingly doesn't understand (or care) that we don't tag content with incorrectly dated fact tags that are followed by a source that clearly supports the preceding sentence and template the article with multiple issue tags, we don't tag obvious, non-contentious statements, we don't add "Scandal" sections about a subject's disagreement with her boyfriend supported by gossip sites and we don't scream "COI!!!" without giving some sort of proof for the claim. There are several issues at play here, the most obvious being WP:BLP violations, a lack of understanding about what a WP:RS is, civility issues and possibly WP:COMPETENCE. I think a block is in order if the edit warring, BLP violations, tag bombing and addition of dubious sources continue. If she can hold off on those, I still think she would benefit from a very patient mentor and a topic ban from Rachel Reilly and related articles. She needs someone to help her developed the capacity to work with others as her knee jerk reaction to my (admittedly curt) post was to accuse me of being a sockpuppet, accuse me of acting as "judge, jury and executioner" and then she asked me if I was Jimbo (I wish but alas, no). She didn't address the content, the points I raised or even explain why she's tagging content that is already sourced. Even her response here is nonsensical. Pinkadelica♣ 03:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm intensely concerned by the very bizarre attempts to boomerang this. There is no valid basis for any of the content under the "extended content" hatting, I have no idea who the IP is (and their argument is bordering on trolling, unless they're a sock), and Bob is a quite new editor. Carrie's comments about HW's blocklog are not relevant in this discussion, and are evidence of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. The combination of tag-bombing, invalid removal of citation needed tags, BLP violations and woefully inadequate edit summaries make me think that this user either needs a full topic ban from BLPs until they have satisfied a mentor that they will not engage in this kind of behaviour again, or just a blanket indefinite block under WP:CIR. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of sourced content

    113.57.252.103 (talk · contribs) repeatedly removes very well sourced informnation from Sabiha Gökçen, while not getting involved in the talk page discussion. --Երևանցի talk 23:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    On substance, the IP appears to have the better argument. The existing "Controversies" section is better balanced and much more compliant with NPOV requirements. There's certainly no reason to have two separate discussions of the matter in a single article. A brief cross-reference is all that's needed in the early life section. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's any thing actionable for admins in this case. The IP just started editing and is perhaps not familiar with Wikipedia procedure. I have warned him about 3RR and encouraged him to use the talk page for content disputes. If any other issues arise, I think it will be best to return to ANI or just solve them directly on the respective talk page of the article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @EtienneDolet: I noticed that the IP editor only made two reverts. Perhaps just reminding the IP to post to the article talk page would be better; I've left a message on their talk page reminding them to use the talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Massive edit war and possible socking

    A massive edit war has protracted for a couple days involving 2 IPs and 1 named editor. More than likely the named editor is also one of the IP's. It is seriously disrupting the article Lent history. Please look into the matter and determine if it should be rolled back some 70 or 80 edits to a stable version. I am at a loss on this one. Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Good luck with it! Pass the buck to the EW noticeboard, maybe--anyone. (I've semi-protected with no opinion on which one of the 129 recent versions is preferable.) Drmies (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I already passed the buck; reporting it here. My reasoning was that the pace of the back and fort activity was "mockingly" rapid – and wp:ew is un-refreshingly slow on the uptake; too often. This board is generally refreshingly prompt; and I was determined to see this thing resolved. I disagree that semi-protecting was the best recourse. You've given an editing advantage to the named user, who is editing through semi as I type. Seeing the wp:spi is proper, but I don't presuppose User talk:LimosaCorel will deny also editing as User talk:2606:6000:80c1:6900:84b:49d8:1ad1:157e; but I am calling him to account here – and notifying User talk:131.123.177.19.
    The editing prowess and edit summary clue precludes the editing parties from being so novice to not know they were doing wrong—they hardly flinched when I warned them to stop, (presuming LimosaCorel is the aforementioned IP); and carried themselves as children at play. Frankly, I'm ready to break out the paddle.—John Cline (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Teach us to care and not to care.
    Teach us to sit still.
    In my (mercifully) brief career as a junior high school teacher, I sometimes used to say this to my students. Even in unlikely event they heard me above the ruckus, I don't think they would have picked up the literary allusion. Shirt58 (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]
    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LimosaCorel.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm now seeing that a fellow recent changes patrolman has reported this matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:2606:6000:80c1:6900:84b:49d8:1ad1:157e, User:LimosaCorel and User:131.123.177.19 reported by User:DavidLeighEllis (Result: ). Ultimately, the discussion regarding the EW will take place there. I will link from there, to this discussion; to show the magnitude of disruption achieved by this malfeasance; and leave it TBD if this discussion should be closed, or if it should continue as a separate matter.—John Cline (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Drmies&action=view Drmies apparently stopped editing shortly after his comment here, and he certainly missed my comment where I questioned the action. LimosaCorel had recently been released from a block for edit warring and had over 20 reverts on this article, (he should have been blocked). He has not been responsive to discussion, and effectively is continuing the edit war, unhindered by semi-protection – while the IP editor is locked out of the article. As a matter of content, it isn't known by me, who is on the right side, yet; LimosaCorel is progressively changing the article, and I don't trust his judgment after witnessing this EW. Please consider blocking this editor under 3RR, or at least making him stop editing Lent until he answers the EW noticeboard – or here.—John Cline (talk) 08:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drmies slept like a baby and was not bothered by socks (s/he sleeps without them, usually). If you report things like a "massive edit war" here you should expect someone to take swift action to stop the edit war. That's the "incident" part. The rest is for others to decide: it is not the admin's primary job to decide who's right and who's wrong; that's usually to be decided in other venues, though it can, on occasion, lie within both the discretion and the purview of the acting administrator, if the aforementioned rightness and wrongness can be determined by the status and behavior of involved editors rather than the actual merits or demerits of the edits themselves (Wikipedia:WRONGVERSION). To put it differently, if you want a different kind of action you should make a different kind of request. I've not given an advantage to anyone: there's thousands of editors who can go through semi-protection and ANI has plenty of eyes whose owners can get more deeply involved with the article if they so choose. Thank you for your report. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I managed some sleep myself, though I'll admit wearing socks. Thank you for helping me better understand the rationale of your action. It works for me. Mostly, thank you for taking action on the matter. Clearly, some chose to leave it for another. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Out-of-process move

    In 2006, someone performed a copy-and-paste move from Bangs (hair) to Fringe (hair). No explanation was provided, and it's entirely possible that the editor simply preferred his/her English variety (which wouldn't be an appropriate rationale, obviously). But because I'd occasionally heard the term "fringe" used to describe the hairstyle in the United States (and found that the inverse apparently isn't true), instead of reverting, I performed the move properly. (See WP:COMMONALITY.)

    Move than seven years later, on 28 February, User:2.219.46.24 initiated a request to move the article back to Bangs (hair), citing WP:ENGVAR (which, contrary to some editors' belief, doesn't guide us to always retain an article's original English variety, no matter what). I opposed the move (for the reason explained above), as did User:IJA.

    Then Red Slash expressed "strong support per WP:RETAIN and WP:ENGVAR". A minute later, he performed the move. Then he speedily closed the move request and relisted it in reverse, declaring that the 2006 move was "apparently in violation of WP:RETAIN" and that a move would require us to "override" that rule — a point explicitly contested in the closed discussion. (WP:RETAIN applies specifically in the absence of a good reason to change an article's English variety, the existence of which was plainly asserted. Whether one agrees or disagrees with my 2006 decision, it clearly had a good-faith rationale with no basis in nationalism; keep in mind that I upheld a move away from my English variety.)

    I'm baffled as to how these actions comply with the non-admin closure criteria (to which Red Slash linked). He expressed "strong support" for the requested move (and therefore obviously wasn't "impartial"). The discussion had lasted three days and change, during which two editors opposed and two editors (the lister and Red Slash) supported, so it certainly wasn't the case that "the consensus or lack of consensus [was] clear after a full listing period (seven days)".

    I request that an uninvolved administrator undo the out-of-process move, close the relisting (and notify its participants), and reopen the original move request. Thank you. —David Levy 05:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    There were only two support votes for the move, one of which was an IP user who proposed the move in the first place and the other was the admin who closed the RM himself six minutes later after voting. It is almost as if Red Slash has made himself Judge, Jury and Executioner. This is completely out of order and not in line with WP:RM policy. This move should be reverted back to "Fringe" until there is a proper consensus to move it. IJA (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Red Slash isn't an admin. He linked to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure, the criteria of which clearly weren't met either. —David Levy 10:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    To spell it out a little more, here are the logs:

    A speedy close after nearly 8 years is very much out-of-process. Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • My bad - I didn't check to see how long ago the move was made originally; I should not have done this to repair a move made in 2006. I made everything clear and above-board and there was no underhandedness, but definitely, this is not the process for reverting poor move decisions made over seven years ago. Wow. My full apologies. Red Slash 23:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Biased material at Eastern Europe page

    Content dispute, directed to article talk page. Miniapolis 01:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Rjensen insisted on adding a bizarre paragraph on the denunciation of Soviets in the Eastern Europe page, sourced from a single author [51]. The rest of that section talks about a general overview of geopolitical changes in Eastern Europe following WWII, and the section simply does not belong. I tried to paraphrase the passage [52], and he quickly reverted it, accusing me of "whitewashing" the Soviets, blah blah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.13.200 (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wait, what? Rjensen didn't "add" that paragraph (at least, not recently) - he just reverted your not-very-well-explained removal of a section sourced to a Pulizer prize winner. He reverted your edit and you then decided that paraphrasing the section was a better solution so you tried that instead. But the English of the paraphrase wasn't great and it looks to have changed the meaning of what the source asserted. He reverted that too and you reverted his revert claiming he was pushing a partisan POV. For the record, I've reverted that and encouraged you to discuss this content dispute on the article talk page. And that's exactly what this is - a content dispute. Besides which, you've not actually notified Rjensen as you are required to do. I'll do that for you but I would suggest an admin should close this and send everyone to the article talk page. Stalwart111 08:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Stalwart111 is right. this is a content dispute about a historical topic (how Stalin seized control of Eastern Europe after 1945). The material is not at all controversial; it summarizes a 2012 book that has been highly praised by reviewers. Our IP person did not provide any alternative sources whatever to the prize winning analysis by Anne Applebaum. Rjensen (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's wrong to paraphrase a passage and attribute the claim? I reject your explanation, considering that Wikipedia has plenty of articles where you're free to bitch about how evil Stalin and the Russians are. I came to the article to get an general overview of geopolitical changes after WWII in Eastern Europe, not someone's personal analysis on Stalin. And winning a "prize" does not give someone a free pass, especially considering that the same author is married up to someone in the Polish government.
    Of course you can paraphrase something but a longer directly attributed section is always going to be better that an inaccurately paraphrased paragraph with confusing English. And blindly edit-warring one in over the other is just a bad idea. But you've missed the broader point - this is a content dispute which is what we have article talk pages for. ANI deals with editor behaviour and the only editor who has done the wrong thing in this content dispute is you. We call that a WP:BOOMERANG. Let this be closed, take it back to the article talk page and have a proper discussion about it. Stalwart111 21:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Big deal at Santa Ana Mountains

    Would someone please lock me up and throw away the key? This is crazy.

    User:WPPilot replaces the lede image in Santa Ana Mountains with one of his own aerial photographs. I don't think it's as good as the photo in the article before (not mine) and I revert. He reverts back etc. We finally get to the talk page, and I explain, bluntly, that his image is not good enough for the infobox - for one thing it doesn't display well at that size. I point out WP:BRD that the article should stay in the status quo ante, and revert. I get the idea that maybe the photo is not so bad at a larger size, so I tweak it, crop it (taking out too much sky above the mountains) and insert it in the article at 900px. I tell him I've done this, but because I called him an "ass" along the way, I don't think he's even looked at the article to see that his image is now gigantic and much more prominent than it would have been in the infobox. He's just ranting away in all caps that profanity is illegal and by using it I'm defaming him -- and this is a guy who's supposed to be a small aircraft pilot who takes his own shots. So he's shouting and reverting and I can't get him to acknowledge the new prominence of his image.

    I'm done with him, so lock me up if you have to, someone uninvolved and calmer should have a talk with this guy. BMK (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    "who's supposed to be a small aircraft pilot who takes his own shots" Ken has been engaged in a "insult a thon" with me. My edit started by posting a new photo that showed the whole range, rather then a snow capped peak, and some trees and such. I posted my edit and reasons for making them, on the talk page ASAP. As it has been mentioned to this user before the lead image should really represent what the place looks like, so the snow covered shots are non qualifiers for the lead image. He revered over and over, in spite of the fact that I tried to communicate with him on his and the projects talk page, he just reverted and would not explain why that photo was a good visual depiction of that range. The snow capped pic does NOT belong on the page. If a fellow pilot (yes I have many ratings) was too look up that on wiki and see that it has a snow covered peak, he would never see it. Any person from here knows just how rare snow is on this peak, and Ken man has refused to address this, he simply reverts and calls me names.WPPilot 07:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
    He's also reverting my deletion of his comments on my talk page, which he shouldn't do. I see he's posted below, someone should tell him that profanility is not illegal, that calling someone an "ass" may not be nice but it's not "defamatory", that admins don't do content disputes, and perhaps combine the two entries. I'm not going to touch it. Oh, and maybe you can get hoim to look at theversion of the article with his image very big in it. BMK (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    He's now reverted another editor, who restored my version. BMK (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The other editor is: User talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah whom I suspect is a sockpuppet for Ken, if someone could run a sockpuppet IP check perhapsWPPilot 07:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That made my day, thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    BMK may be argumentative, but he's not conniving. Epicgenius (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    File:Santiago Peak and Modjeska Peak Saddleback photo D Ramey Logan.jpg
    File:Snow on Saddleback (2008) 01.JPG
    WP:LEADIMAGE
    I do aerial photos for Wikipedia and have for years. A user has now resorted to using profanity in his edits and demands that a photo showing trees a snow capped peak from 2008 and is calling me names. He was already overruled in regard to other photos from a snow that took place in 2008 on a range in So Cal. He is now openly calling me a ASS on Wikipedia in direct violation of policy.WPPilot 06:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)WPPilot
    I just responded at WT:Administrators#I NEED HELP ASAP Santa Ana Mountains that WPPilot might like to ask for opinions on the wikiprojects mentioned at the top of Talk:Santa Ana Mountains. I have combined these two sections into one as they refer to same incident. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I never intended anything said to be construed as anything other then my dislike for unclean words used by the other editor, or to be construed as a legal threat, that's just silly. I tried to on the project talk page to have a normal conversation, asking how one peak with snow on it from 2008 is depicting the range. The consensus in this matter Talk:Mission Viejo, California#Infobox photo. was that a snow capped peak showing a fairy tale like photo did not qualify for Lead Image. WP:LEADIMAGE is clear and that was what I had hoped would prevail. Only after BMK had reverted 3 times did he respond to my talk requests, and try to appease me, after calling me names by placing the photo cropped in the story. I had already lost my patience with him at that junction and did get a little too frustrated, so I simply walked away. WPPilot talkWPPilot 15:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You should have posted on his talk page to get his attention. Then, he would have been able to respond to your talk request faster. Epicgenius (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This is getting out of hand. I wandered over to the Santa Ana Mountains article having seen this, and as a fairly local resident, hoping to help. What's going on is ridiculous. They're chipping and firing at each other on the article talk page, disrupting an attempt at actually discussing the image to be used. They're doing the same thing on the Mission Viejo article (and heaven knows where else), and they've both totally lost sight of what they're here to do. WPP is totally wrapped up in loving his aerial photographs, and seems to want to have all of the OC articles to have one (the Mission Viejo one might as well be somewhere in Minnesota for all I can tell what I'm looking at), and BMK is getting less and less civil; his name calling is out of control. I haven't looked at their talk page histories, but what little I've seen there is more of the same. BMK calls WPP an idiot or an ass, WPP retaliates with ownership-flavored demands and threats, and we're getting nowhere. I just hollered "time out" on the Santa Ana Mountains article in the hope of getting the discussion back on track; I also warned them that either of them starts again and I'll be back here proposing an interaction ban. Then we have their latest antics here. The two of them clearly can't work together, and I really can't see a way forward in the current climate of discussion. --Drmargi (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

    I think you're overtstating things a bit.

    The Mission Viejo discussion (there have been no others between myself and WPPilot) was back in January. Anyone who wants to can take a look at it. (Talk:Mission Viejo, California#Infobox photo) I was civil throughout, WPP less so -- as pointed out by another editor. I contrived a solution which involved putting WPP's picture into the article elsewhere than in the infobox at a much larger size. I thought that cleared the air, but WPP apparently kept a chip on his shoulder, because when this disagreement came up, he came out of the box guns ablazin' (see my talk page), and, yes, I reacted badly to that. I react badly whenever I'm attacked, and when editors seem to be concerned only with their own petty concerns and not with the overall quality of an article. I've uploaded over 4,500 of my own images to Commons (not artistic or brilliant, but functional), and I'm totally ruthless about them - if soemone else's image is better than mine, or serves the article better, then that's the one that goes into the article, not mine. I'm not here to massage my ego by getting my pictures into articles, I'm here to make articles better, often by adding or changing images, and I use exactly the same criteria for evaluating the images of others as I do for my own. If one image is inferior to another, it has no place being in an article, no matter what camera was used to take it, or what lens, or how hard to was to fly the airplane while taking the shot -- all that stuff is totally irrelevant, what matters is the quality of the picture, and how it serves the article.

    So, yes, I overreacted, and I shouldn't have. I apologize for my language, but not for the standards I try to uphold when working on images in articles. The picture WPP put in just was not that good. It was better as a larger size after I had tweaked it, but at infobox size, it was just a dark blur that conveyed nothing whatsoever to the reader, the person we are supposed to be here to serve. (You can look at it, it's currently the image in the infobox of the article.)

    Now, someone (can't recall who) transferred another image from Flickr, and it looks great - very sharp and clear, should look OK in the infobox at a slightly larger than usual size (because it's a landscape), and I'm all for it. I was not, and am not, a partisan of the image that was originally in the infobox. I was not, and am not, opposed to aerial shots. (WPP's aerial photograph that ended up being presented at a larger size in the Mission Viejo article looks good at that size, and improves the article in a way it could not do in the infobox.) All I want is for the images that are used to improve the articles they are in, and I am not prejudiced for or against any type of photo or any photographer's work, even my own.

    I hope that consensus on the article talk page will hold up that the new image is a good choice for the infobox, and it can be added when the article comes off protection. BMK (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    BMK that is simply not true, I had added the photo, and three time in a row, you simply reverted the edits. I, after the first edit revert that you said the picture was poor first posted both photos on your talk page and hoped that you would communicate, that did not happen.I tried on your talk page as well as the project talk page to communicate with you, my words were to the effect of asking for a consensus but you refused to undertake any conversation and within minutes you used the words that IMHO were out of context of the sprit of Wikipedia. Within minutes you were calling me a number of names and inflammatory public statements "he says he is a pilot" as if to assert that I am a liar. I do not think that a photo of snow on that range is an proper way to show a range that has not seen snow since 2008, and I feel strongly that is not the way to display it. According you your first 5 reverts, my photo simply had no value and was deleted. Then you started calling me names. Once you had on a number of places called offensive names, I had enough and it was then and only then that I reacted, You sir are the only person that I have ever been through this with and I was shocked that our second interaction ever so quickly resulted in public name calling, by you. I do not keep "chips on my shoulder", don't know you and I at this junction could care less as negative interaction is something I avoid at all cost. The solution is simple, I will avoid interaction with pages that BMK has edited upon and refrain from placing my aerial photos upon them. End of dispute! Have a nice day! WPPilot talk--WPPilot 04:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WPPilot, I'm afraid your memory fails you in this case, just as it did in the case of the Mission Viejo article, where you insist that I was told that the infobox image was inappropriate (again, because of the snow) - but anyone who reads the discussion at the link above can see that's not accurate, or, indeed, they can look at the article, where that same image remains in the infobox.

    Be that as it may, I think you're limiting yourself unnecessarily by boycotting any article I've edited. It's your choice, of course, but I've edited something like 25,000 unique pages. A better solution would be to be open to the possibility that one of your images is not as appropriate for an article as you think it is, and to be prepared to discuss its virtues and defects as objectively as possible instead of insisting (against all evidence) that your image is superior to any other possibility. That will reduce friction and induce discussion, whereas standing fast and not budging will almost invariable lead to bad results. BMK (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Incidentally, my remark that "this is a guy who's supposed to be a small aircraft pilot who takes his own shots" wasn't doubting that you are a pilot, it was amazement that someone with those qualifications could behave in such a petulant and childish manner as you did - shouting and ranting, throwing around legal threats and sockpuppetry allegations, ridiculously claiming that profanity is "illegal" -- these is behavior I would expect from someone with a lot less life experience than yours. If being called an "ass" sets you off like that, I'd hate to see what would happen if someone with a really foul mouth were to unload on you. BMK (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not expose myself to people that are as foul mouthed as you describe sir. I was not shouting, my cap locks was on and I did not notice, your assuming a great deal here, and as it turns out the image was fine for the article. You within minutes escalated this by call me a ass, an asshole as well as posting that in a number of places. Once again my friends and associates would never do something like that as all of them are respectful. Public humiliation is not accepted in most societies today as many people grow out of the need to use schoolyard name calling in there youth. Trees, a lamp post, some homes and the back of street signs do not depict the mountain range, and after review of others here it looks like I was correct and that image will be replaced while the aerial photo remains, is that not correct BMK? Please just walk away too, like I said you can go ahead and own the stories that you edit, your a good editor and I would not want to have you feel the need to call me school yard bully names in exchange for sharing my aerial photography with wikipedia. WPPilot talk 05:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A picture of a mountain range does not have to consist of the mountain range and only the mountain range, just as a picture of a building can be valuable and useful even if there's a fire hydrant and streets signs and a traffic light in it, because those things are there, they form part of the world in which the building exists, just as the houses and other things are what one sees when one looks at the mountain range from a terrestrial viewpoint. Your love of aerial photography is fine, but I think it's led you to an unreasonably absolutist and purist point of view which is antithetical to the realities of the real world that 99% of us live in.

    Anyway, I have no intention of walking away from the article, I will go with the consensus of the editors discussing images on the talk page, as a good Wikipedian should. (Incidentally, your synopsis of what's being decided there is not accurate.) I wish you luck in your future endeavors. BMK (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes it still looks like your in full control of the story, and acting ringleader of what gets posted on that story:
    If that's the consensus, then I suggest that once the article comes off protection, the new image be added to the infobox, and WPPilot's image be placed where I had it at a large size. If there's room in the article, the old infobox picture, possibly with some editing, can be used as well, as long as it's not overcrowding it. BMK (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I'd call consensus just yet; it's only been a few hours, and we have a three-day page protect that affords folks more time to discuss. Let's go slowly and avoid anymore bad feelings. --Drmargi (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

    Hence my desire not to be involved in your pages. WPPilot talk 06:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Interaction ban between Beyond My Ken and WPPilot

    As I commented above, BMK and WPP are unwilling/unable to work collaboratively, have utterly lost sight of what we're here to do, and are so wrapped up in their squabble that they will use any opportunity to continue their war of words, no matter what discussion or other activity it might interrupt. It's clear where one is, the other should not be, and that they should not interact any further, if for no other reason, for the peace of the project. Just this afternoon I warned them that if they opened fire on one another again and disrupted the discussion, I would propose an interaction ban. So what did they do? Abandoned one discussion, and brought their act here. This has to stop.

    Therefore, I am proposing an indefinite two-way interaction ban between Beyond My Ken and WPPilot. I've never seen two people more in need of an interaction ban. (NB: It should be noted that I've never done this before, so if the language of the proposed ban needs fine tuning, I am open to suggestions and feedback.) --Drmargi (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Reed Cowan

    Wow. I have no idea what's going on with the history of Reed Cowan. I followed an IP vandal, and it seems like a mess of WP:AUTO followed by BLP violations. It seems like Cowan may have edited the article to remove mention of his sexuality, which is unsourced and seems like something that should clearly be left out, and then a block of IP addresses (2602:306:CE9A:860:3C8E:AA55:B505:377D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) being the most recent) has been rapidly putting it back, along with a mish-mash of other stuff. Now it's nominated for deletion. I've got to go, but someone with more experience with BLP should take a look, please. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The article [history] of The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon shows that this IP range (is that the right term?) has been vandalizing for a while, since February 22. Grayfell (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    NLT block applied. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    When the template Infobox NBA rivalry was nominated for deletion (not by me) Sportsgamaniacre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) responded with a tirade of legal threats which are still visible in this diff. For the user's talk page, he also has a history of vandalism.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Zmaher, again

    Hi everybody,

    This is the fourth time that Zmaher (talk · contribs) has been mentioned here. Seven months ago on edit warring, four months ago for unconstructive edits and last week for the same reason. It was also four months ago I reported them to AIV, after that they got a personal message from @User:PhilKnight and @User:Zad68. Since that time, they hav shown no changes in their approach to Wikipedia. Again and again they are adding unsourced content and adding long, long lists of trivial information concerning concert tours of several rock bands. He was also playing a genre warrior, to which @User:Mlpearc issued several warnings. Yesterday, they added almost 22,000 characters to another concert tour article. I don't think that the occasional constructive, helpful edit is worth all this trouble. This has been going on for far too long, could someone please take some action? --Soetermans. T / C 13:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems to me to be a typical example of what happens when an editor does a lot of rather low-level disruptive editing, spread out over a long time. Because the disruption is at such a low level, nobody actually blocks the editor, despite the fact that all that low-level stuff adds up to more disruption than would have led to a block long ago had it come in a more concentrated form. For the moment I have blocked for a week, and I hope that will serve as a wake-up call. The block length is a compromise: on the one hand, a week is a long time for a first block on a good faith editor, but on the other hand he/she frequently has gaps of a week or more between edits, and if he/she makes no attempt to edit while the block is in force, he/she may not even know the block took place, so it will have no effect. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I am new to this process but I need to clarify actions which seem to cross a line.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tenebrae has been engaged aggressively for a couple of days on an edit, and has escalated to and administrators board once, and also started an RFC. The debate is simple, and has been covered by administrators. I am not arguing here whether I am right or wrong. My concern is ongoing uncivil debate that has the following attributes.

    • He has repeatedly claimed that my language stated that Woody Allen was a child molester. He was called out on this multiple times, and kept repeating the assertion. My language was only that the person that was the subject of the article has made an accusation that Woody Allen was a child molester. Even after the Admin discussion agreed that my language was accurate, the previous argument was continued.
    • He has stated that since no trial occurred, that he is innocent (in the eyes of the law). Since the article is not about Allen, it is about Farrow, I thought it would be unbalanced not to include a vigorous defense of Allen without a counter claim that is based on even stronger RS, but that my preference was to do neither. Whether I was right or wrong, he repeatedly claimed that I wanted to claim Woody Allen was a child molester, and repeatedly took my comments out of context in ways to repeat the claim.
    • Before I was even involved with this article, he was also making Ad-hominem claims against another editor, and continued to make those claims on the administrators message board.
    • I have proposed a simple solution, which is very neutral, which is simply to link to the main Allen article, which is the correct place to address the facts of the investigation and the court record, and leave the Ronan article neutral. \
    • He has repeatedly accused me of POV bias because I said that I could easily come up with RS to bolster the other side of the argument, as a means to prevent the article from being one sided. I asked him repeatedly not to do this, and he remained hostile.
    • Venue shopping. After getting opinions on the administrators page, he starts RFC and rewords much of the debate to move the argument.
    • Consistently taken my words out of context in order to establish a different meaning. I asked him to stop, and it continued.
    • Overagressive. Requested RFC and two noticeboard requests. At least two of these were triggered before any talk page discussion.

    I do not think that this can be resolved by slowing down the process for more discussion, because there has been escalation (to another notice board and also for RFC) at the first sign of dissent, and this does not lend itself to any discussion of the actual content.

    Thanks. My apologies if I used this forum incorrectly. [55] [56] Bob the goodwin (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BLP applies to every page of whatever type on Wikipedia. Allegations of a criminal act are pretty much posited to be "contentious claims", and WP:BLPCRIME applies. Allen is well-known and the allegation has been in the press, but that does not circumvent the need for us to be scrupulous in how we handle any case. In the case at hand, the material that the allegation was deemed unfounded or insufficiently grounded by others is clearly pertinent. If we are to err, it must always be on the side of the person accused. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal view. Allegations of defamatory kind, or even to the point of criminal conduct of living persons might well be notable (and therefore worthy of inclusion), but extreme care in language must be exercised. This is such a delicate balance, that if you at all are to include such material, my own opinion is that you must constantly say that these are the words of the allegator, as well as ample inclusion of possible motives for a false motive, as long as such has been given by reliable sources (say, that the allegations occurred within the heated context of embittered divorce proceedings). Furthermore, formal dismissals of allegations by police/court MUST be included in context with the allegation, again with reliable sourcing.If you cannot find any reliable sources for motives for, or dismissals of, cited allegation, DROP THE MENTION OF THE WHOLE ALLEGATION, even if it appears in a reliable source.Arildnordby (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    * I agree this should be handled very cautiously which is why I was alarmed by the disruptive behavior of a relatively experienced editor. It was impossible to debate the merits of the sources, the denials and accusations when an editor is accusing you of bad intent, misrepresenting your opinions, and most alarmingly trying to speed up the process with multiple ANI's and RFCs. His second ANI already established by an admin [57] that the four words I added were appropriate, and there were discsussion of improvements. Tenebraewas also repeatedly asked why he considered an accusation made by the subject of the biography was the equivalent to the editor making the accusation. He never even tried to answer, except to repeat previous talking points.Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    * I note that Tenebrae is cited on three different issues on TODAYS ANI board, in addition to the ANI on BLPN, and he also initiated an ANI on another editor in the last few days for this same article. Plus there were multiple RFCs, that seemed to be more aimed at speeding up discussion by creating one sided arguments in the middle of the night that would attract the desired opinions. I prefer measured discussion and to have time to research when new issues are raised. Tenebrae raised new issues when he cited the Yale report as exoneration, which has been discredited widely, but I need to slow the conversation down if we are to collect and weigh evidence.Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    * I received the following note from Tenebraeon my talk page [58] in which he states that ANI's should not be written by people with 2 months of experience on Wikipedia, and further mentioned Boomerang. I welcome feedback to my actions, and welcome honest discussion of encyclopedic entries, especially if I am wrong. I do not want to focus on abusive editing, I want to focus on making an encyclopedia.Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    * Lastly I want to not that this article is not about Allen, it is about Farrow. I completely agree that an accusation should not be left naked. But the fact is that there are two different PR machines pushing different narratives, and Tenebrae is claiming copying text from Wikipedia is equivalent to doing proper research. I do not want to leave the article as is, it is too one sided against Allen. I do not want poorly researched prose inserted into this article when both the prose and the article itself has such different context. I also would prefer not to be pressured to present incomplete research by a disruptive editor when this could result in unintentional bias. It is not controversial that there is a lot of RS on both sides of the debate. A careful conversation is desirable if we are to correctly include a notable action by Farrow, while neutrally protecting both the integrity of Farrow and Allen. I suspect that an Administrator will just make a decision to break the deadlock. Or perhaps this article is too overheated and we should shut it down for a few days and let others take a shot at the best treatment. Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    * If I made a mistake by starting an ANI, I would appreciate that feedback. In the last 24 hours read the civility sections of Wikipedia three times. Only when I started to get angry at the abuse, and felt I could not slow down the process did I ask for help. I do not think I ever showed my anger, but continued engagement would likely have escalated. Thanks for the assistance of the admins and all editors who will work this hard to get a few words of prose correct.Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment. - It seems to me after reviewing all the information stated above that Bob the Goodwin has been relentlessly trying to bend over backwards to get the story down in a succinct manner so the situation can be appropriately so that the admins can make an analysis of the issue or issues.

    As far as the message Bob the Goodwin quoted where the other party stated that anis should not be written by someone with two months of experience on Wikipedia, frankly I am quite appalled by that comment. I have found that many but not all user/editors try to pull that card out frequently. After all we are all adults here, or at least I hope so.

    Although some weight can be given to the amount of time a user/editor has been registered at Wikipedia, the great part of a user/editors skill sets and experience to include being a published author, writer, editor, and or publisher should be given it's due weight as well.

    Again, all this doesn't really surprise me here at Wikipedia. What happened to not being bitey to newer editors?

    WTF?

    I hope everyone will have the best day ever today, only to be out-shined by a brighter tomorrow! Never give up!

    ciao!!!

    Carriearchdale (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the high-dudgeon walls and walls of text Bob the goodwin has been posting, tarring me from pillar to post, I'm not going to take an hour of my time to rebut his claims point-by-point. The fact is, his inexperience is a direct factor in his disruptive, argumentative, policy-violating behavior, in which he thinks it's OK to include unproven child-molester claims without including the denial that WP:PUBLICFIGURE required when the accused has made. Here's what I wrote: "I just now have seen that you've only been here since December 28. You're defending disruptive OR and POV biases when you've been here barely two months, rather than try and learn from longtime, experienced editors? And then starting what appears to be an ill-advised ANI when you're the one violating policy? Wow." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I will rebut one thing: I did not say "ANI's [sic] should not be written by people with 2 months of experience on Wikipedia." Read it, don't skim it: I said people with two months' experience should not defend disruptive OR and POV biases. What I said about his ANII was that it appeared to be ill-advised — and that would be true no matter if he had been here two months or two years. Stop misrepresenting me, Bob. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The goal is to edit an encyclopedia. If an AFI helps create calm, I need nothing more. Passion is good. Our conversation, no so much. But I am happy to assume good faith going forward.Bob the goodwin (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    AD HOMINEM attacks have continued despite my asking for help (and some editors have helped, I just want to get the issue closed), Blatant misrepresentations of my position and the evidence I have presented also continue. I am confused by the rules at WP. Is this behavior acceptable? Is this what a newcomer is expected to experience? Politeness seems to invite challenges.Bob the goodwin (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    SpongebobLawyerPants: new User disrupting an AfD

    SpongebobLawyerPants (talk · contribs)

    New user persistently disrupting an AfD.

    • All caps shouting: "YOUR VOICE DOESN'T COUNT" [59]
    • Blanking other editors comments: [60]
    • Accusing other editors of bias: [61], [62], [63]

    Attempts were made to counsel this user on their Talk page [64], [65] but it doesn't seem to be getting through. Someone with the mop needs to have a chat with them, please. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't get me wrong, the user is definitely out of line, but its just essentially a WP:SPA who is about to get their article deleted, and consensus is strongly in favor of the deletion so far. So, they're not going to be getting their way, and things will probably be over once its inevitably deleted. Still, no harm in a talking-to either. Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    They're now posting abusive remarks about each new commenter: [66] and [67]. Options are a block until the AfD closes, or perhaps a WP:SNOW closing of the AfD as a way to end this bad behavior. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've given them a level four warning for personal attacks; seems more useful to block them for a little while if they carry on, and let the AfD draw to a close in peace. We may even manage a little rational discussion of MUFON as a source if SpongebobLawyerPants doesn't keep interrupting with boldface accusations of bias and ignorance. --McGeddon (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and there we go, "i think Wikipedia should get rid of poorly qualified users like you" twenty minutes after a final warning. --McGeddon (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And he's now been blocked. He tried blanking the entire deletion discussion, and the deletion notice on the article, but I believe everything has been restored. Sergecross73 msg me 17:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to McGeddon for alerting me to this. I blocked the user for 12 hours, hoping that he'd calm down in that time. I'll monitor what he does after that: a longer/indef block will obviously ensue if he doesn't reform.  —SMALLJIM  17:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (Since he deleted the notice from his talk page, I've reminded the editor about this discussion. Suggest it's not archived till his 12h block ends. Ta!  —SMALLJIM )
    @Smalljim: WP:COOLDOWN states categorically Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption. Please don't commit the same mistake again. Thank you Hasteur (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) As I read it, the key word there is "solely". There were other reasons for the block. I think SmallJim was saying he might have made the block even longer but for the hope the user would cool down in the interim. Dwpaul Talk 19:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he was repeatedly deleting the entire AFD discussion, and the AFD notice on the article. Pretty certain he broke 3RR over it, and continued to refuse to stop. Block was completely warranted. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sergecross73 and Dwpaul: I was reminding the administrator especially in the light that their response suggests that the block was done exclusively as a cooldown block and that the "Admins are Corrupt" party would love nothing better than to scream while jumping up and down on their soapbox. Denying them the opportunity to to point out the problem (because there is none) is the first step in diffusing the party's platform. Hasteur (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh alright. I thought you were nitpicking/lecturing on a bad block. You're just talking more about "less-than-ideally-worded-rationale". Fair enough. Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Hasteur. Yes, I'll admit that my comment above was less than ideally worded for ANI, but the others looked into the circumstances and "got it".  —SMALLJIM  20:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:IPadPerson

    I've brought this to all of your attention before but it slipped into the archives, although a few users noted that IPadPerson's behavior, specifically their edit summaries and attitude, have been unacceptable.

    See the last ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive829#User:IPadPerson - there are plenty of diffs there of the users' past edit summaries that were disruptive, which I can copy and paste here.. or you can take a look at if you'd like over there. IPadPerson received multiple warnings about this issue. [68], [69], [70].

    A look at their user page also can give you an idea of the attitude this user has. Directly copied, it says "If I EVER find someone trash talking me about an edit, you will DEFINITELY be reported to an administrator FOR REAL. Don't play those silly games with me. Also, I will NOT and NEVER WILL tolerate anyone invading my privacy by revealing my IP address (71.77.78.28), which is an alternative thing that I use when not logged on. Anyone who mentions me anywhere on Wikipedia better have a good explanation why."

    Recently, they've sparked back up with the edit summaries: "You shouldnt've even changed the damn infobox in the first place." "Don't be adding no bullcrap without no source!" "Bullshit."

    I think you get the point. Gloss • talk 16:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm. I see what might be categorized as WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, but (at least in the diffs) I'm not seeing any personal attacks, WP:HARASS, or outright disruption. I do, however, see a lot of warnings on IPadPerson's talk page. Could you provide more diffs of disruptive behavior or personal attacks, please? Otherwise, based on your current post all I could support is a trout. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say they personally attacked anybody. The comments like the ones I've brought here are all uncivil. Gloss • talk 19:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Gloss, but I'm with Jorgath here. Uncivil, maybe, or maybe sure, but such relatively minor infractions, that's not something admins block for. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the kind of behavior we're endorsing, something has gone wrong with this project. Gloss • talk 20:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it help if someone warned him/her about the uncivil text on their userpage? As for the the edit summaries, perhaps a harsher warning. --Gourami Watcher (?) 20:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't endorse it. We used to have WP:WQA, but some brilliant people determined that trying to get people to interact civilly was not important. We also have a civility policy that apparently has as many teeth as a 40 year old mule, and with half as much kick. You want to file an WP:RFC/U for chronic incivility, go ahead. Until they actually attack someone, we're somewhat neutered DP 21:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read about the closing of WP:WQA and I still don't understand why it was shut down. It seems like it would be useful if there was some place, between talk pages and AN/I, where editors can bring their problems working with others. It would be most useful to new editors, who would find AN/I or filing an WP:RFC/U very intimidating. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, the reason it closed was because it was such a drama board (made AN/I look like a middle school summer romance) that no one had the patience to deal with it all without violating civility themselves. Which is a pity - the board was a good idea, no matter how difficult to deal with in practice. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the information, Jorgath. It's hard to imagine a noticeboard with more drama than the existing ones. Doesn't sound pretty. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim that WP:WQA was more of a drama board than ANI is not correct. Of course there were eruptions from time to time, but it was not as troubled as ANI. The problem was that WQA had no discernible function—if a discussion decided that editor X had badly violated WP:CIVIL, there was no path to do anything about it (I did not quite agree with that as I saw several discussions where a good result came from the fact that uninvolved people had politely told X that we don't do that here). It was decided that (bad) content disputes should be at WP:DRN, and behavioral disputes where some editor may need a sanction should be at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Reporting user harassment from "Arthur Rubin" and accusatory bully mentality from administrator "OhNoItsJamie"

    The boomerang has flown; user blocked indef by Floquenbeam. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Arthur Rubin has rolled back and reverted my edits and placed copy/pasted vandalism claims on my page which I disputed. He continued to harass me and I warned him I would contact an administrator if he continued. He didn't post any more, but then I get an accusatory and threatening comment on my talk page from administrator OhNoItsJamie which seems to be Arthur's own preemptive strike. I'm making this section in hopes of reporting administrator abuse by not only threatening and accusing me, but also encouraging user abuse by attacking me when I've done nothing wrong. Their issues can be seen on my talk page. Winnerex (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You can help your case, Winnerex, and make the admins' job easier if you provided specific "diffs" (linked evidence) that support your allegations. If you make them search to find out where and what the problems are, I think they are less likely to take action. Liz Read! Talk! 18:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You vandalized Neil deGrasse Tyson, pure and simple. Three different editors have pointed this out to you (besides ClueBot), and I'm number four. No jibber-jabber about being attacked (you weren't) and "oh no wonder Wikipedia is so bad" is going to alter the fact that you committed a violation of our BLP policy, and I'll leave it at that. (Liz, there is nothing to prove here.) Drmies (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Evolving Pictures Entertainment spamming their movie

    BLOCKED THE SPAMMER
    --Enigmamsg 21:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Scoop101extreme (talk · contribs) has been adding external links to news about a movie related to Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes. The link might make an interesting External Link on that page, but the others are just spam as far as I'm concerned. I strongly suspect they are involved with the movie's production team, Evolving Pictures Entertainment.

    Similar edits from The scoop11 (talk · contribs) who has been previously blocked due to sockpuppetry.

    Similar edits from Inside stuff 101 (talk · contribs)

    Sorry if this is misplaced. Didn't know if it came under COI, external links, sockpuppetry, or spam?

    Astronaut (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I reported this user at WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which also deals with spam and promotional editing. Dwpaul Talk 20:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request restoration of Space Fro and other pages destroyed by TheRedPenOfDoom

    TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) has been removing content including references, external links from various articles without informing anyone (see user talk page), his most recent being Space Frontier (see history of the page).

    I tried to restore it, but it said it cannot be undone. I just wish he's inform or issue a warning for his edits. He's destroyed quiet a bit of work of many contributors, including hard to find references, that cannot be reverted.

    I'm not requesting he be blocked or banned, but his removal of so much content without ever informing anyone is plain disruptive and unhelpful.

    I request the material be restored and the pages he vandalized be protected until all parties can reach a consensus. It is extremely disappointing to see so much work unable to be restored and his way of not informing anyone whenever he does it. Can a sysop please use the correct tools to restore the blanked pages and correct this mess? Thanks69.165.246.181 (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    A lot of what TRPOD deleted was unsourced WP:OR that had been tagged since August. Simonm223 (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, it must be the time where everyone is going to moan about TRPoD again. If, instead of running here to the dramah boardz for no real reason, you'd bothered to look at the edits in question, you'd realize that almost everything in your report is unfounded (particularly the "removal of so much content without ever informing anyone" comment - you don't have to announce publicly that you're pruning something). TRPoD removed a bunch of things that were either totally unsourced, had citations that did not support the passage of text that they were linked to, were unreliably sourced, or were just attempts at refspam. He has not "destroyed" anything. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK I will provide diffs, but I dont want my post to be misunderstood, I'm not asking for him to be in trouble. I just think it should be restored and then removed but with discussion so we know what's happening. I was attempted to revert it but cant seem to anymore 69.165.246.181 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You come to ANI, and yet you don't want someone to get in trouble? I'm not buying that. And that information should not be restored without sources. NONE of it was valid as it stood. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the two refs that were included talk about a theme within Sci Fi, not a sub-genre. That'd be like calling a steampunk novel part of the "exploration of Victorian cultural mores in a technologically advanced civilization" subgenre. Simonm223 (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the point, the sources were removed before I had a chance to examine them. The ref list is half empty and the external link is gone. Can the page not be restored and protected from edit warring. If I wanted trouble I would complain about him & not the page. Or can I be directed to the right page where this request belongs. IMAO if I wanted trouble i'd ask he be warned and blocked. I tried to revert myself before requesting discussion but cant seem to. All I'm asking is one chance for material restoration and discussion. Jeez, no wonder people dont contribute as much they used to, they get misinterpreted, reverted without discussion and when they ask for help they get blamed....69.165.246.181 (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes editors are referred to AN/I as a place to get problems resolved and don't know that frequently cases brought here end up with one or both parties blocked. I know I wandered over here when I was a new user and just saw it as a "noticeboard", not a banning board.
    69.165.246.181, I can see the revert/undo option, I'm not sure if that isn't visible to you because you have an IP account. But none of the material is gone forever, it's preserved in the page history. Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried doing that, it said it can't be undone. Try it. Can you please replace the references so I can see them? I can't believe the removal of everything without discussion, no matter how unacceptable the material, is being defended here. And given that so many users and IPs feel the same way why is it being overlooked? Last time I checked all parties need to resolve disputes. But all that aside, can please be shown the sources be replaced so I can see them. Seriously is there any harm in that?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.246.181 (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, here is the old version. --NeilN talk to me 22:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The maintenance tags have been there since August 2013, so you can hardly accuse TRPoD of undue haste in getting rid of the unsourced material. Other editors have had months to provide sources, and even now they are at liberty to add the material back if it can be supported by reliable sources. As has been pointed out above, the old material is there in the page history, and can be retrieved from there and added back in with appropriate references. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • 69.165.246.181: When you approached TRPOD and asked him politely to explain what he was up to, what were the results of that conversation you had? --Jayron32 22:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again. This isn't about me trying to win a revert war with him or anyone else. I'm asking for the page to be restored so I can address his concerns. I tried restoring previous pages myself, BUT was unable to do so, which is why I came asking for help. Also to assume I want help in editing warring with this person is ridiculous since I agreed with his recent edits on science fiction on television which I did not revert because it was entirely unreferenced.
    • But his edits on pages like Space Frontier were removed of links. I feel like I'm talking to people who speak a different language without an interpreter. So once again can I be shown how to restore the page? :-) Thank you 22:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)69.165.246.181 (talk)
    If you want to know how to read a page history, try Help:Page history. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's confusing, 69.165.246.181, because you say you don't want an edit war (which is good) but you want an earlier version fully restored. Now that would be the next step in an edit war.
    Like I said, you can view any earlier version of the article (and people have tried to explain how to do this) so the material isn't lost. Be selective, only add back in material that is well-sourced. Ordinarily, the informal rule is WP:BRD - a bold edit, it gets reverted, then all parties go to the article talk page to discuss what should be done. That's how disagreement is handled every day on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The page in question has been PRODDed, so 69.165.246.181 may soon have even more trouble seeing the past versions. --Auric talk 23:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Except that anyone who disagrees with a PROD and wants to do work on improving the article to meet WP standards can remove the tag. Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is true. But my crystal ball says this will be up in front of AfD within 24 hours of the PROD being pulled down - or it'll just become a redirect to Science Fiction Simonm223 (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviewing sources from the historically archived version. 1 and 2 are still in the current version. 3 is a pdf of a set of class notes from a literature teacher in a high school. It also only refers to the frontier as a theme, not a sub-genre. 4 is a self-published website / blog with no indication it's a WP:RS and 5 is a repeat of 1. Simonm223 (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dwy

    Dwy (talk · contribs) has been behaving disruptively on Talk:Yamanoue no Okura, defying consensus as to how we should represent the various origin theories of the poet. After a two-month-long debate, we had reached a rough consensus, only to have him turn a full 180 and reject the very position he had earlier been arguing for, apparently just to be disruptive. User:Shii[74] and User:Sturmgewehr88[75] have also taken note of this, and Sturmgewehr[76] at least agrees with me that this is a case of WP:NOTHERE of a politically-motivated user pretending to compromise when in fact there is no hope of compromise. He has been misrepresenting sources in order to get his POV across in the article ([77]: there is in fact no "consensus view" but rather several mutually-exclusive theories that Dwy has WP:SYNTHesized into a "consensus view" that in fact contradicts all of our sources) and completely changed his "view" of the subject after we agreed to include his POV in the article ([78]: he had previously said numerous times that "it is a fact that Okura was descended from the imperial family" but when I tried to include this in the article he suddenly changed his mind). He also flagrantly violated WP:RFC by posting a very non-NPOV lie in his opening comment in an RFC, thus biasing any third-party opinions.

    As for the action I would like to see taken, I want a TBAN for Dwy for "links between Baekje and ancient Japan". It is pretty obvious that Dwy, having no genuine interest in or knowledge of this subject, is politically motivated by his dislike of modern-day South Korea (a fact borne-out by the fact that more than half of his article edits before this dispute related to geopolitical disputes between Japan and South Korea).

    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Impossible

    An unknown editor has vandalized Template:New page. Click here to see it. What surprises me is the editor managed to make so his edit is not in history, making it impossible to identify him. This is what the history claims is the "newest" page. Please, help me identify the editor so I can warn him. Best of luck, Aharonz1 (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not seeing anything unusual there or in any other recent template edits. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not vandalism, the giant "STOP!" that appears when you edit it is intentional. 6an6sh6 01:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) Can you please describe what vandalism you are seeing, or what problem with the template is occurring that the vandalism results from? I am not seeing any problem in {{New page}}. Often when people see a problem like this it results from vandalism to a trancluded template or image. That is, a template or image that is included or displayed in the workings of {{new page}} has been vandalized and so you are seeing the result of that vandalism without any change needed to be made in the template itself. Here, though, I suspect the issue was the edit to the template's documentation subpage that was reverted here (which by the way, if I am correct, was not vandalism but simply a newbie error). Note that you piped your links backwards in your post; you meant to type [[Template:New page|here]], not [[here|Template:New page]] (and likewise for the second link). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but let's take the discussion to the page, not the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aharonz1 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    How to stop a page being 'gamed' ?

    Kindly refer to the TALK PAGE [79] of 2012 Italian Navy Marines shooting incident in the Laccadive Sea article where LNCSRG, ROBERTIKI and several other contributers are engaged in discussions in the Italian-language version of the article (translated provided on english talk page) on how to cooperatively transform the content on the english version here on Wikipedia.

    • I am concerned about the talk of discussions involving a journalist. Can you use wikipedia to dialogue/coordinate on news content ?
    • Is it really pure coincidence that we have an Italian admin who all of a sudden appeared on the talk page of this article ?

    I am a bit concerned and worried about this kind of collaborative participation. Something does not look or sound ok here. But I am not going to carelessly throw any accusation. So, can non-involved Wikipedia admins view and check what exactly is going on both here on the english-language and Italian-language wikipedia pages of this article ? 81.240.144.24 (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Italian editors are editing an article on an Italian subject...I don't see the reason for concern here. I also don't see why you have any concerns about editors undertaking discussion to reach consensus. What I do see, after taking a look at the talk page there, is what appears to be a content dispute, and that you are refusing to listen to the other editors' concerns because you're convinced you're right. The only remedy that seems apparent to me here is the IP (and the registered user he strongly appears to be editing-logged-out as) dropping the stick. (I also see that you have not notified User:LNCSRG and User:Robertiki of this discussion, as is required.) As for discussion taking place on it.wiki regarding en.wiki - while unconventional, I don't believe it's any violation of policy, and from what I can see it might be as a result of your refusing to drop the stick here. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is my first attempt to use this template to report a incident. So, I did not know about having to inform User:LNCSRG and User:Robertiki of this discussion. I will do that immediately. Also, as you have proposed in dropping the stick, I will stand back and just drop it while others can weigh in on the originally occurred differences of opinions which I adequately explained point-by-point. Anycase, I will abide by my word to dropping the stick till things get calmly sorted out with others weighing in.
    91.182.126.147 (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    II have just notified both ROBERTIKI & LNCSRG and saw that you had done it too.
    Please note that my IP has indeed changed but I cannot do much about it (see talk page for the reason). So, as you know I am the same Belgian based contributor as 81.240.144.24 and Onlyfactsnofiction and whatever else IP I get. 91.182.126.147 (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you should sign in using your account, to make things easier for everyone. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    hello everybody, just observing my two interventions on Italian wiki talk page dated back to the first part of 2013, and were about translating or deriving content from the English wiki article to the Italian one, not vice versa. --LNCSRG (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    AccuracyObsessed on Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina

    AccuracyObsessed on Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina: vandalism after final warning. AccuracyObsessed continues to change information in the article so the subject is singular and an attack on one individual. I have askedAccuracyObsessed to discuss on the talk page. AccuracyObsessed continues to remove content I add to the article without discussing on the talk page. Instead of "undoing" content I add to the article, AccuracyObsessed is editing and removing the content -- example: "corrects date and context of Caldwell comments; corrects death toll; adds references; brings information on records lawsuit up to date" Furthermore, AccuracyObsessed is citing references out of context. Schwartzenberg (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Reece Leonard

    User Reece Leonard (talk · contribs) has been involved in a four-month-long conflict at Talk:Artpop#Critical Reception, arguing over whether to say the album received "positive" or "mixed to positive" reviews. After four months, it shows no sign of ending any time soon. He is alone in his position against 10 other editors. The discussion is just going around in circles and he has no intention of accepting the consensus any time soon. The issue was raised on the Dispute Resolution board, which was closed with no noticeable effect. He's been soapboxing his way through the debate for some time now, and is refusing to budge from his position one iota, repeatedly accused others editors of vandalism [80], [81], [82], [83]. User has been given two 3RR warnings: [84], [85], as well as warnings for harrassment, disruptive editing, blanking content, unsourced additions and adding original research. He's also battling. User has also begun spreading an unhelpful piece on other user's talk pages - to make sure they "understand the situation fully" regarding another user's (User:STATicVapor) "biased" position: [86]. He later amended this post to include me, and added it to two more talk pages: [87], [88], and has begun canvassing other editors with this same material as well, [89], [90].

    I also believe he's been violating several of the pillars of NOTHERE. He has shown little or no interest in working collaboratively. Of his several hundred edits, at least 90% of them relate to Lady Gaga articles or disputes on talk pages caused by his edits to Lady Gaga articles. He changed "favorable reviews"→"acclaim" on Bad Romance, and removed "mixed" from the intro of Alejandro. Despite his summary on the Alejandro edit, no-one changed it. It had been "mixed to positive" for at least two years prior. He has also removed/replaced positive information from the articles of some of Lady Gaga's contemporaries, such as Lana Del Ray: [91], [92], [93], [94]; Katy Perry: [95] and Britney Spears: [96]. He was given notices/warnings regarding some of these edits [97], [98].

    It's clear from his talk page and his edits that he's here for Lady Gaga: a single-purpose account with an unneutral point of view. Some admin intervention would be appreciated, otherwise this will keep going on indefinitely. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute, and seriously lacks WP:COMPETENCE. He has resorted to harassing and attacking other editors when they disagree with him, and as you can see from the diffs Homeostasis07 provided, the user has been canvassing attacking myself and Homeo on other user's talk pages, which is incredibly inappropriate. They have a clear not WP:NPOV when it comes to Lady Gaga and her works, and refuse to contribute constructively and discuss civilly when their disruptive edits are challenged. STATic message me! 16:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to be honest: when the article was first created, it ended up on my watchlist. Over the last bit, I've seen edits by Reece that made me shake my head - so much so that I took it off my watchlist, rather than see countless, repetitive ad nauseum bad edits. Might have been here for some reason, and might have started off with good intentions, but they left that cake out in the rain long ago ES&L 17:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just going to point out that the only reason why this argument got so out of hand was STATic's ridiculously rude, inflamatory rhetoric, including calling me childish, incompetent, etc. He has a lengthy history of insulting various users (evidenced by his talk page) and that leads to this kind of uncivil discussion. He also admitted that he disliked the artist who's page we were discussing twice. Homeostasis has previously been blocked for behaving unprofessionally on Lady Gaga pages. I've stated numerous sources that back up my claims, although I recently ended this debate because I realized that it was ultimately pointless as these two have no intention of compromising at all. My edits are always sourced and factual. That's the last I'll say on the subject. Goodbye. Reece Leonard (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out that, in my time with StaticVapor, he's has been a very good editor with a strong grasp on Wikipedia and its policies. Without any clear difs, I'd be likely to doubt any claims of "uncivil discussion" or rudeness. Sergecross73 msg me 21:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Perusing Talk:Artpop, I have to disagree with Reece Leonard's assertion that this is all the fault of STATic. I believe that the main issue is Reece's dismissive attitude, which he demonstrated somewhat just above me, "My edits are always sourced and factual. That's the last I'll say on the subject. Goodbye." I see that Reece communicates in this manner consistently, proceeding by essentially stating that he is correct, everyone else is wrong, and there's no need to debate the issue. I'm not saying that Reece refuses to get involved in discussions, he most certainly does, but he too frequently refers to those who disagree with him as vandals, and often refers to an editor's past conduct issues as a way to discredit their arguments (as above where he points out STATic's block history). Stating that WP:NOTHERE applies is hyperbole, I believe that Reece is sincerely trying to improve Wikipedia, but he has a lot of trouble collaborating, which is a major problem. -- Atama頭 21:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sergecross73: I can assure you i do not live a double life on here, I am the same person. Reece just seems to enjoy making up things and harassing other users when the conversation is not going their way. He was owed a WP:NPA block for the insane focus on commenting on fellow contributors as you can see above rather then the topic at hand. I have been stating over and over, i have no bias, I can edit any subject, keeping a perfect WP:NPOV, a serious problem Reece has, which can be based off the entire discussion and his other edits as explained by the OP. @Atama: Just saying, he was referring to Homeostasis' block history. NOTHERE might not apply, but WP:COMPETENCE clearly does. When there is clear WP:CONSENSUS he has to learn to drop it, not just keep harassing editors for days and pressing the issue. I feel like this user has attempted to drag my name through the mud on way too many pages through this, as can be seen through the 5+ user talk pages he was canvassing his malicious harassment [99], [100], [101], [102], [103] through. STATic message me! 00:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, it was my block history Reece was referring to, and not Static's. That was a block for 3RR 6 months ago. Since then, I've not come close to infringing 3RR (ie, lesson learned), so, again, this is just another example of Reece saying anything he can to discredit another editor's position. Attempting to use a 3RR block to suggest that I'm "biased" against a particular subject (see the last 4 diffs Static posted above) isn't cool. Homeostasis07 (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Bringing this discussion back from the dead. I would like to see some sort of action against this user for the extremely inappropriate behavior as detailed above. The user seems to believe this was "declined" and they have done no wrong, which is clearly incorrect. Since the last comment they have added a false certification which ties in with the WP:NPOV issue bung up above, started genre warring, not abiding by BRD, which they are aware of, and have resorted back to the personal attacks and refusal to not focus every single post to comment on other users rather then the topic at hand. STATic message me! 09:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

    Certainly not declined - what User:Reece Leonard should have got from this discussion is that ANY future similar behaviour would lead to a block. Consensus above was that their behaviour was problematic. As they were involved in the discussion, they know that. You cannot get more of a warning that to have your wrist slapped by consensus. They ALSO learned from above that STATicVapor's actions were NOT overall problematic - again, a good thing to have learned DP 10:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Civility - Harassment

    I am being harassed by Parrot_Of_Doom who has been abusive, rude, insulting, condescending, and called me a racist fool. He disrupts my editing, and is purposely trying to discourage my participation. He has a serious attitude problem. This has been on-going for about a week now. Please, I need an Administrator to resolve this situation. Atsme (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The best way to resolve this is to discuss with PoD and others the issues you believe are relevant in the content dispute in which you are engaged at Anjem Choudary. Leaky Caldron 10:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more than that. I've already been through all those steps. It isn't content - I need an Administrator who can resolve issue. It has escalated beyond discussion. Should I go straight to Arbitration? Atsme (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs? "racist fool" looks like a quote/paraphrase, but you didn't show where this was said. I provided detailed evidence of my grievance a few sections above and have received zero input for the last eleven hours. Seems a little unfair. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    [104] Other users shouldn't have to ctrl+f the subject's contributions page. And the Daily Mail is not the best of sources to begin with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=598254526"