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 Susan Macafee (talk | contribs) at 03:04, 26 June 2014 (→WP:IUC and WP:OWN by USER:Susan Macafee for The Ribbon International). 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)

    Start a new discussion


    User:LardoBalsamico's personal attacks, false accusations and "gaming the system" behaviours

    User is blocked and has indicated they are retiring. Closing with no prejudice against reopening if they return. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    My original and second request got arcihived, that's why I am copying this from the archives.

    Repost of original thread

    I need help with this user and this article about an issue that has been going on for a long time. Here's the situation; It all started on February, I read this article, 2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal and after reading it found out that it lacks a neutral point of view. So I started to edit it and after doing it, wrote every reason for my edits on the main editor's talk page, who is Lardo Balsamico. You can see them here. As you can see LardoBalsamico replied with only one sentence and didn't answer my second question. Then, I made my case to the NPOV board. It didn't get ant reply so it got "backlogged." Then I made my case to the dispute resolution board. First, it was denied because my case was already on the NPOV board but then the case was closed because user LardoBalsamico didn't join in the discussion.

    Then I made my case to request for a comment section, it stayed there for 22 days (got no reply) then as suggested by wikipedia help line I moved my case to the NPOV board which is there for 2 months. (you can also read my case about the article lacking neutral point of view here) As you can see, I went through all the dispute resolving solutions but the user LardoBalsamico didn't join in.

    Now, please, take a look at this talk page and this one. As you can see, every time I try to reach a consensus with LardoBalsamico, he doesn't write back, and if he does he's just stating a rule and not leaving any room to discuss his edits as you can see from these examples: [1], [2].

    Another issue with this user is while his edits are always perfect, the edits that doesn't fit wih his ways is either "vandalism" or "misleading info" Just look at at this, he deletes a referenced part from the article by saying that it is misleading info even though it is from one of the Turkey's best selling newspaper! Another interesting thing about this user is, if you look at this edit, I wrote a reason for my edit stating that the user has no reason to write about this article everywhere but after just 1 day he wrote it again to two [3] diffrent articles.

    What's more interesting about this user is; through my research, I found out that exactly the same thing happened to another user. As you can see here, LardoBalsamico did the same things to another user. So, it is really clear that he lacks a neutral point of view about this issue and also it is very clear that he is "gaming the system". I need your help with this user because, as you can see, I have ran out of options to deal with him. Thanks for taking the time to read my request, and if you have any questions about this, I am always ready to answer. Thanks.Rivaner (talk) 06:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC) I have notified the user about this but he blanked his talk page, here's my notification.Rivaner (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Today, user LardoBalsamico escalated the issue to personal attacks by calling me a "fanboy" and also suggesting me to "get a life". You can see this from here As you can see the more civil I try to be, he is doing the exact opposite. Also he posted some warnings on my talk page as well. I read the warnings and it is very clear that these warnings can also be posted on his talk page as well. To stop edit warring, I made a decision not to revert any of his edits untill this case is closed here. Again, thanks for taking the time to read my request and if you have any questions, I am always ready to answer.Rivaner (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hopefully his time it will work. Thanks for taking the time to read my request.Rivaner (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Now, the user in clear violation of another rule. First, NPOV, then personal attacks. As you can see above he never joins the discussions as well. Please, help me with this situation. Rivaner (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I haven't looked into it in detail, but it seems like the user in question has some slight ownership problems - and they've been editing the article since 2011, and haven't allowed anyone else to do much. (By the way, if you want to keep this thread from getting archived, just post a new comment on it every few days.) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    As suggested, I've changed all the links to diffs.Rivaner (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Today, I double-checked my actions and changed all the direct links that I can to diffs. Some of them are still direct links but there's no way to change those to diffs as they show clear proves of all the actions related to my request here. Thanks for the suggestion, hope it is readable now.Rivaner (talk) 04:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User LardoBalsamico is continuing his personal attacks and also breaking another wikipedia policy (he was warned about this before). You can see this here.Rivaner (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User LardoBalsamico is continuing his personal attacks while reverting my justified edits. You can the personal attacks; here, here and here.Rivaner (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I was blocked by a report from user LardoBalsamico who used personal attacks even on his report.Rivaner (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I updated the original post since there were some changes in related diffs.Rivaner (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I can confirm user Rivaner's complaints and reports. The reported user LardoBalsamico doesn't seem to have any will of contributing constructively, rather seems to be on a propaganda and POV-pushing mission, in favour of a certain sports club. Please consider sanctioning him accordingly. Akocsg (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And where would the diffs to back up those allegations be? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Rivaner and User:akocsg are both Fenerbahce fans. Here is the link https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullan%C4%B1c%C4%B1:Akocsg . And please take a look at Rivaner's articles. They are cooperating each other for this issue. And they know english speakers do not understand the turkish sources in this article and they are manipulating them easily. Why is Rivaner here? Because he has been appointed by his club to take care of this issue. Do we permit this? Do we let the club official change all the things which were based on sources? Do we let manipulate the things? LardoBalsamico (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Now now, what is this? Are you already starting to personally attack users even here? First of all, no one is cooperating here. That's what you probably do, but I personally never had contact with the user Rivaner, he only left me a message on my page, that's all. The only one manipulating is you, and I will show some examples very soon, also for the admins. I will also show how you included swearing in the Turkish language in one of your alleged "sources"! You even falsely accuse users (me and Rivaner in this case) here who rightfully take care of your propagandistic and biased stuff to be appointed by a sports club? Seriously? I hope these personal attacks of you won't go unpunished once again! Akocsg (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skamecrazy123 Here are the diffs: 1 including the swearing in Turkish: "bursaspor-macinin-oncesinden-tarih-serefsizleri-yazar-hic-unutmaz/ Tarih şerefsizleri yazar, hiç unutmaz" Translation to English: "Before the match against Bursaspor, history will write down the honourless, and never forget them" Honourless is a serious offensive word in Turkish. It's what he wrote and labelled the source as, or a source to blackmail the other side and propagate his own cause, either way it's an offense and needs to be sanctioned. 2 An article that ony serves the purpose of propaganda, the incident has nothing to do with match-fixing at all, plus that incident is already mentioned in another article. Despite all this the user still insists on it and keeps reverting to the false, propagandistic version that is absolutely contrary to the standards of Wikipedia. If you check out the relevant articles you should hopefully get the idea. I hope this is enough to show that the User LardoBalsamico needs to be sanctioned anyway. Akocsg (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to ask LardoBalsamico for proofs of his allegations. I am not appointed by Fenerbahce, I don't work for the club. If this allegation is not proven by him, it is, again, a personal attack.
    It is true that I've contacted Akocsg. The only reason I did was he wrote that LardoBalsamico's actions need attention, So, not wanting him to start things from the beginning, I've told him where LardoBalsamico's actions are already being questioned.Rivaner (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal attacks? This is yours, right? https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullan%C4%B1c%C4%B1:Akocsg How can it be personal if it is yours? You have to understand that wikipedia is not a football fan page. Have you ever read all of my articles? No? Then how do you know me? 2 Fenerbahce fans against me and that is the problem.

    Rivaner only cares about this article. Why? Because he has been appointed by the club! Yes, this is true. It is the proof! http://forum.12numara.org/forum.php Unfortunately, this forum is closed to the visitors!

    The paragraph that starts with "Personal attacks?" and also the paragraph that starts with "Rivaner only cares..." are comments made by LardoBalsamico.(no signtature).Rivaner (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The link that LardoBalsamico shared is a Fenerbahce Fan Site's forum which I am not even a member. (If it is needed I can share my e-mail adress with an admin so he/she can ask for a password retrival and see the warning that my e-mail adress is not in their database.) I might add (not that it is needed) it is not officaly related to Fenerbahce Sports Club.Rivaner (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC) Also to answer LardoBalsamico's accusation of "manipulating the references": no. That is exactly the opposite of what I am doing. That is what he is doing. The only reason I edit warred with this user was because he was exactly doing that. I will share some diffs now and if you check my edit reasons you will see who is doing what:[reply]

    1, 2, 3, 4, 5Rivaner (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's an another proof of LardoBalsamico's biased views. Please, take look at the article that is mentioned by Akocsg, If you look at when it got created and also when it entered the Turkish Basketball Championship article (both by the same user), you will see that there is 3 year difference between them. Also if you check this diff from another article and also it's creation date, you will see why there is a 3 years of difference between two articles. You will understand the user's main intention.Rivaner (talk) 06:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your time.Rivaner (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Today I deleted most parts of the 2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal and gave my reason for it and to my shock and suprise user LardoBalsamico has agreed with me. That is why I deleted all the parts related to that article in my request. I am still keeping my request because as you can see, user's behavior is more than just POV edits.Rivaner (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:CorporateM

    There has been a long-standing content discussion at ResearchGate. User:CorporateM has suddenly descended and made wholesale changes to the article. ([4] but see numerous individual edit summaries). In response to my attempt to cordially challenge their bold editing, User:CorporateM has declared that s/he need not carry on a discussion with me and specifically challenged me to go to ANI if I want to proceed any further.[5]

    If people here want to get into the content discussion, then I suppose they'll do so. It wouldn't hurt to have some more experienced editors get involved, as long as they are willing to listen and engage. For the present purpose, though, all that is needed is a judgment regarding User:CorporateM's disdainful tactics. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I was referring to the discussion already taking place at AN, which is what drew my attention to the article. CorporateM (Talk) 18:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not aware of that discussion. Nevertheless, 1) it is not clear to me which of your statements you are trying to excuse by saying you were referring to that discussion, and 2) Your snap judgments remain breathtaking. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spam issue notwithstanding: It certainly has been dramatically changed, in a fashion that removes almost entirely all criticism from the article. While the structure of the article may not be ideal, and criticism sections are not favored, I don't agree that the sources for that negative information are quite as crappy as has been suggested by CorporateM. For instance, this blog[6] seems to fit within the parameters described in the weblogs section of WP:RSE. "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer." However, despite the challenge to go to AN/I, I don't think this is the place to discuss such things. Coretheapple (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very frustrating that I cleanup thousands of bytes of promotion without a hitch, but every time I remove equally poorly-sourced criticisms, there is an incredible amount of resistance and every possible reason is found to keep as much as possible, often using extreme interpretations of primary sources, advocacy sources, or blogs. To use a blog as an expert source, the author needs to be a renown expert within their field. There's plenty of source material in The New York Times and no reason to rely on a much less source like a blog from a library. CorporateM (Talk) 18:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coretheapple: Thank you, that is exactly the argument I have made about that source. I agree that this is not the place for a content discussion. If your response can be taken as a nudge for CorporateM to engage in discussion instead of expecting their dictates to be followed uncritically, then we are probably done here.
    @CorporateM: As I've said, I appreciate your general orientation to improve articles of this kind, and I can't speak to what you have encountered at other articles. Content discussion continued in the appropriate place. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @CorporateM: The New York Times, and other news papers are not always a good source either. More often than not, a company can feed a press release to e.g. Reuters, and it will end up with minor changes in a dozen of newspapers; without much independent verification! ResearchGate is very good at this game, as seen with STAP cells. E.g. on Wired [7] and GigaOm [8] they dropped the headline "Major stem cell study debunked on scientific social network", despite the study having being "debunked" a month earlier outside of ResearchGate... and dozens of sites copied this: [9]. Paul Knoepfler, a researcher who did most of the "debunking" commented on Twitter: [10]...
    Of course New York Times will not report e.g. on the potential dangers of uploading your publications to Researchgate. We have to rely on sources such as the Swinburne Library ("blog") - an NPO institution with the responsibility to assist researchers at publishing - to point out potential copyright problems with the RG approach.
    Nor will the New York Times publish an article like "sorry, STAP cells were debunked before RG". Negative results just don't get published as well as press releases. In other words: news aren't good sources for anything that can write press releases full of self-advertising. And there are plenty of articles just packed with references such as that: New Relic, ZocDoc, Zoosk, Apptio, Software analytics. All packed with "references" from "news" such as ZDNet, CNet, TechChrunch; which happily "rewrite" ("retweet"?) press releases by companies. Are such sites really better than a university library? The rule "if it has 'news' in its name it is good, if it has 'blog' in its name it is bad" is too simple. --188.98.212.25 (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that this is the first edit ever made from this IP, I'm presuming that it is from Blue. I am also presuming that he/she merely forgot to login and that it was not an intentional effort at socking. Anyways, this discussion belongs at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I would encourage you to start a string there after the AN/ANI discussions have been archived, presuming the topic isn't adequately discussed here. Editors may choose to discuss it here per NOTBUREAU.
    Blogs are acceptable in certain rare circumstances, for example when they are authored by a renown expert in the field. Merely being published on a library blog I don't think makes it even close to acceptable, especially since there is no bio on the author and google searches do not reveal anything to suggest the author is an expert in online communities (or whatever ResearchGate is).
    What you would need to provide to show that the source is acceptable is that the author is a respected expert in a related field by being off-cited by reliable sources. The comparison of "some blog" to the New York Times is not really a credible comparison. Press releases published by NYT are clearly labeled as such and are not reliable sources. Actual stories are not just reposts of press releases. CorporateM (Talk) 20:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely did not write that.
    I have already said that the content discussion needs to take place on the article talk page. All that's needed here is to affirm that you must engage in discussion if you expect your edits to gain consensus. I think Coretheapple has already said what needs to be said on that point. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:HOUNDING and WP:OWN by User:Dan56

    It is clear nothing will be achieved by keeping this open. If I spot a user making what I see as questionable edits, then I will review their recent ones; That is just (fairly) standard practice. It seems here that the two users have clashed, and I would advise them to try and keep away from clashing over articles - we have talk pages for a reason. I would also encourage Dan56 to assume more good faith when dealing with new users. Overall, there does not seem to be concrete evidence of hounding or ownership, however if further evidence is found (or pointed out to ) a previously uninvolved user, there should not be any prejudice against reopening. --Mdann52talk to me! 12:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    During the last week, Dan56 has reverted nearly every contribution I've made to several articles that he apparently thinks he owns.

    There are others that I don't feel like digging up, but the point is that he seems to be following me around and reverting my helpful edits for no other reason than he wants it his way. I am feeling bullied. Like he is trying to drive me away from articles on his watchlist. Is this appropriate behavior? Harmelodix (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm guessing all three of those are on Dan's watchlist given he'd made contribs to all three of those articles prior to the reverts in question. As such, I don't think it's really fair to call it hounding. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    By that logic, one could never be said to hound anyone at a page that they had previously edited, which sounds like a dangerous tangent to WP:OWN. Harmelodix (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it means that you have to provide better evidence than three articles where you were reverted that Dan had previously edited. Honestly, I would go so far as to say that the accusations of hounding and WP:OWN don't make a whole lot of sense together. Hounding suggests that an editor is (inappropriately) going out of his way to follow you around and revert your edits. Ownership suggests that an editor is excessively sensitive to any edits to articles he believes he owns. If Dan is extra sensitive to edits to those three articles, how is it hounding? How are you being singled out in that case? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Its ownership because he vehemently protects his preferred version and its hounding because he has reverted me at multiple pages on the same day, as if to send a message that I cannot edit pages he watches. Harmelodix (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But he didn't revert you on multiple pages on the same day, per the diffs you've provided. He reverted you seven times over the course of nine days. The most he reverted you on one day was twice. Calidum Talk To Me 18:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Dan56 has a long history of edit-warring over tiny details on music-related articles. I had hoped this editor was maturing. This looks like a fight over commas. This revert suggests that they don't see any actual difference between versions. The editor says their own edit is unnecessary, while making it. Why change it back if it doesn't make a difference?__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't see hounding. The edit you made on June 12 he reverted here is one that made no sense. From that, it's reasonable to assume he paid extra scrutiny to the edits you've been making. I may be wrong, but I don't see any attempt on your part to discuss this with him before taking it here. Calidum Talk To Me 18:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hounding

    On 12 June, Dan56 reverted me at two different pages in the same minute. @ Modern Vampires of the City and @ Heavy metal music. How much thought is he putting into reverting me if he can make two reverts on two different pages in the same minute? Harmelodix (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    What about this Calidum? Harmelodix (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    He reverted those edits five hours after you made them. That gives him plenty of time to do review them, especially when both reverts seem perfectly reasonable. Calidum Talk To Me 19:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But its still reverting me at two different pages on the same day, right, and above you said: "But he didn't revert you on multiple pages on the same day". Harmelodix (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course, regardless of Dan56's behavior, these need to be looked at: [14] and [15].__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not me, but take a good look at Dan56's edit history and you'll see him accusing anyone who makes the mistake of editing his pages. Harmelodix (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the point was that this all happens after Dan56 accused you of being a sockpuppet, and you weren't found to be one on technical grounds.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Mindless reversions

    Look at Dan56's edit history. On June 6, starting at 01:37, Dan56 makes 10 reverts in 3 minutes! He reverted Jedi94 four times at four different articles in one minute! Do you really think that he is taking the time to look at these edits, or is he just reverting anyone who edits pages on his watch list? Harmelodix (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    So wait, you're saying that it is hounding because he also reverted someone else's edits? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    He's hounding not just me but others as well. The community should be concerned about this pattern. Harmelodix (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor interaction tool shows that Dan56 was already editing every article where you two interacted, save for the Free jazz article where you were first. This means that Dan56 is not hounding you; rather, you are showing up at articles he's already interested in. You added a musician image to Free jazz which Dan56 did not remove. You had already been reverted by Sabred at Heavy metal music before Dan56 reverted your change. At Master of Reality, both of you contributed to the article without reverting the other. So it appears to me that Dan56 is carefully assessing the changes you have made to articles he watches, and then he reverts the parts he thinks are not good. I think there's no need for action from administrators here. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How can he make 10 reverts in 3 minutes if he "is carefully assessing the changes ... made to articles he watches"? Harmelodix (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Where does it say that if you edited the page first you can't be said to hound anyone there ever? So, whoever is there first is immune to hounding blocks? Says who, Binksternet? Harmelodix (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • On June 18, Dan56 reverted me at two different pages: @ Get Rich or Die Tryin' (album) and @ Modern Vampires of the City. This makes the fourth such day in a week where he reverted me at two different pages in the same day - most of these are consecutive edits. Please see: June 9, 10, 12 and 18. Harmelodix (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Boy, I'm afraid of what it would look like if someone started picking through my contribs with the intensity you seem to be picking through Dan's. Having someone go through my contribs with such a fine-toothed comb in response to my reverting a few of their edits might have a chilling effect on my editing. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now you're just trolling, IMO. Just above you said: "I urge you to read WP:HOUNDING, and after doing so either provide clear evidence that Dan's behavior matches that definition of hounding, or give up on this report." Nice try! Harmelodix (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • (edit conflict) I did no such thing. I advised you to provide evidence, in the form of diffs, that Dan is hounding you. This shouldn't require you to go through his contribs like you're dissecting a frog. If he's been hounding you this should be obvious without having to do the kind of forensic accounting you're attempting to do here. —/Mendaliv/2¢ /Δ's/ 21:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC) (partly stricken due to Harmelodix's modifications to the comment to which I replied)[reply]
            • So, "either provide clear evidence that Dan's behavior matches that definition of hounding, or give up on this report", but do so without looking at his contributions? Can you please provide an example of "evidence" that does not require a diff? Harmelodix (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm just doing my best here. Calidum said that two reverts on two pages in a short span is frowned upon, so I provided 4 examples of Dan56 doing that to me in one week and 2 examples of Dan56 doing that others. He hounds everybody off his articles, its not just me. How can he make 10 reverts in 3 minutes unless he is reverting editors when he should be reverting bad contributions. This is a widespread problem with this editor and I don't think I am wrong to bring this to the community's attention. Harmelodix (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some conclusions: Having discussed this briefly with Harmelodix at my user talk, I took another, closer look at this on my own. I am not comfortable saying there's hounding, though if Dan had a similar series of reverts within the next couple weeks, or if the series of reverts continued for a few more days, and there was an indication that Dan's behavior (see below) were targeted specifically at Harmelodix, I'd feel his behavior was at least questionable.
      All that said, I do not think Dan's hands are clean here. Some of his reverts are questionable: Reverting here to revert Harmelodix's "unexplained removal", for instance struck me as odd; it's not an "unexplained removal" in the content blanking sense. Harmelodix merely restructured the first two sentences. If Dan's intent was to invoke WP:BRD, he should have explained it and started a discussion. This revert, which the edit summary says was in order to revert an unexplained reversion... is just weird. I believe that Dan's behavior in these articles is a bit controlling; I'm not prepared to invoke WP:OWN just yet, but it's what I'd call petty. Wikipedia doesn't need to have the exact verbiage that Dan prefers.
      Moreover, given Harmelodix is a relatively new user (less than two weeks and 200 edits), I think Dan's inscrutable edit summaries, picky reasons for reverting, and curious unwillingness to engage in discussion at article talk pages serve to violate WP:BITE. While I don't think a sanction is needed at this point, Dan needs to try to work with Harmelodix rather than revert when he sees something he disagrees. Wikipedia is a group project, not an adversarial proceeding; work needs to take the form of a collaboration, not a negotiation with offers and counter-offers.
      Finally, I would formally warn Dan that WP:TEDIOUS is a redirect for "tendentious editing": if his intent is to suggest that another editor's edits are tedious, he should not be putting that link in his edit summaries (I would also argue that calling another editor's edits "tedious" is not particularly friendly). If, however, his intent is to argue that Harmelodix is engaged in tendentious editing, he would be well advised to make a showing of proof. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the thoughtful and well-reasoned comments, Medaliv. I think its important to note that, while Dan56 has decided to not discuss this issue with us here, he has continued his mindless reverting at articles that he edits. Just an hour ago, starting at 16:18, 22 June 2014, Dan56 reverted Joe Vitale 5 FIVE TIMES in 2 minutes! Can someone please address his disruptive and alienating behavior of mindlessly reverting editors that contribute to Wikipedia. Dan56 is all but killing WP:BOLD at any article that he edits. Harmelodix (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whose hounding who now? Instead of "mindlessly reverting" as you claim, Dan posted to the other editor's talk page to explain the reverts [16]. I also don't get your obsession with 'he made X reverts in Y minutes.' How long do you think it takes to review each edit? Calidum Talk To Me 22:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree that Harmelodix is going a little far here, he does point out some problems that Dan should address. Again, while I'm not willing to call Dan's conduct hounding or ownership at this point, it's something that should be addressed. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Continued ownership issues with Dan56
    • Mendaliv, above you said "if Dan had a similar series of reverts within the next couple weeks, or if the series of reverts continued for a few more days, and there was an indication that Dan's behavior (see below) were targeted specifically at Harmelodix, I'd feel his behavior was at least questionable." On June 20 I added this review, to an article, which Dan56 then reverted with the edit summary: "Not a quotefarm for impertinent, off-topic lines that deviate from the section", which is odd because the section is titled "Legacy and influence", which is exactly what the quote spoke to. So, since Dan56 didn't want a quote from MusicHound, I accepted that and went to the talk page to discuss. In the meantime I added just the review score to the review box with no in-line prose, and today Dan56 has also reverted that sourced addition, citing the titles lack of notability. I think this demonstrates a serious ownership issue with this user, who resists any and all change at articles on his watchlist. Harmelodix (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surprise, surprise, Harmelodix is telling half-truths again. Sure, Dan did revert your addition of the MusicHound quote. But you conveniently fail to mention that he re-added part of the quote back in the proper place soon after [17]. Calidum Talk To Me 17:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't tying to mislead anyone, but technically that's still a partial revert, as he undid most of my intended edit. Still, how do you justify Dan56's reversion of my sourced addition of the review score? Harmelodix (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Calidum: I don't think it's really fair to demand Harmelodix exhibit full compliance with our normal community standards on pain of his edits being subject to continued reversion without comment. I really don't see an effort by Dan to discuss the edits–and I mean a real effort, not just a template and an impersonal demand to follow policy. While Harmelodix's response could have been better worded, that should not have been Dan's signal to just ignore him and keep reverting. Even if Dan really did think Harmelodix was a sock of a blocked editor, as he evidently did. @Dan56: Can you please try to discuss your concerns with Harmelodix, or provide a satisfactory explanation for why you refuse to do so? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mendaliv, Dan56, after a 12-hour break from editing has come back and reverted me at three different pages in three consecutive edits: 1st revert, 2nd revert, and 3rd revert. Yes, its true that these are all partial reverts, but in light of the above discussion I think it demonstrates incredibly poor judgment on Dan's part to do this now. So, can he revert me at three different articles in 10 minutes after all that's been said, or is this evidence of some serious ownership issues with this user? Harmelodix (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Mendaliv, I haven't ignored him. I've responded in edit summaries (where I've made my points) and the discussion they opened at Talk:New York Dolls (album). Otherwise, WP:ANI is not the appropriate place to go through their edits, article-by-article. Harmelodix, for someone who has criticized my writing and grammar, you have not shown a grasp of prose quality and Wikipedia guidelines either, which I have cited for you when I refined your additions for the good of the articles. I shouldn't have to defend myself after being insulted. If you truly believe the entirety of your additions suit the article better (rather than my original suspicion of you editing articles on my watchlist/that I've contributed to significantly just to prove a point), try starting a discussion at the relevant talk page with legitimate responses to what I've explained in my edit summaries (WP:BOLD). And as Calidum pointed out earlier, the time frame of my edits is irrelevant--as you probably knew, those articles are on my watchlist, and many of the articles you've made your edits at were to articles listed at my user page. Dan56 (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dan56: "Discussion" in the form of edit summary repartee is hardly discussion. You've been around long enough to know this. Anyway, I see discussion is ongoing at Talk:New York Dolls (album). We're probably done here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Mendaliv, where did I say that it was? Dan56 (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we have similar tastes in music, so there is some overlap, but I am not doing anything except contributing to Wikipedia, and you should assume good faith. I am a professional writer in RL, so your statement that my writing is of a poor quality does not hold water. I am sorry I was rude to you at my talk page, but you slapped me those templates and warnings when I had done nothing wrong, and I reacted immaturely. But as Mendaliv said above, "Wikipedia doesn't need to have the exact verbiage that Dan prefers." You need a revert restriction. Harmelodix (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, so your additions are beyond reproach? Btw, I used a level-1 templated message for you not using an edit summary--hardly a warning, if anything a welcoming message, so there's no need to be sensitive about it when I did nothing wrong with what I wrote at your talk page. My "exact verbiage" needn't be under scrutiny here, when your changes haven't been justified. Furthermore, those templated messages are designed for what I've used them for (WP:UW). Dan56 (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    When you say that my "changes haven't been justified", are you implying that I need to request permission from you before I edit Wikipedia? What about WP:BOLD? Harmelodix (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, WP:BOLD, you make a bold revision, it gets reverted, you start a discussion. Apart from Talk:New York Dolls (album), you haven't done so for the majority of your revisions. Instead, you've left antagonistic messages in your edit summaries (even at WP:ANI), starting with your first response to my messages at your talk page. Dan56 (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused here. This sounds like I am not allowed to edit any articles that Dan56 has edited, but he's edited most of the good ones. How do I know what's on his watchlist? This seems like a way to game the system, so Dan56 can abuse all the new editors that edit pages he likes. Harmelodix (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How would one know? My user page and contributions history would give one a hint, as it has in the past (WP:ANI/Archive842) Dan56 (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But how many pages are on your watchlist? 500 or more of the most interesting music articles? Harmelodix (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The same could be said for almost any newer user with narrower tastes then yours, but interested in the same veins. You aren't the only person who like jazz, R&B and rock music, and your dominance over so many articles makes your complaints self-fulfilling. I try to edit articles that you don't but it doesn't seem right that everyone needs to avoid your articles. You staked a big claim that makes avoiding you impossible. Harmelodix (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Past ANI revisited

    Calidum, Mendaliv, in light of this POINTY revision (another from an editor who shares a history of tedious grammatical changes with Jazzerino to articles listed at my user page), I think it's time for a more serious look at my previous ANI regarding this user (WP:ANI#More possible sock puppetry related to Jazzerino). Btw, this revision was made right after the remark I left right above this subsection. Dan56 (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Like I said there: you are paranoid about socks, but I was checked and I am not a sock, so you really should stop accusing me, because its beginning to cross a line into WP:NPA. Harmelodix (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a big difference between a sock and a user who edited as an IP for several years, but only recently made an account. BTW, I made the account because I was sick of being reverted and disrespected as an IP, so thanks for biting me asap!!. Harmelodix (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice try to distract others and discredit me, but now you are really being a jerk with this reversion. My edit made the prose more coherent musically; I was probably aided by my minor in music theory, but then a Bachelor's degree in journalism that I earned from a major university wouldn't make me a good Wikipedia editor either, would it? Is this how Wikipedia is supposed to work?Harmelodix (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Juzumaru continuing personal attacks and disruptive editing

    JUZUMARU BLOCKED INDEFINITELY
    Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Juzumaru (talk · contribs) is a SPA whose every single edit has been to remove references to South Korea from articles on Japan, or to push an anti-Korean POV. He almost never cites sources. Most of his edits have simply removed text, but when he writes his own text the English is laughable at best and barely intelligible at worst. On at least one occasion he has used translation software to post almost completely incomprehensibly on talk pages.[18] When I called him out on his disruptive edits to the Yamanoue no Okura article, in which he flagrantly rejected the overwhelming consensus of Japanese scholarship, he engaged me in a months-long dispute (see Talk:Yamanoue no Okura/Archive 1 for a small taste) in which he was told by several users including User:Ross Hill[19] that since his English is so poor he should probably be editing Japanese Wikipedia instead. His immediate response was to go to Japanese Wikipedia and essentially say "Come at me bro. Discuss English Wikipedia problems with me here in Japanese." When I rejected that ridiculous request, he came right back here to continue his previous behaviour.

    Now he's reemerged after more than a month of inactivity, and posted a personal attack against me in Japanese ("I actually check reliable sources while you just post what you saw on YouTube ... while I actually have a life, you seem to devote all your time during Christmas and New Year to Wikipedia"), and again requested that I refrain from reverting him on English Wikipedia if I am unwilling to discuss with him on Japanese Wikipedia. (His "reliable sources" are fringe books and/or old works that don't actually contradict me, while "what you saw on YouTube" is a reference to a scholarly lecture on Japanese literature uploaded on Stanford University's official channel.)

    Since he is WP:NOTHERE and has never actually contributed anything to Wikipedia I'm beginning to think the only reasonable solution would be a block. I outright refuse to use Japanese Wikipedia to discuss problems on English Wikipedia, and while I'm capable of using Japanese to discuss with him on talk pages here, he simply refuses to listen even when I do. After 6 months I've had enough of it.

    126.0.96.220 (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And so no one thinks this is just a content dispute on the Okura article flaring up again, User:Sturmgewehr88 and User:Shii can back me up that that dispute was resolved months ago and there is literally no chance of JZ getting his way on that page. The problem is WP:NOTHERE, personal attacks, baiting and inability to communicate in English. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just giving what I think, so sorry if I have any bias: This issue should not need to involve multiple Wikipedia's for the incident. Also, it does not look good on Juzumaru's part to have said "But Juzumaru not interested in Hijiri." in the below section. This makes it appear that Juzumaru does not want to try to cooperate. On the other side, the user editing as 126.0.96.220 should not have acted a bit insulting towards Juzumaru in the below section, although that is not so important here. Dustin (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-topic content dispute.

    Juzumaru's Talk

    Hijiri insisted that well-known Japanese poet Yamanoue-Okura was a Korean (Hijiri's source was Youtube). I pointed out his mistake using Journal of Aoki Kazuo and Saeki Arikiyo. ((My source "Research of Shinsen-Shojiroku"（新撰姓氏録の基礎的研究）was awarded the Japan Academy Prize (academics) in 1984. [20].) He has insulted me in Japanese. Because Hijiri can not understand the class system of ancient Japan(Kabane system), this controversy has been dismissed Hijiri's claim. By This incident of about 7 months ago, Hijiri came to demand my death penalty many times. (For me, this incident is past.) I graduated from University in March of this year. And greatly reduced my Wikipedia edits[21]. However, Hijiri will not end this war until he makes me death penalty.... --Juzumaru (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    No. The scholarly consensus is that Okura was originally an immigrant from the kingdom of Baekje (not, as Juzumaru has consistently accused me of claiming "South Korea"). I cited literally dozens of sources over the two-month dispute, almost all written by specialists in the field. But the worst part about this is that the dispute was literally solved months ago, and Juzumaru has ginned it back up in the last two days just to spite me.
    @User:Sturmgewehr88, User:Shii & User:Cuchullain (the other users who commented in the debate): Can you set this person straight?
    126.0.96.220 (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This war is also initiated by Hijiri 88.

    Juzumaruさん、どうか私の活動をじっと見ているのをご遠慮ください。続けていたらまたANIになりますよ。あなたもDwyさんと同じように仲間がいなくて、ウィキペディアのコミュニティにあなたの活動を公開したらきっとブロックになってしまいますよ。[22]

    I appreciated him and ignored the personal remarks by him.

    すいません。私は実生活の仲間との交流が忙しくて、あなたのことは忘れていました。とりあえず、お疲れ様。[23]

    And I explained that I could hardly participate in Wikipedia for the Busyness. And I broke off this conversation.

    とりあえず、しばらくは実生活が忙しいので、よきにはからっておいてください。 [24]

    However, he kept abusing me in Japanese afterwards. Therefore, I answered in Japanese Wikipedia. Hijiri deleted my remark and appealed to a admin-board.[25] Hijiri made the same act Juzumaru in Japanese edition Wikipedia. Currently, Hijiri is rated extremely malicious users in Japanese edition Wikipedia.[[26]].

    In the end, Hijiri can use Juzumaru's talkpage of Japanese version Wikipedia.[27] If Hijiri observes the rule, the Japanese manager will do appropriate measures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juzumaru (talk • contribs) 10:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    See? The above nonsense comment is exactly what has been annoying me since December. The latter part of his comment is a reference to how over the last couple of days he (and one other good-faith user who doesn't know the background of the dispute, and apparently has even less English than Juzumaru) has been harassing me on ja.wiki. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri, I am sorry that I hurt your pride a half year ago. Your claim "Japan a famous poet Yamanoue-Okura is Korean" was an inadequate article. Once again, please read carefully my report.[28] There written contradiction of your argument.（It is cited from the journal's authoritative history scholars.) --Juzumaru (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    JZ, just shut the hell up. I NEVER claimed "Japan a famous poet Yamanoue-Okura is Korean" or whatever other Korean-nationalist bullshit you want to accuse me of. You are, and always have been, WRONG, as every other good-faith user involved in the dispute observed. That is why this problem was solve 4 months ago, and now we are here to discuss your behaviour in the intervening time. STOP bringing up old content disputes on ANI. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri. Please do not excited. About Japanese history, you were not able to argue against me at all. and in order to make the death penalty Juzumaru, every war was started by Hijiri. You can write both Japanese[29] and English [30]. But Juzumaru not interested in Hijiri. And the Juzumaru are busy. The reply is delayed --Juzumaru (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems English isn't working so I'm gonna post this in Japanese. Basically this thread is not about the content of the Okura article. Furthermore, discussion of article content is generally frowned upon on ANI. The content dispute in question was resolved 4 months ago with the input of a large number of users. If you have a problem with the consensus decision, please go to the article talk page and ask User:Shii and User:Sturmgewehr88 about changing the prior consensus. This discussion of article content is inappropriate for ANI, so I'm collapsing it. Please do not revert me.
    英語で伝わっていないようなのでこれだけ日本語で書かせていただきます。このスレッドは、憶良の記事と関係がありません。それにANIで記事の内容について論争するのは基本的に許されません。記事の内容に関しては、もう４ヶ月前にたくさんの利用者からのインプットで解決ができました。その解決方法に問題がありましたら、User:ShiiやUser:Sturmgewehr88の意見を記事のノートページで求めてください。この、ANIには不適切な話はcollapseさせていただきます。取り消さないでください。
    126.0.96.220 (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Juzumaru, Hijiri does not have to discuss English Wikipedia on your Japanese Wikipedia talk page. And Hijiri is not trying to "death penalty" you, and that is a very inappropriate thing to accuse someone of. The discussion on Yamanoue no Okura ended a long time ago, so please stop trying to change it unless you have concrete, reliable, and NPOV sources. The fact that you've repeatedly acted on explicit anti-Korean bias even after being warned merits some kind of sanction. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:VERIFY

    126.0.96.220, It would be helpful if you and Juzumaru could contrast the claims you've made and the WP:RS you've used. Please state claims as concisely as possible and provide links to sources. Otherwise, it will be difficult to adjudicate this dispute on any basis other than behavior, regardless of whether it was provoked by passive-aggressive WP:PUSH tactics.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    126.0.96.220 claim 1:

    • sources

    Juzumaru counterclaim 1:

    • sources

    126.0.96.220 claim 2:

    • sources

    Juzumaru counterclaim 2:

    • sources

    126.0.96.220 claim 3:

    • sources

    Juzumaru counterclaim 3:

    • sources
    See, that's exactly why I didn't want Juzumaru to bring up the content dispute. I presented numerous independent, reliable sources that supported my position (the first being a lecture given by Ian Hideo Levy at Stanford University). Juzumaru presented some other sources he found on a Google search that didn't support my position, but didn't contradict it either. There was a massive back and forth (hindered by a general lack of outside input). Eventually, User:Sturmgewehr88 and User:Shii came in and the dispute was resolved.
    But ANI is not the place to discuss content disputes. Especially not when the content disputes are already resolved.
    Now, the problem is that Juzumaru, who has never made a single worthwhile edit to Wikipedia, is WP:NOTHERE, and has resorted to making personal attacks against me. I'm just plain sick of it, and I don't see why I should put up with it.
    126.0.96.220 (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone out there? As someone else commented in the closed-off block, Juzumaru should be warned not to take en.wp disputes to ja.wp. That is forum shopping. Shii (tock) 00:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Juzumaru should be aware about the rules of ANI, and he should not bring content here. @126.0.96.220: I would like to see the diffs/edits that can be considered as "Anti Korean POV". Forum shopping is evident, like Shii pointed. I would just say that Juzumaru shouldn't be blocked or banned for these offenses, but he should stop targeting specific user for almost no reason. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, literally every single one of his edits from August 2012 to March 2014 has been in the service of an "anti-Korean" agenda. I use scare-quotes because in reality sometimes his edits are arguably pro-Korean POV. Either way, he clearly thinks he is fighting against a conspiracy by Korean nationalists. Here is a small taste. More (earlier) examples can be found in my old sandbox.
    Evidence of Juzumaru being a POV-pushing SPA.
    • "The leaders of the army Hideyoshi's Japan fought in the 1590s were all Chinese, not Korean."[31][32][33][34][35][36]JZ may or may not be wrong here. I don't frankly care. His Korean nationalist opponents can be just as annoying, but they tend to be easier to argue with.
    • "Koreans didn't win. Koreans lost. And the Korean navy failed. Cause Korea is a nation of losers. I may or may not be right. You can't tell, because I'm not going to cite any secondary sources."[37][38][39][40][41]
    • "Korean tradition dating the foundation of Korea to this period doesn't matter. If it's Korean, we shouldn't list legends, even if they are clearly marked as such."[42][43][44][45]Again, I haven't reverted him here because I actually sort-of agree with him (his Korean counterparts got their math wrong, as the edit in question belongs here instead), but his reasoning is fundamentally flawed, and the POV agenda is obvious.
    • "Koreans invaded Japan. And we must avoid using Korean names for treaties, places, etc. etc.. Cause Tsushima is not Korean. And Koreans are still losers."[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63]He's actually right on the substance here, as far as I'm concerned. But is anyone else noticing a pattern?
    • "Korea isn't a prosperous and affluent country. The facts are the facts. No need to state the reasons these facts came about."[64]
    • "Koreans didn't introduce Buddhism to Japan. One Korean introduced Buddhism to Japan. Sometimes one Korean person might just happen to do something important. But Koreans in general can't do anything."[65]Also, notice that the source he cites is in English, not Japanese. This means that even if he read the source -- something that's highly doubtful -- he probably wouldn't understand if the source actually supported his claim or not.
    • "People who think Okura's father was an immigrant from the Korean Peninsula are all Korean nationalists promoting a malicious Korean agenda. Even if they don't give a damn about Korea and are just trying to summarize what modern Japanese literary scholarship has to say."[66]Sorry. But that's literally all he had to say in that entire discussion. And he's still doing it here.
    • Umm ... okay ... you couldn't pay me to wade through his 100+ edits to Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98). Most of them appear to be edit-warring with equally disruptive pro-Korean POV-pushers. But his most recent string of edits look a little like "Detailed prose narratives about the deaths of the leaders of the war don't belong in this article. At least not as long as those leaders are Korean."[67]
    And that's just the articles he directly edited during his last 50 edits. Most of his recent edits have actually just been attacks against me. And he has branched out slightly since I told him to, so that now I can no longer count his non-Korean edits on a single hand. I need to use both hands now. As long as I only have three fingers on each hand.[68][69][70][71] Seriously. Even with an obvious trend of trying to cut back on the anti-Korean POV, a total of four of his last twenty-one edits have been something other that Korea-related edit-warring.
    126.0.96.220 (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for providing the diffs, I hope Juzumaru knows about WP:RGW and WP:NOTGOSSIP. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    TBAN&IBAN proposal

    126/Hijiri88's phone here. Since, as I demonstrated above, this user is not here to help build an encyclopedia, an indefinite block would work, but that proposal hasn't received much open support. I propose the following:

    Juzumaru is indefinitely banned from editing articles related to Japan-Korea relations (broadly construed). Juzumaru is banned from interacting with Hijiri88.

    Any thoughts? 182.249.240.43 (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User refusing to notify authors when tagging their articles for speedy

    69.181.253.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of patrolling new pages - yet as far as I can tell, they have never notified an author of the fact that one of their articles has been nominated for speedy deletion. (Anyone who wants to can feel free to check.) I've left them a number of template messages about it (probably too many, but I was hoping they would get the point), then an actual note about it [72], and finally, about a month ago, a warning that I would feel compelled to bring it up here if they didn't stop [73]. They then stopped altogether for quite a while, but today I was going through the new pages log and ran across a few articles they had tagged (most now deleted). I feel bad bringing this to ANI, since they contribute good work in other areas, but their continued WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude, as well as responses like this (repeated a number of times) shows that they don't have any plan to change. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:CSD, a Wikipedia policy, states, "Users nominating a page for speedy deletion...should notify the page creator and any major contributors." It's puzzling why the user is reticent to do this. Moreover, they were previously asked to notify article creators, and the IP received two suggestions to consider creating an account so that they could use Twinkle, which would have nipped the "notify page creator" issue in the bud. The corresponding conversation is confusing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Notification isn't mandatory or the policy would say "must" instead of "should". If this was part of a pattern of other behaviors, you might have a case, but if this is the only problem, I can't see a basis for admin action. It has been debated over the years, but suffice it to say that policy will likely never say "must". As Cyphiodbomb points out, notification is easier with Twinkle, but even Twinkle has the option to not notify the article creator, and in Twinkle preferences you can change the default to NOT notify. But yes, I think it is kind of rude to not notify, there just isn't anything in the admin tool kit I can use to "fix" it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Dennis has said it all. As long as notification is not mandatory there's nothing we can do to enforce it. That said, I agree that it is uncooperative to not inform content creators of speedy deletions. De728631 (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Dennis is correct, it's not required, so... it's not required. "Should" is not "must", and should not be read as such. If anything I'd say the barrage of template messages to an IP user is a greater sin than their not doing something optional. It's clear that they've read and understood your message, so there's no need to keep at it. As far as I can tell, their tagging is being done in good faith and their accuracy is reasonable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody really reads the CSD templates. It would be much better for newbies if you could write your own reason why you are speedy-tagging the article, and for A7/A9/A11 particularly, apologise that it was for the encyclopedia's own good and suggest userfying or AfC as an alternative. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a longterm supporter of the idea of putting an obligation on those who tag article for deletion to inform the author, OK there are some exception one should make, but the current situation allows for biting newbies by deleting their articles without any dialogue. However that would require a policy change, and I'm loathe to change policy by criticising those who follow it, if you want to change policy file an RFC, don't take people to the drama boards for following a policy that you disagree with. ϢereSpielChequers 13:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    While "should" does not mean "shall", it is a stronger term than "may". Some time ago I read an explanation of this as applied to law, specifically in the context of traffic rules. A driver "shall" stop at a red signal, and "should" slow when approaching such signal; that the motorist did not slow before coming to a stop at a red signal does not mean they are, as a matter of law, not responsible for the guy who rear-ended them. In much the same sense, I argue that this should be our approach here; if this IP is not notifying when they "should" be, the IP should be subject to some sanction. Should means something that is normally followed unless there's some rational reason not to follow it (in this case, e.g., the editor is banned). I would go so far as to argue that when we use "shall" or "must" in our guidance documents, we're describing policy; and when we use "should", we're describing a guideline. Of course, it should be confirmed that this language is actually descriptive of the current practice (I really think it is: it's so rare to see someone not notify the author). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I would go further: while disagreeing with WereSpielChequers - there are perfectly good reasons for not leaving a user message - but consistently failing to do so, even after repeated advice and reminders, constitutes disruptive behaviour. As such the account/IP is susceptible to indef blocking to prevent disruption to the project. They need to either start working with in community norms when CSD tagging, or stop CSD tagging (or of course, demonstrate a good reason to establish new norms). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC).
    I mostly agree with Rich. I wrote this when De72 was the latest replied, abandoned it due to EC and being unsure if it'll be helpful but I'll post it now. While there's no simple admin action that can be taken, the fact that the guideline or policy says should rather than must or similar doesn't mean that the editor can't be sanctioned by the community for disruption. I don't know much about the development of the speedy deletion guidelines but I imagine there are a number of reasons why it's not mandatory. For example there are probably cases when it makes no sense to notify, and similarly if someone does one or two clearly legitimate speedy deletions every 3 years it's likely not worth worrying whether or not they notify the creators.
    Remember there are plenty of other cases where the guideline says shall or should or whatever for similar reasons, it doesn't mean a person persistently refusing to do so even when most people feel they should isn't disruptive. (In other cases like here at ANI, the harm that comes from not notifying is accepted to outweigh the time wasted etc from people being force to notify even when it makes little sense so we do specify it 'must' be done.)
    In this particular case, beyond the request from the OP which seems to have been removed (which is the IP's right), I see plenty of requests from others. So the OP's already been repeatedly asked. And replies suggestion something has to be spelled out as mandatory in some guideline or policy somewhere before you will follow resonable requests by your fellow wikipedians is rarely a sign of someone who is collobrating with good community spirit.
    So you could try an RFC. Heck considering how many requests there has already been, you could even consider a topicban without an RFC if it's really merited. Whether any of that is merited or likely to suceed I can't say so I know to little about the case and history here. (Although the fact there's a template makes me suspect it may be disruptive.) Of course, if the editor involved is reading this hopefully they reconsider and none of it is necessary whatever the case.
    I know some people will complain about a lack of clarity but remember that to some extent it's intended to be that way as wikipedia operates per WP:NOTBURO etc. For example, WP:SIG doesn't actually say you must sign. But it does say if you persistently refuse to sign that may be seen as disruptive and even that's fairly new [74] and people got in to trouble for persistently refusing to sign before it was explicit in the policy.
    Similarly while the policy does try to outline what's allow and not allowed in signatures and is fairly explicit about a lot of stuff now, there are obviously grey areas or probably even stuff which just isn't mentioned. Yet if someone has a signature which seems disruptive to many with decent explainations of why, wikilawyering over whether it's actually forbidden by policy doesn't generally go well.
    And you can come up with plenty of other examples. E.g. while I don't know what the guidelines or policies actually say, I'm pretty sure there's none which say 'you must leave edit summaries'. At most they may say something like WP:SIG i.e. persistent refusal to leave edit summaries even when asked is likely to be seen as disruptive which is definitely how edit summaries are treated.
    Ultimately what it comes down to as I hinted earlier is if a lot of people are asking you to do something and willing to give good reasons if you ask, you'd better either do so or have good reasons not to do so. As I also said, arguing that you aren't doing it because it isn't required is normally a bad sign.
    Nil Einne (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I have never notified any user of any deletion discussion that I have ever initiated. If someone is interested enough in an article or an image or what have you, well, that is why we have watch lists. No one owns articles, thus there is no special status bestowed upon creators or primary contributors. Tarc (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally do notify users, but I could see it as absolutely pointless if there's no chance the article is going to be improved (except in cases of db-vand, in which case the user needs to be warned). Not all new users understand what a watchlist is or how to use it. I could cite WP:CIR for that (and agree with it in many cases), but I could also cite WP:BITE in turn. I've also found that when there's notification, the page author usually goes to the nominator with their questions, complaints, or personal attacks instead of the deleting admin (for better or worse) so there's a workload distribution consideration. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to say much the same as Ian.thomson about new users and watchlists. Newly created articles, in particular, can sometimes be improved or userfied rather than deleted. Not many editors will have a new article on their watchlists, and if the most interested editor isn't notified, this will only happen if one of the regular Csd and Afd watchers/participants happen to be interested. On the other hand, some articles, particularly promotional ones, have been dropped off by single-purpose editors who haven't edited since, and there may be little point in notifying them. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've said above, by itself, not notifying isn't strong enough to sanction because policy doesn't demand it. Combined with other actions, it can demonstrate disruptive editing, obviously, but there it would be a symptom of a larger offense. The policy is vague for a reason, to allow us to look at each situation. ie: WP:BURO One of the problems with forcing notification (other than sometimes it makes no sense) is that for IPs to notify, they must do so manually, as TW doesn't work for IPs. In a perfect world, it would be great if everyone notified, but policy isn't likely to change, and I don't see anyone getting blocked for failure to notify if that is their only "crime". In fact, I would oppose a block based solely on not notifying. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But the obvious question is why you believe policy has to explicitly require something to allow some sort of community imposed sanction even if the editor refuses to abide by multiple requests from the community. As I pointed out above, there are plenty of cases e.g. signing posts or edit summary where policy doesn't demand people do something all the time, and in the past policy and guidelines didn't even explicitly mention the possibility of sanction, yet it existed nevertheless precisely because of WP:NOTBURO and similar requirements. While additional disruption may make sanction more likely, it's never a requirement if existing action is sufficiently disruptive.
    Also, I think most people agree with you that we should be looking at each situation and there may be a reason for the policy to be worded as it is. I admit I haven't looked that closely at the precise situation here. On the other hand, what I have seen suggests that the OP isn't really making any judgement call on whether it's worth notifying, it sounds like they're refusing to notify point blank because it isn't required.
    Of course I could easily be wrong, and it would be great if the IP would clarify that I am and if I am I apologise to the IP wholeheartedly. But if I'm not, then I don't see how the situation helps. (The only exception may be if all the IP's cases are ones where notifying was probably pointless and unnecessary even if they didn't actually have any particular reason to think so.)
    I should mention that I don't think the slight additional work for notification is particularly relevant. I don't do many deletions but I nearly always notify and don't use Twinkle or any other such tools. The added time it takes to notify compared to the deletion in the first place isn't that much (unlike say notifying when you revert vandalism). Further while it's the IPs right to edit without registering, they also have to accept the limitations and added requirements thereof and can't resonably expect to ignore community norms because of them.
    To be clear, I'm not saying we should sanction the IP, or anyone, for persistently refusing to notify. Rather what I am saying is we should be looking at whether such refusal is sufficiently disruptive to warrant action instead of worrying about whether it's required by policy.
    BTW as I said above I don't see any reason to talk about a block. The most logical course of action since we only have a problem in one particular area is to topic ban the IP from speedy deletions (or any deletions) if they persistently refuse to notify without a good reason. Of course as with all topic bans, it will need to be enforced by a block if the IP doesn't abide by it, but hopefully it would never come to that.
    Nil Einne (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It all boils down to how you read policy, and how important you view notifications. Another admin may feel differently, but I don't ever see me blocking someone for the singular problem of not notifying editors. You can't compare this to refusing to sign posts, which affects ever viewer of that discussion and frankly, isn't done unless it is combined with other intentionally disruptive behavior. Not notifying CSDs is rude, but it isn't strictly against policy, and if a local discussion !votes to block someone for something that is not against policy, I would of course protest as that is against the larger consensus here. You educate, you encourage, you can even bitch and moan, but you don't sanction. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've asked the editor to comment here before tagging any more articles for deletion, as I think it's necessary that we hear his or her perspective before resolving this. Personally, I believe that notifying editors whose articles are nominated for deletion is important—with the exception of obviously frivolous, vandalistic, or harassing articles that the creator wouldn't reasonably expect to remain a part of Wikipedia. Editors whose pages are nominated for speedy are likely to be new editors; having an early attempt at article-writing speedied must be demoralizing enough, without the deletion occurring without even a notification or an opportunity to try to improve the article. I ask that the thread not be closed until we've heard from the IP editor, or at least given him or her a chance to respond to my request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This is getting silly. They've already stated that they're not doing it because it isn't required. And they're right, it isn't. If you find that an affront to all that is good in the world, then lobby to get it changed. Demanding an IP (who,again, has broken no rule) come here and re-state their already stated position so you can make them dance for you is getting appallingly close to abuse of power on your part. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP is presumably unaware of the number of people concerned by his or her approach to this issue. By being asked to post here, his or her attention will be drawn to that fact, and I would like to see if it has any effect, as opposed to "I won't do it because it's not required and you can't make me." And I don't understand your last comment; requesting that someone do something is not invoking any sort of "power" at all, much less abusing it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Honestly if it's such trouble for people to notify, why can't we have a bot do it? If a speedy sits around for more than 5 minutes with no notification (or deletion), give one. Or find a way to handle it through Echo if feasible. I think Wikipedia should be doing more, not less, to make our processes accessible to the unfamiliar. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Having a bot do it would effectively make it mandatory, when right now it's explicitly not mandatory (in the sense that it must always be done). I do take "should" to mean that it should usually be done depending on the circumstances (RFC 2119), i.e. that it can't be ignored at whim, but there is room for judgement and discretion. Basically along the lines of Nil Einne's post. Anyway it seems to me 69.181.253.230 is editing in an obnoxious way that a techno-fix such as a bot isn't going to help. So I have a dim view of the bot suggestion. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. It just takes you out of the equation. That an editor can't be arsed to notify the other editor is one thing: I can live with that. That an editor thinks the other editor generally deserves no notification is something quite different, and an attitude that in my opinion cuts directly against our civility pillar. Now, if people want to opt out, as they do with auto-signing and the like, totally fine. Same deal with Echo notifications. But notification of these things is important: it's common that the "you were on notice and just kept editing" argument comes up here and at DRV when someone comes back a month later complaining that "their article" was deleted. As I say, there are valid circumstances when someone shouldn't receive a notice. 90+% of CSDs do not fit those circumstances. At any rate, before any such change is undertaken, I think it would be nice if someone could run some statistics... checking for just how many CSDs in a given period don't result in notices, and perhaps other factors. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mendaliv: I love that idea... so much, that I've formally proposed it. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have to remember that there are always 2 elements at play: policy instruments and community norms. The relavent policy or guideline may suggest that notification is optional, but if community norms suggest that notification is in most cases a requirement, then the community element trumps policy/guidelines. Take for example when some elements the signature guidelines were treated as de facto policy when the violations were significant enough to annoy the community. We appear to now be in that type of situation: the IP has been advised that community norms say to notify: if they continue to refuse to do so, then action can be taken the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I have to disagree with your statement in the general sense. Community norms are supposed to be documented in policy in order to be enforceable. To block someone solely based on a claim of "community norms" is opening a huge door, ripe for abuse. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Catflap08#Holocaustverleugnung? apparently contains a German legal threat to Catflap08.John Carter (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    If any, his accusations of holocaust denial were a legal threat. And of magnitude in that. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Apparently has to do with a comment over at AN3 in this thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive248#User:Horst-schlaemma reported by User:Mostlyoksorta (Result: Article protected). As far as a WP:DOLT check goes of this legal threat, I don't think there's anything we need to do to address what triggered the threat. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked Horst-schlaemma indefinitely, with the offer that they could be unblocked if they unambiguously retract the legal threat. -- Atama頭 21:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Well to be honest it would be useful to involve a German speaking admin as the threat was posted in German (even though this being the English speaking Wikipedia). Quote: “sondern bereits als an der Grenze zum Rufmord schwelend. Wenn ich so etwas noch einmal lesen muss, leite ich rechtliche Schritte zu deiner IP ein“. So called „legal steps“ in connection to my IP-Address I would consider a legal threat. Please also note the allegation of “Rufmord” (calumny). I myself have not posted the complaint, but have previously contacted Wikipedia via mail. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Horst-schlaemma sent me an email, stating that "No legal action is in progress or will be forthcoming from my side." I tried to reply, saying that they should post the same message on their user talk page, but my message was bounced back because their mailbox is full. :/
    I think I'm going to go ahead and unblock. This isn't a bureaucracy and I can vouch for their retracting the threat. -- Atama頭 21:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh that’s how one deals with legal threats then? Interesting to say the least that is. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe I'll be a bit more blunt. Are we sure that is enough, or would some other measures be reasonably considered? John Carter (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    First, yes, it's a clear legal threat. Secondly, my understanding of WP:NLT is that a legal threat leads to an indefinite block that is lifted if and when the threat is clearly withdrawn (unless there are other factors, of course). And thirdly, I think this threat needs to be withdrawn on-wiki, not just in an email. We are not a bureaucracy, but even the impression that a legal threat is left standing leads to a chilling effect. So the unblocking was, in my view, a bit premature. I won't reblock, but we should make it clear to the user that he should clearly withdraw the statement in question. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Catflap, how we deal with them is based on two things, weight depending on who is being threatened, Wikipedia or an individual editor: 1. it is fine to take legal action, but you can't edit while you are taking legal action, via the terms of service. 2. threatening to take legal action has a chilling effect on discussion, it is a blunt instrument used to censor others, thus is more than a little uncivil even if it is an empty threat. This is why a retraction is required, and per Stephan, I think it really needs to be onwiki. From what I see here, he is getting off pretty easy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll make another request on the user talk page. Unfortunately, as I said this editor apparently isn't getting email (unless they deleted some messages) so sending an email won't help, nor will they be getting email notifications about messages on their user talk page. Not that any of that is a reason why they wouldn't make an on-wiki retraction, but it might explain why they'll be slower to respond. -- Atama頭 23:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If they're not editing, then they don't really need to be unblocked. I'd suggest re-instating the block until the legal threat is unambiguously retracted publicly, so that any chilling effect is undone. BMK (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That is kind of like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube, and would just add another set of block/unblock entries in their log. I trust Atama to monitor and reblock if they refuse to make an onwiki statement. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I am not too sure about the toothpaste issue … one might as well just dump all guidelines. What really bugs me is the fact that the threat was even posted in German. I leave it up to admins to simply take a look at the user’s entries full stop. I was threatened publicly so any retracts should be done the same way. Not my intention to see anyone being blocked indefinitely. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm bothered that Horst-schlaemma has not yet responded. It's true that email may not be working, but they were pretty quick to send an email out to me after the initial block, so they should be monitoring their user page. I've reinstituted the block, out of fairness to Catflap08 and to ease the concerns of multiple people in this thread. I'm watching their user talk page to respond if they comment there. I'd expected that an unblock would be uncontroversial if I vouched for the retraction personally but clearly I was mistaken. -- Atama頭 19:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I won't speak for anyone else, but my concern had nothing to do with my respect for you or for your word -- I absolutely believe that you reported accurately what the editor said to you, and that your unblock was made in good conscience. It's simply that threats made in the light of day should be retracted in the same fashion, publicly and not through intermediaries. The latter gives the impression that perhaps the retraction is tactical, made to restore editing privileges, and not meant in good faith. BMK (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I probably would not have been as generous as Atama in unblocking before the public withdrawal but perhaps he is just much nicer than I am. Once done, I think waiting to reblock was prudent. And I agree, we've waited long enough, so support his decision in reblocking after giving him a good faith chance to recant onwiki. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (An aside: apologies to Dennis for the erroneous revert. I am working from a very slow connection, and the screen image has an annoying way of jumping to a new position just as I click on something. I should probably disable rollback when working on such an unreliable terminal.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: I didn't think you doubted my word. :) I just didn't expect people to be so strict about it. I'll remember that in the future. I've always been of the opinion that a legal threat should be matched with a retraction as clear and unambiguous as the threat was, and I tend to be a stickler about that, but I don't know that I've ever seen a situation where the retraction was by proxy. I thought that it would be okay but now I know better. -- Atama頭 22:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this comes across as publicly issuing a threat and then whispering to a single person: "Don't worry, I didn't really mean it." It doesn't come off as an actual retraction that way.--Atlan (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Horst-schlaemma has commented on his user talk page but it doesn't look like a retraction John Carter (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    So I think I understand Horst's complaint a bit better now. Evidently he takes issue with being called a Holocaust denier (I'm not certain it was explicitly stated but it came close), and seems to argue that calling him one is the equivalent of accusing him of a crime under German law. Doesn't make the legal threat okay, but perhaps there should be some discussion on whether the comment (which I think was here) was appropriate. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The comments seem to be here and here. All I see is Catflap expressing an opinion of admin action as possible holocaust denial. Horst isn't an admin. John Carter (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The user in question is unblocked and I should apologise (as he stated on his talk page)? Are you serious??? I am sorry but this not a retract. Yes, I did in a discussion question his intentions as being revisionist – which is a matter of opinion. I then was challenged (in German language on the ENGLISH wikipedia by the way) that he would track my IP address in order to file charges on the grounds of calumny (which by the way is in some ways daft as I have no idea who that person is). So to get things right it was me who was legally threatened and the user now asks me to apologise? Well done Wikipedia, well done. I did by the way contact prior to all this Wikipedia via e-mail and the answer was clear as crystal. So either we have guideline or we just dump them. It was ME to whom a legal threat was posted. I never ever said I would file legal charges against the user in question to be in denial of the Holocaust. I have no idea if the denial of the Holocaust is even an issue within the State of Virginia. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @Catflap08: you are free to propose any other sanctions you feel appropriate now John Carter (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Horst retracted the legal threat. Strictly speaking, that's all that's necessary for him to be unblocked in this case. As a bit of advice, I would suggest you take care when using the term "Holocaust denial" with respect to another editor's actions, as even if such a comment might not constitute defamation (as Horst seems to suggest: calumny is an old-fashioned term for a particularly severe defamation), it's probably a personal attack (so long as it's without good evidence). You aren't being ordered to apologize to Horst or anything, though he seems to think you should. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to disagree it was me against whom a legal threat was posted. The user in question did not retract but asked me to apologise, apologise for what? I never ever said I would take legal actions based on a denial of the Holocaust which, truth must be said, would be a legal matter in the FRG today.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, he did retract it. You also don't seem to understand what I mean: I'm not saying your statement could be construed as threatening legal action, but that it could be construed as claiming Horst had committed a crime. That is why Horst complained that you defamed him. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking legal action and having opposing views are in my books a separate matter. I have so far not seen any retraction. I was threatened by some obscure IP- actions as a an individual and so far I see no need to apologise. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    He did retract his threat when he wrote "Anyway, I'm not taking any legal action." Don't confuse a retraction with an apology - he's not required to apologize. BMK (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    If someone makes statements that unquestionably deny that the Holocaust took place, then referring to them as a "Holocaust denier" is simple description, nothing more. That being a Holocaust denier may have legal consequences in one nation or another is not a concern of ours, and should not be construed as a legal threat under WP:NLT, unless a statement such as "I'm going to bring your statements to the attention of the German authorities" is made - 'that's a legal threat (but only to those living under German law). We cannot allow reprehensible statements to be bandied about freely here due to a concern about being accused of making a legal threat, that would be a kind of reverse legal threat which would itself have a chilling effect on the community. BMK (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that there should be nothing wrong with making a simple description. I'm just explaining what Horst's problem was and what led to the legal threat: he seemed to believe he was defamed. When he later claimed that Catflap08 made a legal threat is pure unadulterated bunkum. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to play Devil's advocate for a moment, we do have language in WP:NLT to be careful about labeling someone's comments as "libelous" or "defamatory", as those can imply a legal threat. But having said that, I think Horst-schlaemma is vastly overreacting. This is the English Wikipedia, and the average editor is not going to be aware of German law. Most editors here would not assume that calling someone a Holocaust denier is a legal threat or even an implication. My suggestion is that if Horst-schlaemma wants to contribute here, they need to adjust to the culture here, and not expect the community to adjust to theirs. Also, I discourage communicating with other editors in German or other non-English languages even if the person you're communicating with claims to have an understanding of the language at the "native" level (as Catflap08's infobox states) unless there is a prior agreement to use such a language, or if you think that the person's English communication skills are poor, or if there is some other good reason to use that language (you're discussing a concept best described in another language). English should be the default language used here. I'd expect that on the German Wikipedia that German would be the default. It's common sense. -- Atama頭 21:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this has to be seen in the light of an understandable perception that some comments at Talk:Germany were intended to associate editors who object to certain graphic images of holocaust victims with holocaust denial or revisionist attitudes or (mis-) represent them as attempts to portray Germany as a victim or whitewash German history. Regardless of any legal threats: where this is happening, it needs to stop. --Boson (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly it's messed up to suggest that anyone who objects to displaying images of Holocaust victims is a Holocaust denier. I'm not 100% sure that's what happened here, but in principle, I agree that if that were happening it's not right. Relevant to this discussion, I see where Catflap08 stated that "the Admins moves are recently supportive of Holocaust denial", and suggestions on the Germany talk page that resistance to Holocaust victim images (or giving preference to images of rubble in Germany from war damage) is giving in to "revisionist views". But I don't see direct accusations against any single person, including Horst-schlaemma. Catflap08 did ask for Horst-schlaemma to be "blocked" (I think the intention was "banned") from "editing the article on Germany", but that was after accusing admins of supporting Holocaust denial, not Horst-schlaemma. And again, even if there was such an accusation, it might fall under personal attack territory (or possibly just considered uncivil) but isn't a legal threat. It's a different issue, and a difference between a "bright line" rule on legal threats and a discretionary one on personal attacks/incivility. -- Atama頭 23:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree that there is no valid basis for accusing Catflap08 of making legal threats. I think the more relevant policies/guidelines are WP:CIVIL, probably WP:AGF, and possibly WP:NPA. As regards not seeing "direct accusations against any single person, including Horst-schlaemma", most of the comments seem to be directed generally at all the editors who objected to the images preferred by Catflap08 (apparently including me); I don't think that necessarily makes it any less personal, but there is also an edit that directly mentions Horst-schlaemma, though it uses an alternative spelling and gets the name of the German comedian wrong. The comment contains the following text:

    I do also wonder how openly gay living German Comedian Harald Kerkling might react to the fact that his Horst Schlämmer character is in a somewhat alienated version used to edit Wikipedia with a revisionist agenda.

    That looks to me like a fairly direct statement that Horst-schlaemma is editing Wikipedia with a revisionist agenda. You perhaps need to know that Horst Schlämmer is a fictitious character played by Hape Kerkeling, an openly gay German comedian. I would be interested in an AGF-conforming explanation of the allusion to the actor who plays the eponymous Schlämmer being gay in connection with his namesake's alleged revisionist agenda. As an aside: references to the State of Virginia (?) might be a little shortsighted for German nationals and residents, which might also explain why Horst-schlaemma could be keen to robustly refute any allegations of holocaust denial, particularly in view of recent news about the German intelligence services improving their ability to monitor "social media".--Boson (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I am a completely uninvolved party.

    The I.P. 74.71.116.7 legally threatened user:Masssly with this edit. I am reporting this per WP:NLT. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    No action needed - unless I'm missing something, that edit is from early May, and the IP has since been blocked (and is still blocked) for disruptive editing, which includes the legal threat. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur. The standing block is likely more than the IP would have gotten if reported for the legal threat; even for NLT blocks IPs don't typically get indeffed. That said, it's usually good to have more people aware of these things. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor switching between IP and account to disrupt refdesk

    24.228.94.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has a history of asking questions of opinion as if they were questions of fact on the reference desk, edit warring over the closure of threads he starts.

    He has recently asked a question "how tough is cthulhu?" I have explained why that is purely a matter of opinion, using his own question as proof of such, and closed the thread per WP:NOTFORUM. He logged into his account (Jerk of Thrones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), and reopened the thread (note how he refers to the opening question by the IP as his own question. I cited several examples of Cthulhu related media to demonstrate that this question is completely inappropriate to the refdesk because it is only a matter of opinion, and reclosed the thread.

    If I was wrong to close the thread, then someone else should/would have reopened it. But 24.228*/Jerk of Thrones needs to get that stirring the pot at the refdesk is unacceptable, and that switching between an IP and an account like that .

    Ian.thomson (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    As a purely neutral observer, it appears the question was closed prematurely and by mistake; in my view, the scope of the question is not inappropriate for the Reference Desk. --a completely uninvolved editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerk of Thrones (talk • contribs) 02:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral observer? Here you identified the IP's question as your own question, in a way that rather indicates that you're the same person. Both of you also speak in the same voice. This and this are further proof that you are the IP editor in question. You lying only crosses this over into illegitimate sockpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    the "neutral observer" was obviously me. it was meant as sarcasm.--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    and i have never once pretended the IP address is not me, but I don't always log in to edit the wiki.--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    the "neutral observer" was obviously me No. No it was not. You didn't sign your comment. That's not sarcasm; it's being deliberately misleading. If you wanted to allow the rest of us to have a good laugh at the idea that you're a "neutral observer" in an ANI discussion about you, then you should actually sign your comments. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also there's nothing wrong (or "disruptive") about not bothering to log into your account and editing from your IP address, as long as you're not pretending to be 2 different people, which I was not.--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarcasm? Yeah, right. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh I'm so busted. You complained about me on ANI and mentioned my user account by name and then I replied WHILE LOGGED INTO THE VERY ACCOUNT that you just complained and claimed, imagining that only a complete idiot could think that I was serious about being uninvolved. How did you possibly figure out that I wasn't actually uninvolved? Excellent sleuthing, keep up the good work.--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, User:Jerk of Thrones? You didn't sign your comment, so that actual neutral observers just passing by, like myself, could not know that you were the "totally neutral observer" without going and checking the edit history of ANI. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Now are *you* being sarcastic, or are you just being daft? The sinebot clearly identified the "neutral observer" as me, as it always does.
    Ok, if you're so convinced that it's a totally fine question: then why not wait for someone else to reopen it instead of being disruptive? Or is it that you're just a troll? Your continued opinion-based questioning at the refdesk and edit warring would indicate that.
    I mean, an attitude like this makes it pretty clear not here to build an encyclopedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can an admin be volunteered to monitor the refdesks to (a) revert silly questions, and (b) warn-and-block the couple of regulars there who insist on undoing such reversions and responding because all questions are good? I suppose that such an approach would be too sensible for Wikipedia, but it is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's overkill. Refdesk gets annoying/trolling questions sometimes and either handles them ok or (sometimes) overreacts with reversions etc. It doesn't routinely underreact as far as I've noticed. So it really doesn't need "assistance" stoking the fires. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Numerous (mostly unnecessary) RFC's opened by IP

    An IP (no doubt a sock of someone) has opened numerous unnecessary RFCs. [75] Speedy close? --NeilN talk to me 02:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy close sounds appropriate to me. Some good points are raised, some not, but the strong majority of them certainly don't require an RfC request. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just tried to explain this on my talk page. Please read my reply there. Also, as written there, I might be away from the internet for a while, so excuse any lack of replies. 86.133.243.146 (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The Lipscombe article that you refer to, after OTRS intervention and once all the socks were put away, has become quiet. There's no need for a RFC. --NeilN talk to me 02:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy close indeed, but not the RFCs, but this investigation. I find it pure hokum to call these RFCs unnecessary. This type of conduct towards new editors is simply not acceptable. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Bullshit. RfCs are a measure of last resort, to attract a wider audience to help solve an intractable situation; not for barely-important stuff like Talk:Barack Obama#RFC: First sentence of lead. An RfC as the first salvo is overkill, just...start a new talk page section and talk about it. Tarc (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And so you first post to the user's talk page and ask, "Hey, I was wondering why you're starting so many RFCs. Let's discuss this first." You don't immediately haul the guy in front of the admin noticeboard. This is where you go when discussion with the editor doesn't work. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Tarc - the point is that most of the discussions don't need to go through the RfC process. Simply bringing up the proposal on the talk page is sufficient in most of these cases, if not all. If the discussion isn't fruitful, then RfC can be used. I'm not making a judgement based on the editor or their experience, but just by the fact that hitting it up with numerous RfC's is not needed. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I made it immediately clear to the IP that I was not looking for sanctions, only speedy closure [76]. --NeilN talk to me 02:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not disruptive, per se, but doesn't anyone else find it curious that this IP editor suddenly shows up to start "RFCs" on several controversial topics all at the same time? 18 RFCs in 11 minutes, several asking questions likely to result in arguments. Unusual indeed. Resolute 13:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove RfC templates and rollback the massive slew of notifications to project pages. IP, there are very few cases where is it helpful to start right off with an RfC rather than just opening a discussion on the talk page first. VQuakr (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the Rfc templates should be removed, it is clearly not needed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible off-wiki harassment

    Someone has been generating fake robo-calls using fake caller ID info for my phone numbers, both landline and cell. Mike Godwin reported this on Facebook[77], and I received some text messages reporting robo calls supposedly from my cell phone. Since this showed up on two unrelated phones, it's not accidental. This may be related to either the Banc de Binary or Yank Barry controversies with which I've been involved. It's not a big deal, and there's no admin action needed, but I wanted to get this on the record in case there's further nuisance behavior. John Nagle (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for a little context, can someone explain what's going on with Banc De Binary that might spark off-wiki harassment? I've read about the Barry lawsuit, but I've never heard of the bank and don't understand anything beyond what appears at its talk page: I don't see why it's different from a run-of-the-mill paid advocacy thing. Someone who's friends with Mike ought to comment at his Facebook thread and blame the Nazis for the incident. Nyttend (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Search the archives of AN/I for Banc de Binary for the history if you like. Don't know if it's them. The phone spam seems to have stopped for now. John Nagle (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess is that it's not BDB. I'm sure they're not happy with how things are turning out at the page, but they've been relatively civil about it. On the other hand, Yank Barry's people were threatening a lawsuit including contacting people directly by mail. I wouldn't want to cast blame on anyone without evidence but I'd say they're the most likely ones. -- Atama頭 19:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Problem seems to have stopped. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:VQuakr posting on my talk page after asking him not to.

    BOOMERANG CAUGHT
    While you can request that someone stays off your talk, there are always circumstances where it makes sense, or where they are required to. If you don't like templates, or any other messages, feel free to remove them per WP:UP#CMT. No need for this drama over a simple essay. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:VQuakr has posted multiple times after I asked him not to. here I may not have been the most civil but I was irate at being warned with a template by a third party, and here after he was talk page stalking me, entering into a conversation with a different editor again as a third party. CombatWombat42 (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    People have all the right to post normal conversation messages on your talk page, and they also have all the right to have your talk page in your watchlist. If you do not want such posts, just remove it instead of making a fuss. I notice also you seem to ask anyone who disagrees with you to stay off your talk page (cfr. Andy Dingley). Indeed, having a look at your behaviour in your last edits, it seems that VQuakr and Andy Dingley have a point. Finally: Did you notify VQuakr on their talk page? It seems not. --cyclopiaspeak! 14:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, this is hardly acceptable. Before complaining about users harassing you, perhaps you should stop asking editors to "get the hell off" deletion discussions, and behave in a civil manner.--cyclopiaspeak! 14:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be a relatively new thing—what I'll call a WP:KEEPOFF notice—being used as an almost immediate response to someone disagreeing. I'm not aware of any specific policy allowing editors to dictate to others that they may not post messages to their user talk pages. Rather, those few situations where such requests have been enforced by the community have been where the editor being told to keep off has at least arguably been engaged in hounding (even if a sanction discussion for said hounding has failed). What I've been seeing is, as Cyclopia suggests is happening here, people almost immediately telling the other editor to keep off just because they disagree. I would go so far as to argue that such a demand, made in such a way, is a sign of incivility on the part of the person making it. While I usually walk away from disputes where the editor tells me to "keep off", I don't consider myself bound by that. To be perfectly frank, I'm of the opinion that—without more—this complaint is disruptive. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and I would say the same applies to CombatWombat's WP:DTTR warning at the top of his page. I have no problem with editors who think it's silly to use templates to tell "the regulars" something. But what CombatWombat is doing is just ridiculous. You don't have a "right" to demand people post messages in the exact way you demand on your user talk page. You can feel free to revert or ignore the messages, but that you don't like those messages don't make the messages per se disruptive, harassment, stalking, or whatever you want to call them. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    [78]CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    What should this prove or mean?--cyclopiaspeak! 15:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because a discussion in April ended with the suggestion that you leave another editor alone because he asked you to do so doesn't give you free license to tell anyone and everyone you disagree with to stay off your user talk page. Hell, I would venture that under the right circumstances your posting something to that user's user talk page would be totally acceptable. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    " so stop it or you will end up getting blocked for hounding."CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In the same way that WP:OSE-type arguments are a poor choice at deletion discussions, particularly in the absence of a specific policy or evidence of a practice constituting policy that is elucidated by the counter-examples given, the phrase "other situations exist" applies to this counter-example. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, so you are saying that I cannot respond to an editor on Lugnut's talk page because it is hounding, but VQuakr can because...?CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the past ANI thread and the advice given there, if I were you I'd be careful about posting on Lugnuts' user talk page; that said, I think there are probably situations where it would be entirely appropriate for you to post there. Given that thread had no bearing on your relationship with VQuakr, I would say they're wholly different situations, and that applying the same outcome is entirely inappropriate. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Mendaliv you are clearly being hypocritical here.CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, you shouldn't go throwing stones. Even if the prior ANI thread involving Lugnuts were precedent-setting, the situation was completely different. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although the talkpage itself belongs to the Foundation, and is there to provide an avenue of communication with you, editors DO have the right to maintain it with a certain degree of leniency. Users may, indeed, ask another user to not post there. Remember that asking another editor to not post on your talkpage says more about YOU than it does about the other party. Such a notification MUST take place on the OTHER person's talkpage (i.e. editor A posts on editor B's talkpage saying "please don't"). This does NOT mean that the other editor cannot ever post on your talkpage. Indeed, they are still REQUIRED to notify you if you have been reported to Admin noticeboards, and in some situations MAY use standard templates as warnings. They may ALSO edit your talkpage if you choose to specifically talk about them - after all, ethically they have a right to respond to accusations, etc. Please ensure you understand this prior to requesting assistance at ANI. Of course, continual violation of such a validly-sent request can result in a block the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BOOMERANG?

    CombatWombat42 seems to have developed an unfortunate habit of routinely pushing the limits of acceptable behavior, particularly in their attitude towards policy and other editors. Examples include:

    • This thread, which appears to be based ultimately on a WP:POINT violation:First this, then this, finally this, this, and this.
    • Disruptive mass removal of uncontentious content that lacks inline sources (as uncontentious content should; not everything needs an inline source). Examples here, here, the latter also being a blatant WP:POINT violation following the discussion here.
    • Violations of WP:CIVIL, two of many examples here and here.

    This editor has been with the project a long time, and at a glance these violations appear to be part of a more recent trend. CombatWombat42, this is a collaborative project, not a battleground. Editors here need to be able to manage conflict without resorting to ultimata and vitriol, especially immediately. I would prefer if you could make this change voluntarily, rather than necessitating technical action to prevent further damage to the project. VQuakr (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • What a bad idea it was for you to post this the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Concur. I think after ESL's post above there's nothing much left to be said here. Though I don't entirely agree with the extent of the right to tell people to not post on your user talk page ESL's advice seems to contemplate, ANI isn't the place to hash that out. Move that this thread be archived: it's clear nothing's going to happen here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a longstanding practice that is indeed fairly-regularly enforced the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    More of the same problems with The Zeitgeist Movement article.

    User: Earl King Jr., seems to have taken the inconclusive result of the previous ANI thread [79] as a license to continue with POV-pushing edits, personal attacks and edit warring, in line with his 'ownership' of the article. Specifically, the issue has been if and how a piece by Michelle Goldberg in the Tablet magazine should be used. Earl seems intent on cherry-picking the source to prezent TZM in as negative a way as possible. In his efforts to get his way he has claimed 'consensus' for his edits - but when asked to provide evidence for this supposed consensus, not only failed to do so, but made repeated personal attacks - see this thread: [80] While many of the personal attacks are minor, and probably best ignored, Earl has repeatedy accused me of "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point", both on the talk page [81][82] and in 'warnings' on my talk page. [83][84] Since this accusation is clearly a direct attack on my credibility as a Wikipedia contributor, and since Earl has repeatedly made it, but failed to raise the matter in an appropriate place when I suggested he do so, [85] I am raising this supposed 'disruption' here myself, with a request that Earl provide the necessary evidence to back up this claim - and a request that should he fail to do so, he should be held to account for his own behaviour. I see no reason whatsoever why he should be permitted to engage in such intimidatory tactics without being obliged to back them up with evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor above is removing information from that page, whole paragraphs and citations and sections now [86]. There are very few good reliable citations in the article. Now he is removing them and the cited information and going out of his way to be as contentious and nasty about it as possible. Rather than copy edit something he is removing swathes of the article along with SomeDifferentStuff an editor that was blocked previously on this article for edit warring and tendentious editing [87] Andy and that editor are editing in tandem now on the article in a negative way in my opinion because they are removing information that is critical of the Zeitgeist movement though it is sourced. I am a neutral editor in approach. Andy uses a rhetorical approach to other editors which in my opinion is not needed. A lot of his arguments do not make sense because he assumes that another editor is anti or pro does not mean that is so. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As the link Earl shows, I have explained in edit summaries that the Goldberg piece is being misrepresented: e.g. quoting her as asserting that TZM is "the world's first Internet-based cult..." whereas she actually wrote "At times, it even seems like the world’s first Internet-based cult..." - an equivocal statement, not the definitive one the article contained. And yes, I removed the section entirely, since as it stood there was clearly no agreement as to how the Goldberg piece should be used. This isn't remotely ""disrupting Wikipedia to make a point", as I'm sure should be apparent to anyone. Earl has once again failed to produce evidence for anything other than further baseless assertions - and he seems to be trying to distract from the issue by instead bringing in irrelevances about other contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Earl King has persistently edited articles related to the Zeitgeist Movement and Zeitgeist films to try and paint the group and its ideas as antisemitic. The basis for this are a minority of partisans, yet Earl has repeatedly tried to give their biased and baseless attacks a disproportionate share of the article and unwarranted prominence within it. Repeated attempts to eliminate the article on the film by making it a redirect without any prior discussion seem to be an escalation. Unfortunately, I think it is time Earl should be given a lengthy vacation from this whole subject.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it isn't just the 'antisemitism' claims though (sourced incidentally to an article which doesn't actually state that TZM as a whole is antisemitic, and which described some members as "genuinely baffled" when accused of antisemitism) - Earl has systematically cherry-picked sources for the most negative content. It should also be noted that as I documented in the earlier ANI thread [88] he had earlier used the talk page as a soapbox for a conspiracy theory about how the whole TZM thing was a money-making scheme by its founder, and had accused TZM and or its founder of "brainwashing", "meme control" and "neuro linguistic programming". This gives the lie to his protestations of 'neutrality'. His editing behaviour isn't remotely neutral, he is instead intent on piling negativity upon negativity into the article. 18:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    I doubt some of that. Before Earl King Jr. arrived, articles around TZM were a mass of promotional fluff, cherrypicked praise, and economic illiteracy framed as great solutions to humanity's problems. I haven't been watching such articles lately, but Earl King Jr's earlier edits were a net positive - and a great deal of effort went into dealing with elaborate misrepresentation of sources by TZM fans. bobrayner (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What matters is what he is doing now. Should prior good acts mean Earl gets free reign to defame and attack the people he detests? More than a few editors who go after promotional writing turn out to have vendettas of their own that only become clear after the promotional activity has been effectively restrained.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. Some TZM supporters have been relentless in trying to spin the article their way, and at times have driven us to distraction. That doesn't however make efforts to spin the article the other way legitimate - which is what Earl has been doing. What is needed is strict adherence to WP:NPOV policy - including WP:WEIGHT considerations, which require balanced use of the available sources, rather than cherry-picking half-sentences for effect. And of course adherence to talk page guidelines is also necessary, which obviously precludes soapboxing, speculation about the supposed financial motivations behind the movement, and nonsense about 'brainwashing' etc, along with repeated assertions that I'm 'disrupting' things. Since Earl has entirely failed to provide the slightest evidence for this supposed disruption, I think we can safely assume there is none - and accordingly he needs to be held accountable - if for no other reason than that it makes it well nigh impossible to get TZM supporters to comply with policies that Earl refuses to acknowledge. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    These articles are ridiculous....why don't we just impose 1rr per week on each of these TZM related articles and that will put an end to all the "POV pushing". There are some things worth arguing about Andy, but any defense of the crackpot nonsense that is the Zeitgeist junk is a monumental waste of brain cells.--MONGO 02:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your personal opinion of TZM, like mine, is of no relevance here - if we are to have an article on the movement (personally, I'm not entirely convinced that it merits one, though I probably tend to set my sights higher than most when it comes to notability criteria), it needs to comply with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, in my opinion you misrepresent in grand flourish the issues. You did remove a whole section of the article recently with reinforcement from Zeitgeist supporters [89]. That is the reason I warned you on your talk page and opened a discussion about it on the article talk page. It was only quotes from the story. The idea is to get a balanced view of the subject for the article. You kept claiming copyvio or this and that about removing information which you could have copy edited easily. Also, bringing an old, very old debate from the talk page and reframing that in as disturbing and provocative way as possible is not the way forward. SomedifferentStuff used partial 'happy talk' phrasing from information in that Goldberg article also to make fluff points. I added the complete thoughts in the article and that was removed by you two. Now the Devils Advocate, another pro Zeitgeist editor, as history shows, is here to reinforce. Andy has been blocked numerous times for tendentiousness. Taking extremely puny points now and trying to explode them into issues from weeks to months old talk page trivia? It looks that way. Its a pity more neutral editors do not oversee those related articles but they do not. There are several people that keep loose tabs on it and probably that is the reason I am there, to keep some kind of restraint on the Movement members that show in droves. Now for whatever reason, his excuse varies, Andy is tandem editing with the Zeitgeist movement members for whatever reason. Now its especially not an improvement that he removed one of the only sourced and viable citations and information aspects of the page which sought to point out the far right origin ala John Birch Society and Alex Jones of the Zeitgeist original movie. They have removed that documented from multiple sources information which is in the Goldberg piece. She is a mainstream writer in a mainstream paper on this fringe topic. I really do not like the real or fake anger that Andy displays every day, the fake attacks, rhetorical shouting, arm waving and fake paraphrasing he does mis-characterizing my contributions. If he does it to me he is doing it to others. The subject is listed as a controversial article, care should be given. Andy is misrepresenting talk page aspects of old material for effect now. In my opinion he is editing like a rough sport, sadistically and cynically here in this. I did not bring this here. He says he is reporting himself because I asked him to cool it. I am not a litigious type of editor on Wikipedia. I just thought it best to caution him about removing the information from a viable, 'ggod' source in an article that has little good sourcing. One more thing the user TheDevilsAdvocate has a block record of edit warring on related '911' conspiracy theory articles [90] and previously edited in line with Zeitgeist supporters and material on this article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidently Earl seems to think that attacking other contributors here is a good smokescreen for his inability to provide the slightest evidence that I've been "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And incidentally, I can't find the slightest evidence to back up Earl's assertion about TheDevilsAdvocate "previously edit[ing] in line with Zeitgeist supporters and material on this article" either [91][92] AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I would note that I have made plenty of edits that Zeitgeist supporters and conspiracy theorists would not like. Characterizing my edits as "pro-Zeitgeist" or anything similar is nonsense. Most of my edits to the Zeitgeist articles have been to remove edits claiming or strongly insinuating that the Zeitgeist film is antisemitic. Those edits have been primarily pushed by Earl.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mmm. After being absent from the article a long time you suddenly come here to slash and burn another editor? You also are editing the article in an edit warring matter over whether the group is conspiracy theory oriented as to category which seems pretty obvious which direction that is going as to the answer. [93]. As mentioned you were blocked from editing a 911 article for edit warring and now you are edit warring that the Zeitgeist Movement is not in the conspiracy category. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw the report on ANI. That is how I became involved here at this moment. As to the category, it is redundant as the Zeitgeist Movement category is a sub-cat of the "conspiracy theorists" category. I do think the article itself could do more to note the role conspiracy theories play in the movement, but the category is redundant.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 14:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    I am honestly surprised at the level of inaccurate material being posted here by Earl King Jr. -- Just to be clear, on June 22, Earl King Jr. cursed at another editor on the talk page [94] -- Yes, we're all adults here, but that should never be acceptable. -- Regarding his editing in general he is one of the most polarized editors I've come across on Wikipedia. The article in question is viewed as a type of ego war; when he doesn't get his way he tries to find another angle. For example, his wall of text above has to attack the credibility of other editors in order to preserve his own. He attacks Andy because he removed some hotly disputed material when in fact it was one of the wisest editing decisions I've seen during my years on Wikipedia. To give you an idea of how inappropriate Earl can be when it comes to evaluating material, have a look at this discussion. [95] -- Under the assumption that I will also be attacked here, I need to disclose that I was blocked for edit-warring on the article in question in August of 2013. The block was appropriate and I take full responsibility for it. What Earl also needs to understand is that another editor's behavior should never be used as a defense for one's own. -- On the topic of edit-warring, I brought a complaint against Earl in May of this year which could've resulted in a block [96] (See the admin's closing comments). -- I won't state what I think is required here but I ask that whoever takes on the task of evaluating Earl's behavior to please investigate it thoroughly. Regards -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    My guess for the future of this series of articles are wide spread topic bans...none of you are innocent. I reiterate that arguing on behalf of a crackpot notion like the Zeitgeist nonsense is one of the less useful ways to spend ones time.--MONGO 11:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And I would remind you that WP:ANI isn't a forum, and that our own personal opinions about what is or isn't a 'crackpot notion' is of no relevance to how we should behave on talk pages, or on how we determine article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    2601:7:4300:e:a8b7:dee9:8740:870b is making legal threats on the talk page of this article. IP is also edit warring to remove negative (but sourced) information (page protection has been requested). --Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Doing a WP:DOLT check, the only argument in favor of removing it I might be able to come up with is on WP:UNDUE grounds, insofar as the scandal primarily had to do with conduct originating in a different journal... but the fact of having their impact factor pulled for a year is a pretty big deal, even if they could plausibly argue it wasn't their fault. Our coverage is neutrally written and the sources look impeccable. I don't see the problem here, definitely not something meriting a legal threat. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left the IP a message explaining the WP:NLT policy and encouraging them to discuss the matter on-Wiki if they think a correction is warranted. —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh man, I'm not convinced that creating that article was a great idea in the first place (wp:coatrack). It's a likely bet that 2601:7:etc is the editor of that journal and I can see how the article might be giving him professional problems disproportionate to the seriousness of the unwise stunt he once tried to pull. Communicating with him by talk page might not be so easy because of language problems too. It might be best to open a BLPN request for further thoughts. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    More disruption at Talk:Suzannah Lipscomb

    Background: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive844#Disruption_at_Suzannah_Lipscomb

    I removed the RFC tag as detailed here. Mdann52 blanked (some of the material is under OTRS jurisdiction). 82.132.234.244 (IP hopper of [97]) has restored numerous times. --NeilN talk to me 17:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked already. Thanks. --NeilN talk to me 17:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my bad, sorry. I had the article in my watchlist and misread the IPs edits. In any case, Favonian already blocked them. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Too involved to act

    RFC CLOSED
    RFC found to be intentionally malformed with the intent of skewing consensus to an outcome suiting to the creator, User:Darkwarriorblake. Darkwarriorblake formally warned against such actions; RFC closed. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    An RFC that I feel intentionally misrepresents the conclusion of WP:Archive.is RFC has been opened by Darkwarriorblake, who has then proceeded to notify only three Wikiprojects with members that have been actively campaigning against the archive of the new RFC:[98][99][100]. I'm obviously too involved to take action, but I'd like to see the RFC closed. If we need a new RFC (and we well might), it shouldn't be one based on misrepresenting the context and conclusions of the earlier one. At the very least, a canvassing warning and an addition to the centralized discussion list (like the first one) needs to happen.—Kww(talk) 20:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I added a notice to the only projects I am a member of, I don't believe I am meant to hunt down every Wikiproject, especially when the RFC posts it publicly. You found it easy enough and within like 20 minutes. What am I meant to do? Ping every editor involved in the last discussion? I posted ON that discussion, it was the first thing I did before posting it anywhere else. It's been open like one hour, and this is the second effort you've made to close it, your issue seems to be that it goes against your RFC more than anything else. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, what you are expected to do is craft RFCs in a neutral fashion and then rely on the notification services (and perhaps centralized discussion) to bring a wide cross-section of editors to a discussion. Cherry-picking three projects brings a biased selection of people to the RFC and contaminates the result. I've made no effort to close the RFC. I added "Close RFC as malformed" as an option in the discussion, but made no step to close it myself.—Kww(talk) 21:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's like saying you dropped a gun in the playpen but didn't pull the trigger. The notification services will do their job apparently, it will be more notice than the rest of us got for your RFC. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You mistake Kww's point. No notice to anyone is WAY better than notice to only folks who agree with you. Per WP:CANVASS, it's either everyone or no one. By notifying only Wikiprojects which would be supportive of your position, you've comitted what is called votestacking.--v/r - TP 22:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would any of those projects be more pro archive.is than anyone else? I understand Kww's point perfectly for the baseless accusation that it is. He states that members of these projects are somehow more against his RFC for some reason, these three particular projects of which I am a barely active member. Feel free to retract your accusation of votestacking at the same time. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, the earlier RFC was on the centralized discussion notice for over a month.—Kww(talk) 23:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Yet more from Hengistmate

    Hengistmate is an editor mostly concerned with WWI armoured vehicles. He is knowledgeable on the subject, but has behaviourable problems around other editors, especially anyone who questions his authority. A long history of attacking other users (recorded in the obvious places) and, as someone who doesn't suffer fools gladly, I've been on the receiving end of much of this.

    The most recent outbreak is a content dispute at Mark V tank. See Talk:Mark_V_tank#Dates_of_Service. I care less about the content question here (it's 70 years ago, a number of clear photographs are disputed in their interpretation and neither of us can really prove much either way) than I do about Hengistmate's behaviour and persistent sarcasm and attacks. Particularly for his new tactic of inline editing my own comments to ridicule them: [101] [102] - even editing the comment that asks him not to edit others' comments.

    There's further disparagement on my own talk: here and after I removed it, promptly re-posted here. The text of this is interesting, it's a comment I made in relation to his editing and attacks on other editors here User_talk:Hengistmate#November_2012. He seems obsessed with it, and with me – to the point that he can barely have a gripe on another user's talk page without getting my name in too: User_talk:Hohum#WWI Tanks User_talk:Keith-264/Archive_1#3rd_Ypres.2C_etc. User_talk:Keith-264#Seen_This.3F.

    A further dose of his sarcasm was here: [103], an innocently logged out anon IP edit from the btcentralplus ISP in Cambridgeshire. Per AGF, this can't of course have been an attempt to provide himself with an agreeing voice on the article talk:, it must have just been an innocent accident. An illuminating accident though, because I have regular episodes of trolling on my talk: page in a similar style [104], and those also come from btcentralplus accounts in Cambridgeshire, with other edits to WWI tanks. I thus request a CU for this, or can raise it formally at SPI if required. Special:Contributions/81.96.104.201 Special:Contributions/86.165.116.52

    I don't see Hengistmate's actions and personal attacks here as acceptable. It's way beyond even the usual levels of argument. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This is too funny for words. Hengistmate (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @Andy Dingley: I don't think a CU is going to help you as connecting IPs to accounts is generally not done. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If the suspicion is that the IPs belong to an editor editing deliberately logged-out to obfuscate or disrupt, then an SPI with a CU request would be completely in order. Black Kite kite (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Typing

    I just realized that I've exceeded 3RR, so will hold off on editing further at Typing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There are multiple users adding "Brady typing" as an alternate to "hunt-and-peck", sourced to http://www.hellointernet.fm/podcast/15 - I've added a comment to the talk page, but no replies and multiple new and IP editors are adding the term.

    I can find no other evidence that the term is in use anywhere - the a term appears to be a vanity term used by Brady Haran in the podcast. But, I would appreciate some additional eyes on it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Update, from the podcast page, I found a link to discussions at http://www.reddit.com/r/CGPGrey/comments/28zhut/hi_15_books_made_of_paper/ . Given the posts there, I'm going to semi-protect the article for 24 hours. If anyone disagrees, the protection can be removed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by Obiwankenobi

    There has been a multi-day pattern of disruptive editing by Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) , specifically on articles and categories related to Misogyny/Misandry:

    Today, Obiwankenobi edited the category for “violence against men”, to make it so it’s no longer a subcategory of “Misandry” [[105]] He did this while involved in a debate on the original research noticeboard about that very category in question. The debate specifically involves this category’s relation to the misandry category, so it seems inappropriate to alter the category during the course of the debate. He also seems to be making a lot of controversial edits on many different categories related to misogyny/misandry, I'm not familiar enough to comment on all the other changes, but I think someone knowledgeable about categories maybe should look into the multiple category changes currently being made by this editor.

    Additionally, this is all occurring after an informal admin effort to help this user avoid a topic ban for disruptive editing on another article related to misogyny/misandry, YesAllWomen. On this article, Obiwankenobi bludgeoned the article talk page and closed an RfC he was involved in. Full details can be found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dennis_Brown#YesAllWomen, but in the end, Obiwankenobi agreed to edit something unrelated for a week or so, to avoid formal action, but this he hasn’t occurred, so it seems formal action may be needed. to avoid issue being brought to ANI. At the very least I think there needs to be more eyes on all the category changes.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you clarify where formal action was threatened anywhere? The way you've worded it is that Obi agreed to a week to avoid formal action, but when I read the thread, it appears Obi agreed to a week in good faith.--v/r - TP 23:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I realize there's a lot to wade through in the above linked discussion, but here are a couple of difs to relevant comments:
    [[106]],[[107]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoboMeowCat (talk • contribs) 00:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I will leave this in TParis's capable hands, but you are both correct. He agreed to back away, thus avoiding it being taken to ANI, where action was possible. I think you are just wording it differently. ie: "formal action" == "taken to ANI", rather than it meaning any particular sanction. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dennis Brown: I'm actually heading off to the gym. Sorry, I just wanted clarification on this point. I hate to see good deeds misconstrued as admission of guilt.--v/r - TP 00:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, it was an offer of a good dead after realizing he had probably pushed it a bit far in the discussion, but a good dead is only a good dead if you follow through. Bob doesn't seem to be asking for a block here, he is asking for oversight. I've done what I can, but my methods of come up short, and I'm just not fully well right now. It needs an another experienced, calm mediator to review and assist. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate how the categories are used here, so no comment there. I see nothing to make me think Obi's agreement was to avoid any sort of sanction. Arkon (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, it appears that one of the changes put Domestic violence and pregnancy in the "violence against men" category. [[108]]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Only indirectly as a grandparent. In the same way, adding Category:Rape as a subcategory of Category:Violence against women means Male rape now has a grandparent of Category:Violence against women. There are many such inconsistencies, please don't blame them on me! This is due to the nature of this part of the category tree - we have gendered parents with ungendered children like Category:Rape or Category:Domestic violence - so as a result some of the articles in the ungendered categories don't really fit in the gendered grandparent categories. This isn't my doing, this has been this way for a while as far as I know.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Bobo is correct that I went too far in a recent debate. I let my emotions get the better of me, but I've apologized, and I apologize again to Bobo and Tara for the disruption there. and I have already stepped away from that particular discussion on the advice of Dennis. As for the other edits, I do a lot of category editing and when categories are mentioned I take a look and make changes if I think they are warranted. The discussion Bobo refers to was not about the proper parent categories of Category:Violence against men but rather whether a particular article should be categorized in a particular category, i.e. Category:Violence against men in North America. I made the change to make Misandry->Violence against men a see also link instead of a parent/child relationship, since violence against men is not always driven by misandry, but often by other motives, such as religious hatred or political violence, terrorism, war, etc (see Srebrenica massacre for a classic example of violence against men that was nonetheless not driven by misandry but rather by ethnoreligious hatred). That said, in the interests of good will I am self-reverting those changes and will engage on the relevant talk pages to seek further consensus. It's too bad Bobo didn't simply bring up these changes to me instead of bringing this content dispute to ANI. I welcome any other suggestions you all have here on how to de-escalate this situation.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point on Srebrenica. Given the historical rareness of Amazons in military ranks, we might as well put Category:Battles into Violence against men, but that doesn't mean that battles should be considered misandry. I quote a relevant passage from Commons:COM:OVERCAT, which is simpler than anything I see here on en:wp —

    Pages (including category pages) are categorized according to their subject, and not to their contents, because the contents are generally not a permanent feature of the category page; in particular, you can momentarily find inappropriate contents in a category page. Example: Assume that Category:Spheres contains only pictures of crystal balls. You must not add Category:Glass in the category page, according to the current contents, because you can have spheres made with a great variety of materials. Normally, any picture showing a glass object would be already categorized in Category:Glass (or in a category of its substructure). So, if the Category:Spheres is really crowded with crystal balls pictures, it would be a better idea to create a new category page, like Category:Glass spheres or Category:Crystal balls, categorized in Category:Spheres and Category:Glass.

    Let the misandry category be for articles about subjects such as militant feminism. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I've reverted those changes now, but I am starting a discussion at WikiProject gender studies to cover this and the misogyny category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's too bad Bobo didn't simply bring up these changes to me instead of bringing this content dispute to ANI. You shouldn't expect anyone to have unlimited patience with you. Bobo and I had both addressed your tendentious editing on your talk page previously and were rebuffed. When every objection to your behavior is met with 'it's water under the bridge' and 'let's move forward' rather than any acknowledgement that you could have handled the matter better, and when the behavior itself keeps recurring, you have to expect that eventually someone is going to turn to a dispute resolution venue of some sort. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me make an observation: Here just as on my talk page, I think everyone is acting in good faith. Some nerves are a bit raw but no one is asking for sanctions, no one is getting rude. Both sides of the original dispute are frustrated, but that is just part of editing in disputed areas. It happens. We seem to have an agreement by Obi and good faith actions on his part. Perhaps we should just close and walk away and let time heal old wounds. I don't see any "bad guys" here, and I don't want this to get dragged out to a point that we create one. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am acting with good faith and I'm not necessarily asking for sanctions. I just think you should be aware that the calm reasonable response that Obiwankenobi has been giving in front of you and other admins, who have the power to impose sanctions, is in contrast to the continued behavior and the repeated rebuffing of fellow editor's concerns. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I really think that a less biased editor should be the one who does things like unlink the category Violence against women from Misogyny or Violence against men from Misandry. The former is a long standing category which covers dozens of articles. More importantly, there are a number of instances where an article would have been in both Misogyny and Violence against women and that it now would not be. The article for Violence against women describes it as "Violence against women (in short as VAW) is a technical term used to collectively refer to violent acts that are primarily or exclusively committed against women. Similar to a hate crime, which it is sometimes considered, this type of violence targets a specific group with the victim's gender as a primary motive." However, Obiwankenobi seems to be convinced that these kinds of violence do not presuppose the victim's gender as a motive. I believe this is to eventually move towards including things such as acts of war as gendered violence and completely restructure the way that both categories are used. Considering this editors contentious stance concerning feminism, I think it is very possible that these efforts are an attempt to "move the goalposts" as it were concerning categories that focus on both men's and women's issues --80.193.191.143 (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. If you'd like the participate in the discussion on this topic, I started it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies#Misandry.2FViolence_against_men.2FMisogyny.2FViolence_against_women. That said, I would be careful about relying upon our wikipedia article, I'd focus on the sources themselves instead, which I provided an example of in the discussion I just linked, which gives about 6 or 7 different reasons for rape in warfare for example. the way we have used these categories in the past is for violence where the victim was selected for violence based on their gender - not where the gender of the victims MOTIVATED the violence - the causes of violence are complex, but they sometimes manifest themselves in particular people being selected for violence based on their gender. For example, sexual trafficking of women is not motivated by hatred of women, but by profit. Sometimes both happen at once, but not always.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If we are editing directly against the basic ways that a term is described on website, then it shows we, as a community, have some significant problems with our understanding of said terms --80.193.191.143 (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You may want to read this, which gives about 20 pages of different theories as to the causes and motives of violence against women. Very few of them are "Because they are women". It suggests to me we should update the lede of our article, actually. Anyway, we're getting off topic here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as we all know, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true, but without specific guidelines concerning how to use a category, surely we should use how the topic is described on website? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we close this now? Arkon (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that's a good idea. For one thing, there hasn't really been any contribution by admins and the discussion seems to be unresolved. I'm certainly still very unhappy about how disruptive Obi's editing has been the past few days --80.193.191.143 (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this should be hastily closed either. It appears the category referred to above “violence against men”, has been nominated for deletion: (here) and the arguments for deletion coming from multiple editors relate largely to Obiwankenobi’s use of this category. I’m not sure the answer, but if admins could help facilitate the use of this category by Obiwankenobi, it might go a long way in saving a category from deletion, which has the potential to be useful. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A category like that sounds like a novelty item, like the proverbial "man bites dog" (or more recently, soccer player). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I encourage people to take a look at the sources I provided here which provide some quotes and context for just a small part of the literature around gender-based violence against men (I didn't provide sources around Male rape outside of war, Domestic violence against men, Prison rape, and other forms of gender-based violence against men, I just focused on things like gender-selective killing of civilian males in conflict and sexual violence during conflict enacted against males.) I realize this is a sensitive topic, and many people may not have been exposed to this literature (and some express disbelief that violence against men is a real thing!); and it's certainly a topic much less covered than violence against women, but the topic of gender-based violence against men is a real field of study and I think it's quite useful as a category. Like all relatively new categories, it is still undeveloped and needs help to grow and refine inclusion criteria. Your help and input would be welcome.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    spam

    (NAC) Userpage speedied per G11. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC) and username blocked by Doug. Nick (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Coming over from Commons I'm not sure whether thats the right venue. The userpage of Malikstorepk (talk · contribs) on :en seems to serve as a mere advertisement. Take care. --Túrelio (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've put it for deletion.--cyclopiaspeak! 10:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just tag it with {{db-spamuser}}. Rgrds. --64.85.217.217 (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    ...aaaaaaand its gone. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 10:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry for the post-close comment. Just wondering if the user should be blocked for a promotional username, as per the text on {{db-spamuser}}? Rgrds. --64.85.217.217 (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Doesn't seem obviously promotional to me. I don't see any particular urgency for a block either. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The name of the business was "Malik Store PK"; the username is Malikstorepk. Rgrds. --64.85.217.217 (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    swearing

    The pot and kettle are both black. Closing before the eerie, swishing sound of the boomerang becomes deafening. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User LeoFrank removed my contributions so I wrote in hindi that he is a son of the satan , but he replied me by writing "F..K OFF!" [109]. I ask forgiveness, but he cannot write this thing. Please admin, decide what to do with this user. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.138.252 (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Incoming curved stick of looks like you started it. Would be better to appoligise and move on if its a single incident. Amortias (T)(C) 17:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And you calling him a son of satan is all right?? Apologize and move on please. --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be a lot more offended by being called a son of Satan than by being told to fuck off. (I presume he actually wrote 'fuck' and not 'f..k'.) My advice to you is to beware of boomerangs. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This has gone too far

    NAC: 82.8.252.13 blocked by User:Diannaa for one week for personal attacks and harassment Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There is a dispute going on between 82.8.252.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and myself. The beginning of it can be seen here. It continued at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Question regarding categories and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:MarnetteD reported by User:82.8.252.13 .28Result: .29 and here User talk:MarnetteD#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion. Some of these are par for the course and this thread is not about the content dispute. In spite of the violations of WP:NPA (as well as the nonsense about Russian roulette here User talk:Smalljim#War editing persists) I had not reported the IP before. Several minutes ago I received an email containing the vilest of accusations. It supposedly came from Ol'Jasper (talk · contribs). As you will note that editor is a WP:SPA whose only edit was to create the category in question. It should also be noted that only happened after I pointed out to the IP that the category was a red link. The SPA might or might not be a sock but there is some quacking going on. The email was an attempt to get me angry as well as being an attempt to get me to respond and reveal my email address. Neither of those is going to happen. If there is an admin or some other area of WikiP that I can forward this to so that it can be investigated please let me know and I will do so. The rough and tumble of editing is par for the course - the violation of WP:NPA and the email I received are go far beyond that. MarnetteD|Talk 18:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I don't know anyone called Jasper, hardly an English name is it? But your attempts to bridge his email with me are as uncivil as someone comparing an editor to Hitler, you just can't go around pointing fingers. Accusations made without evidence are personal attacks. Your WP:SPA links states clearly that: Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project." My IP is certainly not an SPA, and the account you claim is attacking you by email does not meet that description either. I'm aware of what a WP:DUCK is also. You can hardly compare an editor with one edit to me. Besides the fact he appears to have registered before this dispute arose, so if it were me I'd be using that account not my IP. You seem to have put 2 and 2 together and made 5, baseless accusations and further misquotes of policy in bad faith. Whatever Jasper said is not of any interest to me. Love the hyperbolic and overly-dramatic header btw, you could make a living as a celebrity with that ego. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked my friend if he can email this Jasper from his account, he says Jasper is not accepting emails from users - so does that mean he can still send? As for Russian roulette, I made that wholesome remark and the one about being able to switch IPs, if I want to, to highlight your behaviour through psychological persuasion. You see how you grasped at those remarks in order to overshadow your own behaviour, clutching at straws in hopes my comments would seem worse than your mass reverts. I doubt this Jasper even emailed you, it sounds like some bullshit fairy tale to turn ANI against me so that your own block log and history of 3RR and IP intolerance (or should I say discrimination for anon privacy) can go ignored. By ignoring scare quotes, winks ;) and other small tokens in my comments that indicate jest you have taken my remarks out of context in order to mask your own underhand dealings with IPs who edit articles that you watch, and revert with WP:OWNERSHIP characteristics present in some of those long-gone editors who you compare to me. Truth is, people like you, who act in bad faith and seek to control and manipulate vast areas of wiki drive or bully them off. What you know about UK TV programmes isn't worth much, but you still override a large number of UK-based editors who have more access and familiarity. It's all very clever, and I do wonder whether you've tipped a few corrupt admins a backhander or two via Paypal to chase off your opposition, place a few blocks, or to harass them as you do with mass reverts and foul accusations of "conspiring" with other editors. Unfounded accusations aren't worth the bandwidth they were submitted on. All you've done is made a mountain of a molehill using mud from your own garden. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Darkfrog24 - ongoing edit-warring, etc.

    Article: Oathkeeper
    Involved Section(s): Oathkeeper/Writing
    Issue(s): Edit-Warring, tendentious editing, and possibly something worse
    Editor Being Reported: Darkfrog24
    Background:
    After almost a month and a half of mediation, RfC'ing and a virtual maze of walls o' text, a narrow consensus emerged with regards to the incorrect usage of the primary source of a book to note chapters used within an episode of the Game of Thrones tv series. Darkfrog24 (and, to a lesser extent, Diego Moya) insisted that a primary source could be used to extrapolate what chapters were used in the episode. A majority of others equally insisted that this constituted synthesis, and others still argued that, since reviews from secondary sources didn't bother mentioning the chapter-episode relationships with such precision, that doing so was trivial. After the RFC, matters seemed to calm down and the article was stable without the book reference.
    Issue:
    Darkfrog returned to the article and began re-adding the primary reference again, and continued to add it when removed several times. Darkfrog then lashed out at other editors (myself one of them) several times. She added three distinct, secondary sources. One of them, appears to be a user-created article(io9's Observation Deck) which contains information about the chapters from the book used within the television series, without being specific as to what chapter appeared in what article. There also appears to be some concern that Observation Deck contains user-created articles. Damned odd, but I could simply be misinterpreting
    The second source, however, is what brought me here. In the first paragraph of the anonymous news article, the precise information Darkfrog24 sought to add appears. Fortuitous? I'd say yes, but then I started to note some inconsistencies, such as the fact that the source, PANow.com, allows for independently-written articles. The source wasn't written by a staff writer at the site (I confirmed this by contacting them to ask who wrote the article). Additionally, PANow is a user-driven site.
    Concern:
    Darkfrog has run into problems before here (1, 2) and at 3RR (3, 4). Despite this, I am not sure if I want to believe that Darkfrog24 would create a source within user-space sites to directly support her position in an article. That seems like overkill, but we all know that this has happened elsewhere, with other (former) contributors. Maybe its happening here.
    Had it not been for the precise wording of the second article in explicit support of her very specific edit, I probably would have just thought her very good at research and very lucky.
    I am not so sure its luck. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I have heard back from PANow with regards to the second source. It was added to the Classified Section of their Business Directory, and quite recently, too. It seems odd that an episode aired back in April would, within the last week, generate a spcifically-worded review that assists an editor. I call shenanigans. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That PANow page seems to be gone, with a 404 error. -- Atama頭 21:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The plot thickens. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The current issue at hand is that Jack keeps deleting the ref tag citing the novel A Storm of Swords in an article about an episode of the TV show based on that book [110].
    The content in question is now supported by both primary and secondary sources. I do not see why we should not cite both the primary and secondary sources. What is the harm in telling the reader, "Yes, someone also opened the book itself and checked"? As per WP:PRIMARY, the novel itself is a suitable source for straight facts about its own content; the secondary sources are helpful but not necessary. As per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, the primary source is where I actually found the information; I dug up the secondary sources later solely to address Jack and one other person's concerns.
    The results of the RfC were not that using a primary source was OR but one contributor argued that the primary source should not, by itself, be used to indicate that the content was non-trivial enough to include in the article; secondary sources were needed to establish this.[111] So I found more secondary sources. Jack deleted one of them without reading it [112][113]. (His summary: "This article doesn't contain that information." My summary: "Yes it does; here are its exact words.") This is not [114] [115], the first [116], second [117] or third [118] time he's done this [119]. Why don't I just go find more sources, you ask? Because Jack has established that it is a waste of my time; he won't read them.
    The way I see it, I've addressed all legitimate objections to 1. the inclusion of the material itself and 2. the inclusion of the tag citing the novel. It's time to give the delete button a rest.
    Every time I meet one of Jack's demands he comes up with a new one that he neglected to mention previously. He claims OR, so I point him toward WP:Primary. When people disagreed with him about the OR issue, he says that the issue wasn't really OR; it was something else. I took the time to dig up precedent articles that use the sources the way I've been using them [120]; and he continued to insist that I just take his interpretation of policy as gospel with no precedent or proof. I found source after source; he deleted the material without bothering to read them and see whether they addressed his concerns. Now he's insinuating that I put out a classified in a newspaper just to have a source for this article. It's an excuse parade.
    Frankly, I'd like Jack to put all cards on the table. Disclose all objections to the statement, "This episode was based on chapters X, Y, and Z of the novel" so that they can be dealt with. This "Oh, you met one of my demands? Here's a new one from out of my hat!" business has got to go.
    I also find it very frustrating to put in the time and effort looking for sources only to have someone call me too lazy to "roll up my sleeves and find sources" in the comments and edit summaries with which he lifts a finger only to hit the delete button. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the Prince Albert source, it was working last night when I found it. That's why the citation format contains an access date. As for why it contains the same text, it's because that's what I put in the search bar: "Oathkeeper," "Jaime IX" "chapter 72" "Sansa VI," etc. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't the place for content disputes, Darkfrog24. As to the argument that I am somehow hiding my objections to the content, it isn't a new one from the user. I've told her what she needs for inclusion: reliable secondary sourcing that explicitly notes the information she wants to add. She cannot find it, which tells me (and a consensus of others) that few reliable sources feel it important enough to mention. She chooses to ignore this, and insists on using - over multiple editors' objections - the primary source of the book to compare the book to the tv episode. It's this 'I don't like it' and gaming the system on the part of Darkfrog24 that has tied up at least four other editors for almost two months.
    Pert of me wants a few editors to point out her misinterpretation of source use, though I know she won't accept it - she hasn't accepted the possibility that she's wrong when others have told her so, I am not sure how to proceed. She creates a toxic work environment, and virtually all work in the article has ceased over her pettifoggery. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Mlpearc marking reverts as minor

    I skipped too many steps by coming right here. I apologize. Harmelodix (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Last night Mlperac reverted 5 edits that I made with one revert, which they marked as "minor". Today they have done the same at another article. Is there something wrong with my edits, because I feel that they improved the prose. Mlpearc is reverting me without giving a good reason. Harmelodix (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone please explain why this:

    According to Black Sabbath's guitarist and founder member, Tony Iommi, their debut album was recorded in a single day on 16 October 1969. Other sources state that 17 November 1969 was the date of recording.

    is not an improvement over this:

    According to guitarist Tony Iommi, the album was recorded in a single day on 16 October 1969, while other sources say that 17 November 1969 was the date of recording

    ? Harmelodix (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a content dispute to me. Using something that might be a minor misstep (e.g., use of the minor edit tag) in order to drag something to ANI is usually a pretty poor move. This thread is a bad idea. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You're also expected to at least make a good-faith attempt to resolve this "dispute" before coming here. I don't even see evidence of an impasse. Why are you back here already? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm doing my best, but if this is the wrong place then close it. I see this as improper reverting, not a content dispute because Mlpearc has not made any substantive comments about the content. IMO, he is shill reverting for Dan56, who canvassed him last night. Harmelodix (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    FTR, I haven't used rollback in ages (please check again), I have explained myself, or am I wasting my time with edit summaries ? Mlpearc (open channel) 21:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, maybe its not technically roll-back, but you reverted 5 edits in one revert with the two-word edit summary "Personal opinion", so can you please explain what about my edits was unsourced personal opinion? Harmelodix (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, Harmelodix, so what? This is the second editor against whom you've started an ANI thread this week for largely the same issue and with the same unfounded accusations of impropriety. And even after your last ANI thread was archived, I note you're still trying to get me (and I assume others) to take your side in that same dispute. I'm not saying any particular editor's edits are right or wrong, but at this point it's not an issue worthy of this noticeboard: any behavioral issues are not ripe for handling at ANI, and the content disputes have not been addressed through any dispute resolution step other than the most cursory attempts at discussion on article and user talk pages. Continuing to push this as something that needs to be resolved through administrative action rather than discussion of the substantive edits will not work. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I'm not up on procedure, and I thought that because Mlpearc ignored my request to discuss the issue, and since they continued to do it today, that I should stay away from their talk page. I still think that reverting 5 edits with one twinkle edit and a two-word edit summary is inappropriate. Harmelodix (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing

    I have become involved in an dispute with a editor Dolatjan (talk · contribs) who persists in adding dubious, improperly sourced, irrelevant, badly-worded and non-NPV content, for example, here, here, here. The editor also insists on ascribing action or words said to me which never happened, complaining even when edits were made to correct the editor's poor English. The editor would add unsourced content that the editor cannot substantiate when challenged, or add content with spurious source, for example as discussed here - Talk:Uyghur_people#Neutrality. Content that sounded plausible were added but when checked with the source, they cannot be found in there. The editor appears to add sources that sound likely to support the assertions made but actually don't, and insist on adding content even when shown that the source doesn't say what it is purported to say. It takes a lot of time to check the sources especially when the editor would not give page number of the books (the only time when the editor gave the page numbers it was demonstrated clearly not to say what the editor claimed it says), so it's either spending an enormous amount to time checking the source (which I don't have) or allow dubious content to stay on the page. Hzh (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi! I have been adding articles by adding source, On my first and second edits i did not have enough time to add Sources for the subjects im adding on the page Uyghur People, then i tried to communicate with the user Hzh (talk · contribs) about how shall we improve and how can we make the page a more Neutral page, i recommended that i would give source for every subject that i will add and i did that on sub articles like Education, Medicine and Art but when it comes to my newly added sub China Uyghur issue and Uyghur population problem i couldn't give any cites for them because of the lack of time i had, then when i saw user Hzh started to call it "Unneutral source" and "Unreliable source" i thougt if we talk about this subject on Talk page was a good idea, then i wrote about the "neutrality" problem on Talk page, user Hzh Started to deter me from editing, He replied to the talk page by calling me "Tidy up your english", It is true that i'm not a perfect english speaker, Hes started to call my sources unstable and that im lying, I showed him the page of the book where the refrences is about but he denied by saying "It is not relevant", I stopped to edit the page because it will be much better if we the editors will be nicely talking and come up with a solution about it, but user Hzh started to deter me, call me liar and untrustable, he eventually said he would not discuss no more, and now he is reporting me to block me from editing, it is Hzh who stopped discussion and starting to deter me and "insult" me, i wrote that i will provide the source of every problem that i will write and i asked to make the page more Neutral, but he ignores what i say and starts to change the main subject of the Talk section and falsely accusing me for giving untrustable source. I tried to solve this by coopration and talk but user Hzh is not willing to do it. then i started to rewrite the subject in Education even when he is deterring me by saying i will be blocked, i hope admins will see a good solution for this. Dolatjan (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just point I wrote on the sources - here. I read two books Dolatjan cited and neither of them supported those edits. I'll leave the rest to the administrators as I won't try to make any edits on the Uyghur page for now, I simply have no idea how to deal with someone who is persistent and hard to make any sense of. I feel that I have wasted a lot of time the last couple of days just trying to find out if the edits have any merits, and fear that there is more to come. Hzh (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by User:ProProbly

    Some edits that I had made to the article on human scale were repeatedly reverted without justification by User:ProProbly. He asserted that my edits constituted "undiscussed metrification" and insisted that I should discuss the issue on the talk page. The article in question had previously used metric units, as WP:MOSNUM requires of articles which do not relate directly to USA or UK topics. I explained this clearly to him on my own talk page, in addition to suggesting a more constructive course of action than reverting my edits. I had added content to the article and corrected some errors, which he also removed without justification.

    Diff of the article in question: [121]

    This issue has previously been plagued by User:DeFacto and several of his suspected sockpuppets (one of whom – User:Passy2 – previously harassed me in a similar way); given that the account User:ProProbly has just been created, and has immediately begun acting like a WP:SPA with obsessive editing to oppose the use of metric units even where the MOS requires them, I am extremely suspicious, but unsure how to proceed. I'd appreciate some input from those more experienced than me in dealing with such matters. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not clear on what your objection is to trying to resolve issue on talk:human scale first. At the time of this ANI report, edit history shows you've yet to participate on the article talk page at all. I don't think suspicion user might be a sock warrants not even making a basic attempt to resolve issue on talk page.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. I'll explain and perhaps submit a RFC on the talk page, but it still seems to me that his behaviour has been disruptive. I am perhaps too cynical, having been involved with a previous round of similar behaviour by User:Passy2, who was similarly uninterested in following the MOS, and the ensuing tedious discussion. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This has DeFacto written all over it. Nothing wrong with bringing that here for more input.--Atlan (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If things don't go well after that, and further evidence continues to point to sock puppetry, there's WP:SPI.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on past experience with DeFacto and his many heads, this is best nipped in the bud. His previous socks have caused disruption and frustration across many articles, and he insists in each instance that a new discussion is started, even when he is obviously in the wrong, which compounds the time he wastes. I mainly wanted to bring the new suspicious account to wider attention as soon as possible. Archon 2488 (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Reporting user

    Reporting User:Gogo_Dodo. This user inappropriately comes along blatantly removing information, with little to no regard for public opinion on the topic. After making controversial edits, this user makes claims such as "non-notable" or "not mentioned" to remove as much information as possible on List of deceased hip hop artists, all at once. The only reason this user appears to be doing this, is in rebuttal because he (or she) nominated the article for deletion (after a new name was added) and it was kept. This user apparently wants to remove that new name (which is noted/mentioned both on Wikipedia and in sources, see 2014 in hip hop) and as many names as possible to trim the list down, citing Wikipedia policy. However, his claims of non-notability only seem to be half-true. The new name was not only mentioned on Wikipedia but in multiple hip hop sources, and probably belongs on this list.

    Eventually, this user submits to making claims of bad faith editing and article ownership. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    71.82.112.140 (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs please.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have notified Gogo Dodo of this thread. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Gogo_Dodo's view appears to be that the list should only include notable deceased hip hop artists, rather than anyone whom anyone considers to have been a hip hop artist. I agree with his view. Maproom (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    He is removing way too much.[122] It is not up to him to decide which links and sourced material to remove because he believes[123] it is non-notable. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also agree with Gogo_Dodo and Maproom, if the artist is notable enough to be on a deceased list, they should already have their own page. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily. Not all notable artists are yet on Wikipedia, and there were many recent deaths in hip hop this year (2014). Since it is up to you guys, and you agree with him, then it looks like he can take over from here. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, answer me this, who in the hell is Q-Don ? Mlpearc (open channel) 22:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I really can't answer that but I'm glad somebody is willing to go over the specifics. Some very rare names which might not be notable were added. But if you insist, go ahead and leave it to this user to delete as much info as he possibly can, because he wanted the whole article gone. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    My edits to the article were explained on the talk page of the article. There were a couple of suggestions in the AfD to only list notable artists with articles. So I removed all of the unlinked, non-notable artists per WP:NLIST. 71.82.112.140 undid my edits [124] [125], the second time accusing me of removing particular artists when if 71.82.112.140 actually looked at the revision I made, those artists were clearly still listed. The "new name" 71.82.112.140 is referring to appears to be OTF NuNu which I removed because no notability has been established for OTF NuNu nor are the mentioned in they Lil Durk article. I did not nominate the article for deletion because of the addition of a "new name". I nominated it for the reasons I stated on the AfD. I already asked for a third opinion, but I guess we can get the third opinion here. Since I have "been reported for making controversial edits, false claims, and removing sourced information", my rebuttal to that is the only controversy appears to be with 71.82.112.140, I don't know what false claims I made, and being sourced does not mean that something can not be removed when appropriate and I believe that I have clearly stated why the removals were appropriate. In my opinion, 71.82.112.140's preferred version of the article is an absolute mess compared my cleaned up version. Sure, there room for improvement in my revision, but I can't see how 71.82.112.140's is better. 71.82.112.140 seems to want me to discuss the removal every, single unlinked artist individually, which is ridiculous. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And what do you personally have against OTF NuNu? He is a Lil Durk affiliate mentioned in multiple hip hop sources and was already mentioned on Wikipedia, which I would consider notable and relevant to this list. What makes him not notable? If you didn't make those edits because you noticed a "new name" being added, then what brought you to the article? 71.82.112.140 (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nothing against OTF NuNu. I don't know him from Adam. What makes him not notable is that there is no claim towards him meeting the notability guidelines. I ended up at List of deceased hip hop artists because I noticed recent changes were being made. I read the article and thought was excessively trivial just like I stated in the AfD. I did not nominate the article because OTF NuNu was added to the list. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have something personal against the information provided about the artist. He is in fact, noted by multiple magazine references and already mentioned on Wikipedia. Would you care to explain why he does not deserve a mention on Wikipedia? 71.82.112.140 (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to think that I have something against this particular person when I clearly stated that I do not. If you believe that I nominated the entire article because of one person whom I never heard of and removed all of the entries because I was out to delete one person, then you are seriously mistaken. I already explained why he is not notable. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm still having trouble understanding. He is noted by multiple magazines which meet music guidelines (Complex, XXL, etc.) and is already mentioned on Wikipedia. Can you explain why he does not deserve a mention on Wikipedia? 71.82.112.140 (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguing over every single entry is "ridiculous" Mlpearc (open channel) 23:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is about the excessive removal of information including the recent entries from this year. Not a single entry 71.82.112.140 (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is about the excessive removal of information including the recent entries from this year. Not a single entry,. It was that single entry which I believe brought this user to not leave this article alone, and why he wants all of the information relating to the specific entry removed completely[126] (not because of the subject's non-notability which the user still won't speak of) 71.82.112.140 (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If your best argument is "he is removing too much", without defining what too much is and why it is too much, you really don't have a leg to stand on.--Atlan (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If his best argument is "non-notable" and "unlinked" "not mentioned" without defining what those things are, he shouldn't either. This user shouldn't just get to decide, regardless of Wikilinks and sources, to remove a bunch of names. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, if that were his best argument then he shouldn't. Fortunately, he has a better argument. It's that they do not meet the standards of WP:MUSICBIO.--v/r - TP 23:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are not the same reasons he listed on the talk page, or in the revision history. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not bring content disputes to ANI: there is no credible allegation of misconduct requiring administrative action, and this is not an appropriate forum for deciding content. Acroterion (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I believed this user's edits may have been in bad behavior and of bad faith, because for whatever reason this user will not stop blatantly removing large amounts of content all at once, without proper discussion. This user also claimed article ownership, so it goes a little bit beyond a content dispute in my opinion. Thanks 71.82.112.140 (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think that "whatever reason" might consist of a sincere conviction that the article needs trimming? You have made a substantial number of edits to that article, Gogo Dodo has not. The ownership I see belongs to you. So does the assumption of bad faith. Acroterion (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely not. This user wanted the article deleted completely, and now I believe wants to remove as much information as possible (not the same as trimming). I never claimed ownership of the article, so it's wrong to say it belongs to me. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC) I never assumed bad faith, but the user's edits over the last few days, especially regarding recent entries, appear related to personal disputes over information and not actual notability on the encyclopedia 71.82.112.140 (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Review of the talkpage discussion does not support your perception, but it does show a distinct pattern of ownership on your part. I suggest you consider the views of everyone who has responded to your complaint: your perception is not supported, and your conduct is what is under review at this point. Acroterion (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I don't know what a "pattern of ownership" is and I would hate to show one, as I don't own the information here on Wikipedia and never claimed to. Other users made quite a few edits to this article recently, including the addition of the most significantly disputed name in this discussion. I appreciate your review and would like to learn to show proper conduct on Wikipedia at all times, even during disputes. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Proper conduct involves editing collaboratively with those who may hold differing points of views, remembering that pretty much everyone is here to improve the encyclopedia, whether or not you personally agree. That is part of assuming good faith, something you have failed to do in this case. Acroterion (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that this user was not initially trying to improve this article. This user initially nominated the article for deletion, and personally strongly doesn't agree with a magazine referenced entry on the list (and wont explain why) so he continues to remove it along with others. I don't think my conduct is a concern at this point because this user is the one being reported for making drastic edits to an article out of the blue which seem to contradict notability guidelines and policy. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've said it before, I'll say it again: "List of..." articles should typically only contain entries with Wikipedia entries. When a lot of random editors come along and start adding ridiculously non-notable people to it, then it's usually a sign that it's an "unmanageable list" and therefore gets nominated for deletion the panda ₯’ 00:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, it's already been nominated. And as mentioned in the first AfD discussion, it was an attempt to gather a more complete list. The problem is that, this user is removing multiple entries with Wikipedia articles and hip hop music sources, including some of the newest names added to the list. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Deletion nomination is not in itself disruptive. You keep attributing bad faith to Gogo Dodo in an absence of evidence, please stop. You're making yourself a deep hole. Acroterion (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The only evidence I have of bad faith is the user's disruptive and destructive editing, backed by false claims of non-linkage, non-notability or other nonsense. Have a nice day and enjoy it. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not claim deletion nomination in itself was disruptive. What's disruptive, is that, this user is removing multiple entries with Wikipedia articles and hip hop music sources, including some of the newest names added to the list in 2014 (see, OTF NuNu, Speaker Knockerz, Monkey Black, etc.). I am sorry if you guys don't understand what this user is doing but I will leave the discussion here. I am not digging myself a "deeper hole". Bye guys. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Matthewhburch

    Just wanted to give a heads up about a new(?) editor, Matthewhburch who is becoming increasingly dismissive, rude and abusive to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation reviewers, despite several of them spending considerable time trying to give help and advice. His article, Draft:Propulsion methods utilizing fuel accelerated from a remote fuel source, was declined by multiple reviewers and he was also advised at lenght at the Teahouse by experienced editors that his article was inappropriate. The draft was subsequently proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (I believe on the basis of his adversarial behaviour and refusal to accept Wikipedia's basic modus operandi).

    I raised the issue of his language [127][128] to another editor who (as far as I could see) had gone out of his way to be helpful. Matthewhburch subsequently described me in unflattering terms so I feel I am too far involved to make further warnings myself! Matthewhburch removed the earlier comments but made further disparaging remarks in his edit summary.

    An uninvolved person may be useful to give Matthewhburch further advice about his behaviour. Sionk (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sionk, you are not the author of "what is written above your comment" An apology for misattribution of my words as an attack on you would be appreciated. Matthewhburch (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does that matter? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Because "Matthewhburch subsequently described me in unflattering terms" is a false statement? Matthewhburch (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sionk: To be honest, Matthew is right. I have read the bit you provided and he was not mentioning you. Whether or not the comment against TimTrent was uncivil or not is another matter. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, considering the only comments "above" were from me and Matthewhburch, it was natural to think they were addressed to me!! Sionk (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    To both (Sionk—Skamecrazy123) As recipient I view it as uncivil and a personal attack. However I also view it as the result of frustration with Wikipedia not being as expected by a new editor. The "What is written above your comment" were interpretable as to Sionk, but the phrase was sufficiently ambiguous to be capable of dual interpretation. There is irony here, but no matter. I have no interest in beating this editor with a stick. He seems to be perfectly capable of doing that for himself. If only he would both hear and understand what he is told he would, probably, still be frustrated but he would understand better why he is frustrated. Let us let this matter drop. It is a warning shot across his bows, and that should remain, but the rest is something I considered complaining about, since it is addressed to me, but chose not to. Fiddle Faddle 00:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have squabbled with other editors about their attempted enforcement of an undocumented rule, and in specific I have been severely irritated by the specific editor that I did, in fact lose my cool at. The editor in question has a tendency to provide vague and off topic responses to clear requests for information. My refusal to allow reviewers to dictate their own rules as opposed to following existing ones has landed my article here. I would appreciate it if someone would summarily remove the article from consideration for deletion, as it's obviously a kangaroo court convened because I objected to the reviewers creating their own rules. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Propulsion methods utilizing fuel accelerated from a remote fuel source Thank you for your reasoned response. Matthewhburch (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @Matthewhburch:Has the conversation run its course at MfD? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skamecrazy123: It seems so, the kangaroo court appears to have voted, based on my unwillingness to allow reviewers to create their own rules. I've never done a review for deletion though, and do not know how to request that it be reviewed for bias. Matthewhburch (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    "what is written above your comment" has been deleted because it comes from an unreliable source. It's still in the history though. Matthewhburch (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @Matthewhburch:You keep on saying that reviewers are creating their own rules. What rules are they supposedly creating and where are the diffs to back up those claims? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skamecrazy123: Here is the discussion on retroactively applying the rules that the reviewer community was attempting to force on me. "Time to codify long-standing practice of restoring removed AFC templates?" on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation page. Whether or not Wiki chooses to implement said rules, they do not exist yet, and the entire reason I am now embroiled with all this is because I refused to roll over and let reviewers make up their own rules. Matthewhburch (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Matthewhburch:Thank you. I would suggest that we take this to talk pages so as not to take this ANI discussion off topic. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Notwiki G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:IUC and WP:OWN by USER:Susan Macafee for The Ribbon International

    Well, I just came across this article, made an edit to delete some "too-detailed-information", and got the following in my email which is quite upsetting (it also shows on my talk page): User talk:Hires an editor#The Ribbon International. This is not the normal process: certainly she may feel free to revert and then discuss, rather than shouting at me in an email and on my talk page. The article is listed as having multiple issues, and I will seek to correct them. The editor Susan Macafee seems to have had issues with seeming to own the page and its content before, and further (as she notes herself) seems to have a very close connection to the subject, to the point that she is being directed to place content by the organization itself. I find all of this to be extremely problematic, and it needs to be dealt with in an appropriate way. Hires an editor (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on what she has put on your talk page, I have warned her about article ownership. I'm not sure if there is any admin action to be taken at the moment. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I saw this article a few weeks ago and hit a few of the images over at Commons with deletion tags due to various deficiencies (usually no permission). The folks at The Ribbon were apparently annoyed with that. Anyway, this article definitely needs watching given the people involved are related to the organization. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg to differ from your comments. The release by Nigel Noble was sent into Wiki Commons on April 12th. An Admin Sven_Manguard was in Wiki IRC and located the email and the release. I informed him at the time I was not ready to upload the photos and would notify him when I uploaded. I notified him on his talk page on May 1st that I was uploading the photos. Apparently, Sven_Manguard did not verify the photos and then the release got misplaced. As for the map image I had told by Howicus and Hunan in Wiki IRC to use the map on the since it did not have a copy right. I was upset that I had to spend the weekend trying to locate information and try to contact a person in Commons to find the release. I was finally able to find Suda, an efficient person in Commons who located the release. As for the map, the no copyright that I had on the image, is still there, as it is a U.S. Park Service map. You could have checked with Commons to inquire about the release, as Nigel Noble's name is with the photos, before tagging the photos or post a message on my talk page concerning an issue with the copyrights. Susan Macafee (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I can also attest to the editor's apparent issue with WP:OWN, and a relevant discussion can be seen on my talk page at User_talk:Benboy00#The_Ribbon_International. Benboy00 (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Calling people dumb in HTML Also brings a touch of Uncivilness LorChat 00:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

    @Mendaliv:I'm not sure what your opinion is but I feel that, based on the evidence provided above as well as her interactions with other users, the level 1 warning I gave wasn't strong enough. What's your view on it? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor has a COI as she's involved with the organization. Initial efforts to reduce the magazine-style tone of the article were not exactly welcomed: Talk:The_Ribbon_International. Since then other editors have taken a stab at the content (sometimes meeting resistance like the above) and I have been trying to tamp down on the somewhat promotional nature of her edits (e.g., [129], [130], [131]). I think she could be a valued contributor if somehow she could take a more dispassionate view of the subject. --NeilN talk to me 00:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Treatment I've experienced from User:Montanabw re: Standardbred

    NAC: The dispute resolution noticeboard is thataway. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I would like to report my concerns regarding the tone and escalation in negative communications to me by User:Montanabw regarding the article, Standardbred. I obviously have a differing perception from her, and while I have taken her concerns into account, she appears to be unable to let the issue go, and maintain an expected standard of communication regarding it. I began a discussion on the article's talk page following reverts by this editor that I believed were excessive and unnecessary. In my commentary to the editor, I also stated to her that she could have begun the discussion on the talk page before first making the reverts that she did. In the past, when I have informed editors who have done so of my concerns, they are typically willing to be open-minded and compromise. I posed a different point of view that my contributions could have been included in the article rather than nearly all deleted. I shared with this editor on Standardbred's talk page, and also provided an example of what I was talking about, such as in the nuclear waste section of the article, Cattaraugus Creek, in regard to the templates that were added to it. Even prior to making any edits on the horse article, I reviewed the history and noticed this editor's multiple reverts without attempts to incorporate what many others had attempted to be included. To me, this editor has made the most reverts to the article, and therefore made an appearance of exclusivity regarding it. My greatest concern, initially, was that my attempted contributions to the article were completely deleted when an effort could have been made to place a template on them, and/or somehow contribute toward improving on them. I understand the editor's concerns regarding her reasons for making the reverts, though a compromise would have been a better solution than dragging the issue to the low point that it has reached. Certainly, this editor has made some outstanding contributions to Wikipedia, however a lack of an open mind regarding my concerns of compromise regarding my contributions that were reverted; a continual attitude that has been threatening, intimidating, and harassing; and a tone and comments that she doesn't want to deal with me, nor allow me to post comments on her talk page have caused a situation that has deteriorated into unnecessary ugliness and upset. I will never again make any edits to this article as a result of this situation. I have bowed out of it, and am no longer directly communicating with this editor, though she is continuing to make comments to me, even after threatening to report me for harassment if I continue to make comments on her talk page. I guess that being required to inform her on her talk page about this issue will, then, cause her to report me, although I believe that it is her who is harassing and unwilling to be open-minded and/or to compromise. This has been the absolute worst experience that I've had in editing any Wikipedia article. Especially for an editor who has more than 8 years of experience on Wikipedia, I would think better is expected. I have had 30 years of experience in writing and editing, as well as many years in the teaching of writing, and have been editing and contributing on Wikipedia for about one year. To experience a situation such as this is unnecessary, and is degrading and demeaning. It has left me very discouraged, disillusioned, and disappointed. Better conduct should be expected of a senior editor on Wikipedia, rather than the one that I have experienced that is more in the style of a literary beat down. It is a wonder that anyone wants to edit that article when experiencing this. Certainly I don't know everything and I'm still learning, but is this manner of behavior and communication really necessary? It makes me not want to edit on Wikipedia at all when people are not only unwilling to compromise, but unable to see how their own conduct and/or perspective has contributed to the issue, unnecessarily escalating it and making it worse. I appreciate, in advance, your consideration regarding my concern, Daniellagreen (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion on the article talk page has gotten nowhere. The OP said that he or she would be going to WP:DRN but hasn't yet done so. That is the next step. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I thought this was the dispute resolution area for reporting about harassment and intimidation by an editor

    An edit conflict was created when I tried to post this:

    Basically, I am concerned regarding the deterioration in communications toward me by editor User:Montanabw, which have been over the top, intimidating, harassing, and ugly, as can be observed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Standardbred. I would have expected the communications from an 8-year veteran on Wikipedia to be much better than what I've experienced. As a result, I will never again edit the article, Standardbred, and I have been left very disillusioned and disappointed that such conduct is acceptable on Wikipedia. I've attempted to discuss it on the editor's talk page and on the article's talk page, with a continued worsening of communications by this editor; see her comments on my talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daniellagreen. She has threatened to report me for harassment simply for posting comments on her talk page, and to me, has evidenced communications to me that are harassing and unnecessary. Rather than my comments be a "waste" of her time, as she has stated, one could be open to compromise and a different viewpoint regarding this situation. Daniellagreen (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagreements which have reached an impasse should go through WP:DRN rather than here. You may find more satisfactory discussion if you went that route instead. --Jayron32 01:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I've now posted the above comments there. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And failed to provide me a link if it's somewhere else, though at least she posted that she had filed something. This is a waste of everyone's time, COI editor is sad that I reverted her edit and so posts this nasty attack at my talk, ignores advice from three other editors who have weighed in, on the issue, repeated requests to take it to the article talk page, posts everything in triplicate and all over a blatent COI edit here, followed by a round of edits adding little to the article save for incorrectly formatted and poor sourcing to a commercial, non-RS site, for which I took time away from other project to clean up here and do a wee bit of overdue minor copyediting on the old material as well. After that we were off to the races (pun intended). I don't have tie for these tendentious tl;dr posts. Trout slap me and let the drama end here. Montanabw(talk) 01:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this a racial slur against me?

    Editor Harmelodix here makes it known that he is "a black man" and apparently has taken offense when I innocently referred to him in a talk page discussion as "a busy boy". He took it as a racial slur apparently.

    Next he calls me "Casper" in anger and I feel this is likely a personal attack of a racial nature against a white editor.

    Caper454 (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've never heard of "Casper" being a racial slur and it looks more like a typo than anything else. I've also never heard of "a busy boy" as a racial slur, though "boy" I have. From the diff, he doesn't even seem to have a problem with the phrase "busy boy", he's only complaining about "boy". That's a pretty legitimate complaint both as a racial slur and also just patronizing to any person. Even if it wasn't a racial slur, which if you want any movie about the civil rights movement it frequently is used as one, your still calling this person a child. I think you both need to take a step back and catch your breath. An apology from you, and a bit more awareness of what you are saying, would probably he helpful.--v/r - TP 01:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @TParis: Casper is a racial slur. I've heard it before and if you want proof, here's the Racial Slur Database: [132]. But, I'm not saying that it was used this way here. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (sigh) There are too many racial slurs on that list for white people for me to remember to be offended each time I hear them.--v/r - TP 01:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never heard a racial slur for white people that offended me. That said, both of these editors seem overly sensitive and should get back to discussing the issues of the edits instead of whining about perceived insults. --Onorem (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    From that list, calling someone a "Yogurt" is supposed to be offensive. Maybe that's because some people get upset about the spelling. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Initiating a conversation calling someone a "boy", however innocently you may have meant it, is not going to be taken as civil by all editors, even without racial connotations. Your edit, here, seems to only be asking an editor to stop editing in a way that could conceivably be construed as flippant, not concerned. It's probably best if you avoid interaction at this point. Also, your user name is Caper. Casper is one autocorrect or typo away from that. You can't demand that editors assume bad faith over a vague comment while simultaneously relying on an assumption of good faith for your own phrases. You say you meant no offence, yet you seem to be assuming he meant specific offence.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, TParis covered everything I wrote while I was writing it.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Bottom line, you're both looking for reasons to be offended – and ways to needle each other – and neither one of you is doing a good job of staying cool. Caper, trying to be cutesy and folksy and chatty when you're issuing a warning to someone with whom you're in a dispute is generally likely to be unwelcome; even though "busy boy" isn't a racial slur, it may come across as condescending: the sort of thing a grade-school teacher might say. On the other side, let's say that Harmelodix made an innocent typographical error that he will never ever make again, and move on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeating the above. The real problem is that you made the mistake of referring to a male editor as a boy. Some male editors are offended at being referred to as boys. As a retired systems engineer, I would be mildly offended at being referred to as a boy in person. On the Internet, no one knows your age. However, in the United States, "boy" is a traditional disparaging term for black males, and as such is deeply offensive. Don't refer to a male editor as a boy unless you know his age. Also, don't refer to a female editor as a girl unless you know her age or know that she won't be offended. User:BrownHairedGirl is a woman, but is self-described as a girl. I think that both editors should apologize to each other, one for an unwise reference, and the other for an insult, and let it go. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "Boy" is a racial slur, and a deeply offensive one, when used to an adult African-American male. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you simply want to take it in a vacuum... --Onorem (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no context on the Internet. Therefore the Internet is a vacuum. Therefore be even more prudent in what you post on the Internet than in what you would say face-to-face. Do not call a male a boy unless you know his age, or that he won't be offended. Do not call a female a girl unless you know her age, or that she won't be offended. There is no context on the Internet. Both editors are over-reacting, and TenOfAllTrades is right. Both editors were imprudent. Both editors should apologize. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as the "boy" thing goes, I'm not an American and I honestly had no idea how hypersensitive you guys are about race. And to be clear, he only mentioned race afterwards; it's not like I knew I was interacting with an African American male. Where I come from a "busy boy" is someone who's been active; a racial connotation to the term is the last thing that crosses my mind. We take the term in an almost palsy-walsy way, not flippant. But you cannot deny that a reasonable person could feel that he may have intended Casper as a racial jab, and it actually seems likely given the timing of it and the fact that he himself had just brought race into the discussion. All of a sudden this is what he types? Yeah, just a typo. Caper454 (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if you didn't know the racial connotations of 'boy,' you should know it's still considered an insult. Calidum Talk To Me 02:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And again, what's the point? That we should assume your good faith here and not his? You're characterizing his interpretation as "hypersensitive" with yours somehow naturally reasonable. That conversation goes nowhere. I don't think anyone necessarily needs to apologize, rather than just move on to more interesting challenges, as there's one editor who dealt with a vaguely insulting comment by giving notice on their talk page that they didn't like the phrase, and another editor who reported a comment they only have a hunch about to the admins. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=614455586"