Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Minphie and Drug Free Australia's call "WIKIPEDIA EDITORS URGENTLY NEEDED"

Minphie (talk · contribs) is an editor affiliated with "Drug Free Australia". A participant of several content disputes with several other users, including me, he have now resorted to canvassing. Or rather more accurately, they have called out for fellow drug warriors to chime in and sway Wikipedia in their direction. This document with instructions on what to do flies in the face of most policies and guidelines. If not in words, so in spirit. I found it very troublesome and don't know what to do. So I leave it for you. Thanks. Steinberger (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Notified. Leaky Caldron 21:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not see that it is necessary to try to associate the WP editor with a real name, and I redacted it, But the call for meat-puppettry here is unmistakable. I think it warrants an indefinite block. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. Pretty much WP:NOTHERE. Resolute 21:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The target list of articles given in the how-to guide linked appears to be as follows:

• Arguments for and against drug legalization (perhaps this refers to Arguments for and against drug prohibition?)
• Cannabis (and all its derivative pages
• Drug policy of Portugal
• Drug policy of Sweden
• Drug policy of the Netherlands
• Harm reduction
• Insite
• Medical cannabis
• Methadone
• Needle exchange program
• Prohibition
• Recreational use of drugs (presumably this means the article Recreational drug use)
• Rhetoric of Drugs (presumably this means the article The Rhetoric of Drugs)
• Supervised injection sites
• War on Drugs
• Zero tolerance

-- The Anome (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. --Rschen7754 21:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)

• Support indefinite block for meat-puppetry. I would also like to note that they denied any WP:COI here and here, specifically in response to a question about Drug Free Australia. That is shown to be false by the PDF, above. Based on that, I would also propose an indefinite topic ban on any articles involving drug treatment, drug programs, or the like, broadly construed. GregJackP Boomer! 22:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Point of order - Minphie would only have a COI with regards to Drug Free Australia if they work for or with them, not if they were contacted by DFA as a local Wikipedian who was in support of the same cause(s). Even if Minphie does work for DFA, the COI would be restricted to a hypothetical article on DFA, not on drug policy writ large. People who are involved in a policy debate do not become conflicted in editing here. They risk WP:BATTLEGROUND violations (or WP:SOAP). As the editor was indeffed already, one could make a guess as to at least one admins' opinion on that point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The block notification says "it is clear that you are here to push a certain point of view rather than to contribute to building a neutral encyclopedia." I'm not disputing that (although there is an emphasis in the call for editors on citing sources) but I wonder whether this is any different to the Storming Wikipedia project. Why would one be allowed (even encouraged) and the other result in an indefinite block? StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Because one broadly encourages expanding the encyclopedia and reducing systemic bias, while the other is a coordinated attempt to impose a specific point of view on a narrow range of related articles? Acroterion (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

While the "Storming Wikipedia" project should have the effect of encouraging more women to edit, some of the quotes in the article referenced above do indicate possible POV problems, and I'm sure that editors are watching for any bias that may appear. For the most part the group is trying to encourage women to edit, assuming that since they are women they will add material of interest to women. (I, for example, am into bluegrass music, computer programming and science fiction, and you all know how men neglect these topics.) This is a far cry, though, from providing a specific list of articles and explaining exactly how to gang up on other editors to shift the focus of the articles to reflect a certain POV. IF the Storming ladies did this, it would be equally unacceptable. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: It might be a good idea for uninvolved admins to add the above articles to their watchlists, in case the promised meatpuppet army materializes. -- The Anome (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Just reading the document, it gives a good grounding on Wikipedia participation. Hopefully we'll get some more editors out of it. We encourage all participants, and so long as we keep an eye on what's going on, where's the problem? Surely we are not running around in circles because - gasp - there might be editors with different views to our own? Mind you, I wouldn't put too much faith in the advice for slow-moving edit wars. Three reverts in a day is merely the "bright line". Reverting twice a day for a week is still going to get a block. --Pete (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

  Well, besides "teaching" from a very biased perspective ("[the other side] are very good at simply deleting [your addition] and putting some bogus explanation.", etc), the document also gives wrong information. It instructs recruited editors to use template:cite journal for every ref. It tells them they need to create an account to be able to contribute. It says that if you feel your text's provenance might be challenged, you support it by commenting on the talk page, rather than saying that you should support it in-text with a citation. It says that you only need to discuss after someone reverts you if you think the other person has a "reasonable rationale", and that otherwise you're "entitled to unilaterally revert" their revert. It implies that anyone reverting your edits is "the other side" who's operating "bogus"ly. It even gives instructions for how to game 3RR (in a way that's almost sure to get you blocked if you try it).

  It's possible to write a document that teaches a potentially-POV group of people the basics of editing Wikipedia well...but this isn't that document. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, sure, it's not perfect, but we have a truckload of resources that are very good and aimed precisely at new editors. There's a bunch of people happy to steer any newcomers straight. A bunch of new editors - if we should be so lucky to get a bunch - are either going to conform to Wikipedia policy or find their time here very difficult. We've been given a headsup on what to look out for, we can do that. I'll add those pages to my watchlist and see how any newbies behave. Without biting. --Pete (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It looks like a fake to me. Its unlikely a pro-drug activist would be that blatant about violating wikipedia guidelines. Plus if you look carefully, theres a call for emails to be sent to him/her - possibly to entrap possible wrongdoers. Just a thought. Pass a Method talk 00:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I know some of these outfits--this one and the ones listed on their "Affiliates" document. I wouldn't put it past them. Or, why would you think such organizations would not want to try Wikipedia, just as they try to influence the media and various governmental and non-governmental organizations? It's the MO of any organization that wants to accomplish change, and these cats are quite passionate about it. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • (EC) I don't see any reason to think it's fake. It's linked from [1] for example. And the website appears to be the correct website for the organisation known as Drug Free Australia [2]. I'm also in minor agreement with Pete that it's not really clear they're trying to violate wikipeda guidelines. Yes they've made numerous mistakes, but if you look at the document, it's clear they're telling people to properly respect the "rules" and to only communicate via wikipedia pages (the email bit appears to be to let them know rather than for offsite collusion, I suspect so they can disclose it if it ever comes up like it has now) etc. I also agree with StAnselm that whether or not something is inappropriate POV meatpuppetry or trying to correct systemic bias by recruiting a greater diverstiy of editors isn't always very clear. (Feminism may be wider ranging, but if you're recruiting editors to better represent the feminist POV, you're ultimately still recruiting editors with a specific POV with the belief that their POV is underrepresented which results in systemic bias and that by recruiting more editors with that POV, you will ensure it is fairly represented in discussions and articles will improve because of it.) Or to put it a different way, I can certainly see why from their POV they're being entirely proper and open about trying to correct systemic bias and help achieve NPOV by ensuring all viewpoints are fairly represented in any discussion by openly recruiting editors who's viewpoints they feel are underrepresented. It's not like this is the first time this has happened, e.g. as mentioned in Wikimania 2011. Nil Einne (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The metadata also supports it being genuine, realizing of course that this can be faked too. GregJackP Boomer! 01:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - User 'Pass a Method' has a point, it could be fake. I can think of some editors here I would love to see blocked. If all it takes is for me to create a pro-meat puppetry flyer, stick their name on it and pass it around via pdf to have that accomplished...
  Anyway, (@Rschen7754:) why the rush to block? (blocked exactly 20 minutes after this ANI was created) The user has not even had an opportunity to comment here in their defence. It's not as if they were actively disrupting in the main or user space and a block was needed to protect the project. - ^theWOLFchild 04:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, in the (very unlikely) event that they can say something to effectively rebut the evidence, they can still do so on their talk page. Meanwhile, they are semi-active, and we don't want this issue to float away. --Rschen7754 05:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Suggestion - How about we pool our eyes and make a list of any new editors showing up on the pages listed above. We can keep a gentle watch over them, raise any concerns here, make sure all is good. Minimise disruption for all parties. --Pete (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It isn't only new editors who have POVs that should be monitored. The Medical cannabis page (and all cannabis pages) has just undergone massive changes in the past week, and has essentially been uglified (compare this with this) and apparently is closed to editing by anyone but the Project Medicine team. This same team, in the name of MEDRS, is using a rat study and a study confounded by cocaine use to prop up Cannabis in pregnancy, an article started by someone using sources from this Australian anti-drug group. Who's watching the watchers? petrarchan47tc 19:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a most curious statement, Petra. This discussion has just come to my attention; you seem to be implying something about anyone editing (to improve) an article started by this person/group/whatever they are in Australia. What is it that you are implying, because I came to the {{cannabis}} suite of articles via the merge of a now-deleted student essay on cannabis and epilepsy, and found a walled garden of poorly sourced text, cited mostly to old primary sources. Cannabis in pregnancy is now cleanly sourced to secondary reviews, compliant with our medical sourcing guidelines. Your allegations of a "team" at Medical cannabis have been raised with you, in the appropriate forum, on your talk (where they were archived generally with no response), and you have failed to adequately engage discussion on article talk, yet you continue battleground allegations here in another forum.

Yes, I do encourage more admin eyes here, and not only because of what some Australian group might be up to; a review of Talk:Medical cannabis and archived discussions at User talk:Petrarchan47 is instructive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, I've never encountered Mikael Häggström before, but I think he should be notified that you are mentioning him here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - (Not sure that as a non-admin I am ok to comment here, nevertheless) Can I ask what is different about the behaviour being investigated here and that of User:sgerbic - aside from the POV differences of the two? It doesn't feel evenhanded to me that this guy is being vilified for behaviour that on the surface simply reproduces SGerbic's. What am I missing? I'd love to know. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Any editor is able to comment here, this is just a noticeboard to get admin attention. As to your question, the difference is that no one has brought Sgerbic's alleged actions to ANI. Admin's don't have the ability (read superpower) to know what goes on everywhere. If you find issue with Sgerbic's editing, you'd have to provide evidence of this rather than just a vague statement. Blackmane (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• The difference is that Sgerbic and the "guerilla skeptics" have specified that they are interested in producing a balanced encyclopedia, that they don't want to push a POV and they want to improve coverage of skepticism. If Sgerbic and the guerilla skeptics were trying to slant articles in a more skeptical direction, I'd be very concerned. They seem more interested in building up coverage of the skeptical movement though. Still I think we should definitely keep an eye on groups like them to ensure they are being neutral and fair. If they can contribute material that's fair, NPOV and productive, we should welcome their contribution even if they have silly, overdramatic names like "guerilla" or market themselves as "storming Wikipedia". —Tom Morris (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Interesting discussion, thanks for mentioning me so that I can learn more about this process. I read through the letter. It is similar to what we do with GSoW, we try to teach and we encourage improvement of something we are interested in. They seem to be really concerned that what they put in the articles will be reverted which worries me a bit as we all want to stay as far away from edit wars as possible. But just because some of us do not share their POV does not mean they don't have every right to look for others to edit these pages. They state they want to stay on the right side of the rules, and we need to assume good faith that that is what they will do. If and when they do start violating the rules, then take action in an appropriate way. And trust me, the amount of responses these people are going to get is going to be tiny. The amount of people who actually end up editing more than a couple months is even tinier. Writing a blog asking for editors is one thing, getting volunteers is a totally different thing. I know after running GSoW for 2+ years that it takes tons of encouragement, training and mentoring to get people to stay involved and editing. I really really doubt that this group will ever cause any of these pages any issues. Thank you DGG for bringing it to our attention, great discussion. Also I didn't see the statement by Roxy the dog as a a challenge, but as a good question.Sgerbic (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you care to comment on my comment below regarding the actual policies at work here? I can't really see the fact that they may not be succesful in the canvassing for meatpupppets as being any kind of excuse. As you may notice from the quotes I highlighted below, the case is quite clear. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Observation – the section of the linked document authored by Minphie starts near the bottom of the second page, the part with the request for email notification and the biased editorialising etc appears to be writted by someone else at Drug Free Australia. Minphie's advice is poor in parts, no question, but alone it does not appear (to me) to be sufficient for a WP:NOTHERE indefinite block. EdChem (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block. I think this has been done too hastily, and with insufficient evidence of meatpuppetry on Minphie's part. It appears that he was asked to give a brief introduction to editing on Wikipedia. Any of us might be asked to do the same. Certainly, we would avoid some of the things that Minphie said, but there is nothing here in what Minphie said about telling people what to write, or what biases to introduce. As mentioned above, that is a separate part of the document, written by persons unknown. This block is unjustified - if the editor is showing that he is not here to build an encyclopedia, he can be blocked on the basis of on-wiki edits; blocking him on the basis of this document is grossly unfair. StAnselm (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

FWIW while I stick by most of what I said above which was more intended to apply generally to what was going on, I think Minphie more or less screwed themselves.

In particular, while the general idea behind the document may be understandable and some may even consider it acceptable, the documument itself does make out the other side to be the enemy. I don't think this is uncommon in this sort of thing, IIRC it did happen a bit in the outside wikipedia responses to gender identity issues raised by the Chelsea Manning case, and I'm sure some of the response in many other cases e.g. the feminism one, ultimately when you're associated with calling others the enemy lefties, you can't expect things to end well for you. And even if we don't accept the author of the PDF and Minphie as the same person, Minphie was clearly involved in a lot of it.

And just as important, and again without having to accept whether or not Minphie is the same person as the author of the PDF (who is strongly associated with DFA), it's difficult to see how you can logically claim you don't have a COI according to our COI policies if you were involved in that document. Precisely what is a COI and how our COI policies interact with our privacy policies may be contentious but in a case like that your options really are to either declare your COI or refuse to comment because of privacy reasons. Saying 'I don't have a COI' when you helped write a document posted on an advocacy's organisations website calling for more wikipedia editors, an advocacy organisation which is heavily involved in a lot of what you're writing about, well that just dumb.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• I do not think we were too hasty--we simply have blocked, as any other attempt at sockpuppettry, and there is no necessity to discuss whether the sockpuppettry was for the purpose of making trouble. It was a request to an interested community of people to edit WP to express a particular POV, and this is never correct. What makes it all the more striking to me is that it was an attempt by someone who clearly understand the guidelines at WP for how to evade the intent of our policies, by trying to edit under the radar. It was not an appeal to follow the guidelines, but how to stretch them beyond their proper meaning and hope not to be noticed. Our jurisdiction does not extend beyond WP, but when a WPedian uses his WP name in such an attempt, they must be blocked, as editing in this manner is destructive of the purpose of a NPOV encyclopedia. If someone makes such appeal without giving their WP identity, it is usually not right for us to try to detect it--all we need do is call the attempt to attention here or at COIN or wherever most appropriate, so people can be on the watch for it. We can obviously not eliminate POV editing on controversial topics, but we can at least publicize the more obvious and organized attempts at it. That the people involved have the intention of bringing their article to what they think is the neutral POV which is their own view is the very essence of POV editing. Their honesty of intentions on the topic are not the question, but their attempt to do coordinated group editing on WP. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Coordinated group editing? <gasp> Ummm... that phrase sounds waaaay overboard.  :-)   WikiProject Military History... those evildoers! Or any wikiproject. Heck, I attempted coordinated group editing just yesterday. (please do not indef me!) As for bringing in new editors, I am 110% in favor of that, and am in fact writing my own "survival manual" to help beginners navigate wikipedia.

  The real *meat* of the problem here is simple. "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side..." Emphasis added. That was the mistake that Minphie made, and that was precisely where pillar two was violated.

  While I would not say 'hasty' exactly, indef right now is perhaps the wrong approach, since it is clearly not a proportional response -- such a drastic step might create a bitter wiki-martyr. Did they actually *succeed* in causing any disruption, or in any visible-in-mainspace injury to pillar two? If not, then perma-banhammering them seems kinda like a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Maybe somebody should talk to them about the blatant issues like using 'journal' in all refs, and mandating registration, and other such foolishness? HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You are missing this very important part of the sentence "... of a debate."Sgerbic (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Other information These discussions have happened with this user for some time. See
  • ANI complaint in 2010, alleged editing warring over Safe injection site
  • ANI complaint in 2011, alleged edit warring over this same article Insite
  • complaint on the RS noticeboard in 2012 discussing Drug Free Australia
  • and again in 2012 on the RS board discussing Lancet papers for this same purpose.

It is unfortunate that we failed to find a way agreeable for this editor to contribute to the mutual satisfaction of all involved. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This is what I meant by "hasty". If there is evidence of disruptive editing over a long period of time, then that should be brought before the community. But I notice that neither of the two edit warring reports were deemed worthy of a block. StAnselm (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Minphie has edited for four years without a single block. It seems strange to block him indefinitely with the rationale "Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia". StAnselm (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps if he had confined his disruption to his own editing, it would make sense to try a shorter block before escalating to indefinite. However, in this case, the user himself has already invoked the "nuclear option" by recruiting meatpuppets off-wiki. The severity of the response is not surprising. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

@DavidLeighEllis: - Riiight, so we should just indef him/her, with "torches and pitchforks", before he/she has even had an opportunity to respond to the issue? There is no evidence that what they might have done off-wiki, has led to any disruption on-wiki. This block is unnecessary and waaay over the top, It should be lifted until there is an actual reason to block. - ^theWOLFchild 05:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Minphie haven't been blocked before, but there have been no shortage of reasons. Just the other week at Talk:Insite he wrote: "Do you not want Wikipedia to reflect absolutely founded fact? /.../ If my text tells the truth on Wikipedia, why do you think that you should sanitise it according to your own private sympathies?" This way of arguing is typical of Minphie. He wants the "truth" to be told. When people - of other "truths" - try to explain that Wikipedia is not about "truth", but of giving a picture of what the most reliable sources say, he call the reasoning bogus and reverts. Would this be the only problem, an escalation of sanctions from short to more severe until he understands the basic principles of Wikipedia would be the right thing to do. But I share opinion of DavidLeighEllis and other. It is to much now. It has gone to far. Steinberger (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Per comments by Sgerbic, whose group I am not a member of, who I would not know unless woolly thinkers hadn't complained about the good work they do, and make up stories about work that they haven't done ;) --Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

  It seems to me you are solely voicing your opinion based on the fact that you sympathise with their cause, and completely fails to adress the matter of off-site canvassing. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

May I ask Saddhiyama on what basis you make your silly conclusions about how I think regarding the cause of the subject of this discussion? What part of my contribution here leads you to make such a statement - please do tell me?. For the record, you are quite wrong in this regard, and I assume equally wrong in your comments below. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

My comment was based on the fact that you failed to adress the actual issue of canvassing, but managed to mention that "woolly thinkers" complained about "the good work they do" as a defence. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Your comprehension of simple English leaves a lot to be desired. Nevermind, I'm sure most here understood what I said. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yet you still did not address the issue at hand. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Please allow me to second Saddhiyama in apparently failing to comprehend your "simple English," in that my understanding of what you said (and didn't say) is identical to his. Also, silly comments like "your silly conclusions" and "your comprehension of simple English leaves a lot to be desired" are silly indeed. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support block. From the document: "What those fighting for a drug free world need at present is a group of around ten committed Wikipedia contributors who are willing to take the time on a daily or weekly basis to put our perspectives onto Wikipedia while keeping within its rules, and also ensure that the weight of numbers in conflict resolution forums on Wikipedia are not always on the drug-liberal side". While they do take care to state that meatpuppets should be "keeping within its rules", the rest of that sentence is a very clear breach of WP:MEAT: "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate", thus making their disclaimer void, since the recruitment document is in itself a breach of policy. This obvious breach of policy seems not to have been noticed by a lot of the commenters above. This is not comparable to Wikipedia projects and the fact that they may have problems recruiting willing editors does not change the fact that it is a violation of policy. And regarding the comments about the document being fake: you are clearly grasping at straws here, since the link is from the official website of the group in question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that quote comes from the part added as a preamble to what Minphie wrote? If so, we have no evidence that Minphie was aware of the preamble apparently added by someone from DFA. Looking at the part actually attributed to Minphie, I see some poor advice but I don't see a call for meatpuppetry and tag-team editing. I think an indef on Minphie on the sole evidence of the last two and a bit pages of the PDF is unwarrented. Other editing of Minphie's may justify it, I don't know, and I disagree both with what DFA seem to want to do and with the "truth" they wish to stuff into WP, but the evidence to date is not being evaluated in a balanced way, in my opinion. EdChem (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it an extreme stretch to suggest that the user was not intimately involved with the production of the notice. Preamble or not, this is the user's document. I do think that Minphie was trying to stay within the lines of policy but probably stepped out. A block is fine but I am not convinced it should be an indef block. JodyB _talk 12:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. It is as unlikely as the claims about the document being a fake. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support block This is a blatant breach of WP:MEAT. Do we know with absolute certainty which portions of that document Minphie did or did not write him/herself? Of course not. We also don't know with absolute certainty whether two different registered user accounts, voting the same way at an AfD, and sharing an IP address, are actually sockpuppets of the same person, and yet admins still aggressively intervene in these scenarios because they're all ducks. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Minphie posted an unblock request on his talk page, which has now been declined. StAnselm (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support block with Comment - He has confirmed the flyer is his, and therefore has admitted to meat puppetry. He has less than 500 edits, has come here with a very narrow pov focus and has a talk page full of warnings and past incidents. A block is required. But with that said, it should not be indef. He should clearly acknowledge wrong doing, give a clear indication that he understands the goals and objectives of the project, and should promise to abide by the rules. I would suggest 72 hours, followed by a topic-ban on all related articles. He should be given another chance to prove himself... if he wants one. - ^theWOLFchild 22:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose block of Minphie (or of Petrarchan47 on the flip side). One canvassing sentence that may or may not have been by him/her offsite does not justify any kind of block. No evidence has been presented of disruption on Wikipedia. On the other hand, the articles in question do seem to suffer from non-compliance with WP:MEDRS, as discussed below. However per the recent AE consensus we can't do anything about biased editors, so there, pound sand. (By the way, simply by coincidence I have been recently working on an unrelated article that was the product of the recently AE-enshrineed wikitheory that all it takes to get a NPOV article is enough POV pushers with opposing views. The practical results of this that I've see are more like oodles of contradictory and unreferenced statements in articles. Of course, in the drug case discussed here, it's a bit more refined than that as in "my sources are (of course) reliable/appropriate and yours (of course) aren't". I'm not saying anything new here, I've read this in a wiki essay, although I can't remember the link. Can anyone help?) Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

  I refer you to the policy on meatpuppetry (I have quoted it in my post above as well), which has no clause about there having had to be "disruption on Wikipedia". Offsite canvassing is the sanctionable offence, so yes there is indeed plenty of justification for a block. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Update on cannabis suite

Adding to my previous concerns about WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:MEAT with frequent references to "our team" and "your team" (that is, distinguished by those using WP:MEDRS and those not), see Petrarchan47 comments including but not limited to: "...I have a biochemist friend who studies cannabinoids, and who has agreed to join us in working on these articles ... " and "I am also calling in some scientists/researchers in the field, and as your team also has a doctor, I don't see how this could be viewed as a problem, or as anything but a great benefit to our readers." There is more of same. Of course new editors will be helpful if they follow policy and guideline, but I point out that the off-Wiki recruiting is not limited to this Australia group.

I continue plugging through this suite of articles, attempting to replace the numerous outdated primary sources with recent MEDRS-compliant secondary reviews,[3] but the task is monumental as the suite of articles at {{cannabis}} is chock full of outdated and cherry-picked primary sources, when there are numerous recent secondary reviews available. For my work, Petrarchan47 has continued to label my edits as POV (see above in this section), and continues to fail to engage on either article or user talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated to Petra's activity on these articles, I also noticed today a new editor, MarkyRamone92. [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Strangest removal, considering the thread above: [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Australians have so far been a no-show, but we have Petrarchan47 gearing up to train her recruits. [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Sepsis II and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography

Sepsis II (talk · contribs)

User:Sepsis II has a history of POV-pushing regarding the Israeli-Palestinean conflict, POV pushing that has amounted to two blocks, and sanctions as well.

Anyway, earlier today, he went to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography and moved Palestine from unrecognized states to recognized ones, his first edits to anything VA/E related. VA/E has rules, namely that you don't make controversial moves, adds, or drops without discussing them at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded, so I reverted him on that basis. He then posted on my talk page, where I told him he needed to discuss the edit. Recently, he reverted me back to move Palestine back to recognized states, accusing me of ownership of the page. This revert seems to be in violation of his sanctions. Could something be done about this, starting with undoing his actions and reminding him of his sanctions? I don't really have the stomach for getting in an edit war with this, and I take no position on the recognition of Palestine, merely that such a clearly controversial edit should have been discussed first pbp 15:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Question: Wasn't Palestine officially recognized by the UN last year? - (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/29/us-palestinians-statehood-idUSBRE8AR0EG20121129)
We also have an article about it. - ^theWOLFchild 16:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I still say it should have been discussed before the move was made. VA/E has rules. Discussing things before you do them is one of them. Again, I take no position as to whether Palestine is or isn't recognized. pbp 16:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, but the fact is, he is correct. So, instead of helping him to add info we know to be correct (and supported by RS), you are fighting to keep it out on a technicality? Meanwhile, now the article still has incorrect info and you are seeking to drag him here to ANI? Have you tried discussing this on his talk page? Have you considered any other means of dispute resolution? What admin intervention are you seeking here? - ^theWOLFchild 16:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Further note; I don't see how the initial edit was "controversial", and therefore required you to revert it. But that said, once you did, he should have discussed it with you, per WP:BRD. But I see he has instead reverted you again. You guys should be careful, you don't want to end up in an edit-war. - ^theWOLFchild 16:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

a) It's not an article, and b) He has the last edit pbp 16:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

a) Whatever. Let's not get hyper-technical. b) I noted his last edit with my previous comment above, (it was caught up in an edit conflict). - ^theWOLFchild 16:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sepsis's only current sanction appears to be a 'civility' one. From the Palestine-Israel log of blocks and bans for 2013: Sepsis II (talk · contribs) officially restricted to 1RR/week and put on a shorter leash for personal attacks.[225] Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC) curtailed to a civility restriction only [226] Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)     ←   ZScarpia   16:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It's gotten messier since I withdrew it

User:Thewolfchild, FWIW, a new editor undid Sepsis II's edit in his very first revision. This is well on its way to becoming the next Arab-Israeli conflict battleground. User:Sepsis II needs to start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography, and avoid edit-warring further. This may even need to be added to the ever-growing list of articles under sanctions regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict (at least the portions of the article related to Palestine and Israel). pbp 22:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I agree with you that these areas are very sensitive and prone to conflict. You may have felt I opposed your ANI, but if you noticed my last edit (I'm not sure, first it was tied up in edit conflict, then the thread was closed), I pointed out that once an edit was reverted, that should have activated the WP:BRD cycle, which means should guys should have had a discussion. I know you tried, and I was saying he should have tried discussing as well. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 22:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, Sepsis undid that guy's edit. I guess I'm going to have to start the discussion myself... pbp 23:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I get followed by banned editors a lot, sorry for bringing them along with me. I was unaware the list was a special article under different editing rules, i only noticed it due to a bot edit - [7]. I hope everything is well now. Sepsis II (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who began the discussion. Sepsis II (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The editor who followed me is probably the same racist as [8]. Sepsis II (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

a) VA/E isn't an article per se, b) The discussion should go on at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded. As it plays out, you may consider reporting those users as socks or SPAs, but you gotta stop edit warring! pbp 23:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• @Sepsis II:, with very few exceptions, there is basically no edit that "has to be reverted! right away!!". If you are not familiar with WP:BRD, please read up on it. You should try engaging others in discussion when you want to make contentious edits or edits to controversial subjects. Or, when other editors want to discuss an issue with you, and... always before making that 2^nd revert. (unless it fall under those few exceptions I mentioned). This will help you avoid edit-warring and being brought to ANI. FYI/Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 23:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I did try to discuss PBP's revert before my second edit; I mistook the VA cabal as a violation of wp:own. As I am constantly followed by new accounts reverting my edits I have discussed the issue with admins who state that when it is clear they are banned editors their edits may be reverted freely. Sepsis II (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, well, here's an opportunity for the two of you to resolve any outstanding issues. If the two of you can pick a talk page to chat on, then PBP can close this up (withdraw it) again with no further action required. That way, you don't have to deal with any admins... - ^theWOLFchild 23:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thewolfchild (talk · contribs) is not new, just sporadic - actually started over 3 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

And... ? - ^theWOLFchild 18:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

To me Sepsis II (talk · contribs) looks like another reincarnation of Cryptonio (talk · contribs), which was blocked indefinitely for nationalistic behavior, specifically Personal attacks or harassment: General persistent disruption and attacks. I've opened a SPI report, based on behavior and technical evidence, which was not seriously reviewed. Oh well. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd prod a little harder on that, User:AgadaUrbanit. The main thing that concerns me now is that editors will be showing up to change the status of Palestine away from what we decide to call it at VA/E, and we end up with a (slow-moving, perhaps) edit war. I don't want VA/E to turn into another Arab-Israeli battleground. What can be done to avoid that, User:Baseball Bugs? pbp

The same way you keep a wave upon the sand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It's possible this thread might end with an offer by User:Sepsis II to wait for consensus before reverting again. If he does so, that's good. If he does not do so, one option would be to raise the issue at WP:Arbitration enforcement for consideration under WP:ARBPIA. Longer term, there is a question as to which states ought to go in the section 'Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states' in WP:VA/E/G. We already have an article at List of states with limited recognition. It might be reasonable to use inclusion in this list as the criterion for the 'Unrecognized' section of WP:VA/E/G. It would be even better to change that header to 'States with limited recognition.' That way our terminology would be consistent across articles. This is up to consensus, but it would save having to conduct the same dispute in more than one place. At present the State of Palestine is included in List of states with limited recognition. EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Nathan Johnson

Note: This section was originally titled User:Nathan Johnson refusing to stay off my talk page, edit warring over a longstanding practice, inappropriately templating a regular, and demanding a retraction. It was changed here. Flyer22 (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

After disagreement about the use of the WP:Dummy edit feature, Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs) predictably took it upon himself to alter the WP:Dummy edit page by removing a sentence that the feature may be used to briefly communicate with other editors...despite many Wikipedia editors having used this feature for brief communication with other editors in a variety of ways for years, and despite objections to its removal, as noted at Help talk:Dummy edit#Don't message thru edit summaries. Nathan Johnson decided to WP:Edit war with me to remove the material. He then templated me with an edit warring notice when he was also edit warring (this is typical behavior of him). He did all of this while refusing to stay off my talk page. He is still refusing to stay off my talk page, even though I made it clear that I no longer want him posting there. And he is demanding that I retract my statement that he has committed vandalism to prove a point, even though I pointed to a previous discussion that clearly shows he did indeed commit vandalism to prove a point. See here for backstory. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) FYI - you hadn't notified him of the ANI. I have done it for you. - ^theWOLFchild 20:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

As shown in the aforementioned post on my talk page and this post on his talk page, he already knew that I was going to start this WP:ANI. He was well-notified. Flyer22 (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Having read through the links you provided and looked at the diffs when you mentioned vandalism, I don't see vandalism, I see an edit war between you two which is not vandalism. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Moe Epsilon, I'm talking about a different matter with regard to the vandalism; that's why I pointed out a discussion that talks about this and this. He vandalized that article and an editor noted that it was vandalism. Nathan Johnson responded in a rambling, mocking manner. His vandalism to that article is what I called vandalism and is why he will not be getting a retraction and/or apology from me for having stated that he committed that vandalism. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've just protected Help:Dummy edit for three days due to the edit warring. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a good move Mark, it needed that. It seems that Nathan has suddenly taken exception to it, and wants to arbitrarily change it, despite established consensus. Along with that, he did template an experienced editor, warning of a potential edit war - that he was on the other side of ^(wtf?). Also, Flyer did clearly, and repeatedly ask him to not edit her talk page, which he ignored, and continually posted there anyway. She definitely has valid complaints here. - ^theWOLFchild 23:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Without commenting on the other allegations, WP:Don't template the regulars may be good form and good manners, but in the end is only an essay and not an actionable offense. Also, I suspect this would hardly be the first time an involved editor gave another editor an edit-warring warning; it wouldn't surprise me if that was the norm. DonIago (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

@Doniago: - This is not so much about "templating a regular" as it is misusing or abusing a warning template, which is not permitted (just ask twinkle). - ^theWOLFchild 04:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that's not the point that was originally made as I read it. If that's the thrust of the argument then whether Flyer's an experienced editor or not is irrelevant. Anyway, I wasn't trying to nit-pick or anything...editors not infrequently confuse essays with policies or guidelines, so I try to point it out to be helpful when I see it happen. DonIago (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well the thrust of my comment, was that he abused a template, edit-warred and harassed another editor, which are all policy violations ^{sort of}. Let's face it, no one cares about an "essay violation". Unfortunately, the talk of unrelated (and alleged) vandalism and a needless focus on the OP's seniority have served to be a distraction. - ^theWOLFchild 08:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Like I pointed out below (in my "01:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)" post), there was no "[confusion of] essays with policies or guidelines" on my part. Never has been. Many at this site are aware that I thoroughly know Wikipedia policies and guidelines and am sometimes quick to point out what is an essay; my talk page is one example of that. Either way, just like WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is a well-followed essay, so much so that it might as well be a guideline, similar can be stated of WP:Don't template the regulars. And now I think I'm done with this whole thread, since it is clear that Nathan Johnson, who often acts like an administrator, is an exception to administrators when it comes to repeatedly posting on someone's talk page against their wishes and clearly has free rein to continue doing so. Flyer22 (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and haven't fully reviewed the allegations raised, so I should hope that my personal opinions on a minor subsection of this aren't being categorized as any part of consensus on the part of admins.

The point I was trying to make is that ANI cases are touchy enough without raising points that are tangential to items that are actionable. Whether or not you received a templated warning isn't relevant from the perspective of whether or not you're a regular editor since templating a regular isn't a policy violation, and bringing it up, regardless of who is doing so, only clouds this case and, as evidenced, is a distraction from pertinent matters.

I don't agree with the notion that any essay, no matter how well-followed, "might as well be a guideline". Any Wikipedia editor could post an essay expressing an opinion that, coincidentally, is shared by multiple editors; I don't believe it's appropriate or even a good idea to say that that escalates the essay by default.

For what it's worth, while I may be coming across as a voice of opposition, I do hope your issues are worked out and that the harrassment stops. Based on your Talk page discussion I feel you may have antagonized and consequently encouraged Nathan's negative behaviors (a better solution may have been to stop feeding the troll), but that would by no means excuse said behaviors. I hope the admins will take a more assertive stance regarding this filing. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I know that you are not an administrator. As for the rest of what you stated, I disagree, with the exception of wanting Nathan Johnson to stay off my talk page and that I am not to blame for his ridiculousness; this is clear by my responses in this section already. Even though Nathan Johnson has several or more administrator friends and is seemingly thought of as an administrator by more than that, and I therefore feel that this is why not one administrator has yet warned him to stay off my talk page, to me, your initial comment is what distracted from the more serious matters at hand in this discussion. And now it's a further distraction. I don't think that anyone who has participated in this thread needed a reminder that WP:Don't template the regulars is an essay. Thewolfchild, as shown above, clearly understands why I brought up the ridiculous templating matter (and I obviously explained below why I brought it up). I will always bring up such ridiculousness.

I responded to Nathan Johnson how I felt he should have been responded to. It was not to antagonize him; it was to let him know how I felt about him/his editing and that I would not put up with his disruptive behavior. That I don't put up with such behavior (in fact, generally have zero tolerance for it) is not a surprise to a lot of people at this site, especially those who watch my talk page (which you were doing before you excused yourself from it due to my interaction with Nathan Johnson). You have a different way of dealing with such matters. Okay then. That is your way. Obviously not my way. I cannot take the blame for Nathan Johnson's behavior whatsoever. And as others can attest to, and as touched on below by others, he is ill-tempered and has very questionable editing. I generally will not take it easy on someone just because that person has a problem with self-control, and I'm beyond tired of certain editors coddling such people at this site...essentially stating, "Oh, it's expected of him. The opposing editor should not have tempered matters." There is no tempering matters which such editors; the situation is always tempered, just to lesser or higher degrees, because that's how that person is. If I want someone off my talk page, I will state it instead of ignoring that person; that person should then stay off my talk page...unless they have a very valid reason to still be posting there (such as my being blocked and that person being the blocking administrator who is validly explaining matters). I see nothing more to debate with you on this. Flyer22 (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

And there is WP:TTR, also. I should probably push that back into project space someday soon. DES ^(talk) 19:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Mark Arsten, is there a way that the page could protected so that only this user's edits are rejected? Epicgenius (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a technical feature that would work that way, no. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Since editors have decided to focus on WP:Don't template the regulars instead of the serious matters at hand here in this discussion, such as an editor refusing to stay off my talk page and therefore attempting to force me to read what he has to state and to retract a valid accusation, let me state this: I brought up WP:Don't template the regulars because I see no valid and/or good-faith reason for Nathan Johnson to have templated me; I see Nathan Johnson as having used it to intimidate me and make it seem like his efforts to remove the wording were correct while my efforts to retain it were wrong. He templated me to make it seem like the WP:Edit war was on my head alone. I am familiar with his editing, have had past conflict with him before, and I know how he operates when it comes to editing. Every very experienced Wikipedia editor knows that WP:Don't template the regulars is an essay, but it is an essay that very experienced Wikipedia editors generally follow. It's not the norm at all for a regular to template a regular, unless the regular being templated is an editor who has been registered with this site for years but is significantly inexperienced with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, unless both regulars are not very experienced Wikipedia editors...or unless it's an administrator issuing a block on a regular Wikipedia editor. Yes, I'm also well aware of DESiegel (DES)'s less-followed essay arguing why it's good to template the regular; I generally don't agree with that essay, as should be clear. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• As someone who has yet to have a single pleasant interaction with Nathan Johnson, I understand Flyer22's concerns. Nathan's approach is frequently crass and when he thinks he's right about a guideline or policy, he doesn't hesitate to edit war. I've also seen some questionable editing such as adding a blatant BLP violation to the Dan Savage article. Then there was this unfortunate tirade. The bottom line is, if Flyer22 wants him off her page, he should honor it except for required templates (noticeboard notifications, final edit warring notices, etc.). If he can't exercise that minor level of self-restraint, then blocks are always an option. - MrX 02:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• My impression of Nathan Johnson is that he has a bit of a temper and tends to shoot from the hip. (See this archived thread from my talk page for an example or two. In that case, he quickly apologized and everything turned out fine.) If he'd choose his words more carefully, he'd be likelier to avoid this sort of conflict in the first place. Sometimes it would be better just not to say anything at all; earlier this year, Newyorkbrad gave him some good advice about avoiding stressful discussions. Having failed to avoid this one, he turned stubborn and declined to honor a fellow Wikipedian's request to stay off her talk page. That is disruptive behavior. Edit warring to remove relevant content from a help page he's citing when criticizing that editor . . . well, that's disruptive, too, to put it mildly. One would hope this could all be resolved with an assurance that the disruptiveness will stop. Rivertorch (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing all that out, Rivertorch. It seems to me that an editor who disregards Newyorkbrad's helpful advice is skating on thin ice. On the other hand, vandalism has a very narrow meaning here, Flyer22. Please use that charge with great care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Cullen328, I always respect your input. However, did you not review the exact situation that I and another editor referred to as vandalism with regard to Nathan Johnson? Look at what Nathan Johnson did there, and, if willing, explain to me why you do not consider that WP:POINT edit to be WP:Vandalism or rather why you consider it a narrow interpretation of it if you mean that I have interpreted WP:Vandalism narrowly? Being very familiar with WP:Vandalism, it seems to me that you are stating that it's that policy that defines vandalism narrowly and you mean "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." However, keep in mind the first line of WP:Vandalism; it states, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Who is to say that Nathan Johnson was not doing exactly that? Flyer22 (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think there is a serious WP:COMPETENCE issue with regards to Nathan. Having looked at the talkpage discussion with regards to the BLP violation, it's clear that he has a very limited, if any, grasp of policy. For someone who has been editing for over five years to have a totally improper interpretation of WP:BLP is utterly unacceptable, and I wonder how long it'll be before he falls through the trap door that is an indefinite block. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Without at all suggesting that Nathan is in any manner in the right, it would certainly be nice to hear from him here. That said, he hasn't edited for the past couple of days either. DonIago (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

While he does have the option of commenting here, it certainly is not requirement that he does, for an admin to take action. As I said above, the OP has a valid complaint - Nathan did harass her on her talk page, did abuse a warning template and edit warred. She has every reason to expect that an admin will act on these issues. - ^theWOLFchild 18:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Without meaning to snark at you, you're not really telling me anything I don't already know; I'd simply like Nathan's perspective on the matter. DonIago (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No 'snarky-ness' received. I understand your point, but just the same, a lack of comment on his part should not prevent an admin from acting. And by this point, an admin, any admin, should do... something, even if it's just as warning and/or some guidance. Perhaps Flyer was looking for more (I don't know), but there's obviously enough here that there should be some kind of response. - ^theWOLFchild 11:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC) (but for me, I've lost interest, this is my last comment)

• Without delving into specifics here, I'd like to make a few comments:

1. editors have fairly wide leeway on the management of their talkpage. This can include requesting that someone "stay away"
2. as long as that person has been reasonably-well advised of that request, then future posts there can be considered to be harassment - and blocks may occur accordingly
3. the only time such a limitation should be broken is when advising them of AN, ANI, or other admin noticeboard filings - templates, etc should be placed by someone else, if valid
4. if you have "banned them" from your talkpage, then you should consider it to be a 2-way ban ... you cannot presume to provoke them on their talkpage and not permit a response
5. except where limited above, in ALL cases, templates CAN be used on ANY and ALL editors ... but ONLY if that template is appropriately used - that said, if you template someone, be aware that they're going to respond
6. tit-for-tat templates (try saying that 3 times fast) is fricking ridiculously silly behaviour
7. if you know based on previous behaviour that someone has a short fuse, think twice

Take these comments as you will ES&L 11:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

User: 78.156.109.166 again

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

---

See User talk:78.156.109.166. Blocked user is using talk page to continue trolling. Suggest revocation of talk page access. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff? - ^theWOLFchild 23:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

[9] — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 00:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That's hardly "trolling". It's just a simple question (which I have since answered). If that's all this is about, then this ANI is a waste of time. - ^theWOLFchild 01:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

When an editor is blocked, they should be engaged in discussion about the block and how to behave better once the block is over - not posting junk about "end of the world November 2014" or whatever.[10] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. That's trolling. I think that post resolves the question of whether the user merely has competency issues or is a troll. The user is a troll. In any case, the user is not here to build the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 23:06, December 10, 2013

It takes two to "troll" @Robert McClenon:. I suggest removing the page from your watchlist. John Reaves 04:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Why would anyone care about what a blocked ip user posts on his page? If it was something that needed to be removed, that's one thing. But this is just harmless nonsense. It's between him and any admin who might unblock him at... some point. If he wants to waste space there, so what? But why waste space here complaining about it? - ^theWOLFchild 06:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do you care so much? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't, and neither should anyone else, which is my point. I didn't create this ANI, I'm just questioning the need for it. What admin action is the OP seeking, and based on what? Blocked or not, users are allowed to post on their own talk pages. As long as his posts don't violate a policy, who cares? - ^theWOLFchild 14:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that IP question is on the very mild side of trolling. Some people should go back to writing an encyclopedia. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

He's been blocked twice within a week. His current block will be up on the 15th, so we'll see if the IP in question is interested in "writing an encyclopedia". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This is hardly trolling, though the IP is using the talk page for requests other than unblock. That's the only thing that is of concern right now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It is a tempest in a teapot. The user is not going to be an asset to the project. Extend for 12 months, ignore the user's talk page (unless it is an unblock request because of a changed or shared IP), and move on. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Rivatphil's multiple BLP's and Copyvios.

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

---

I had this up at AIV, but was told to report it here. User:Rivatphil has created numerous BLP articles either unsourced or direct copyright violations from other sites. I noticed this after the New Pages utility was flooded with numerous BLPs, which were all then speedily deleted, so please check the deleted contribs of this user. Also came upon this while notifying user of discussion. 『Woona』_{Dear Celestia...} 05:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This user is also non-communicative, with exactly one user talk edit in seven years. Given the copyvios, an indefinite block is in order. MER-C 07:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Vandalism

User:Tobby72 is vandalising this article: [11], [12], [13].It is not political site but i added short info about current human rights issue, and this user started to vandalise the article.He is trying to prove that the Mongols are bad people but Russians and Chinese are innocent people.It is impossible to justify such serious human rights violation: 4, 5, 6, 7. Khereid (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• (NA) Vandalism should be posted over at Wikipedia:AIV 『Woona』_{Dear Celestia...} 08:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• This isn't obvious vandalism so would be referred here from AIV. Khereid you need to engage User:Tobby72 in discussion, because at the moment I can't find anywhere where anyone has told them that there is a possible problem with their edits. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I added short info about the human rights issues (9), because human rights violation is continuing in China and Russia.But this user is adding irrelevant materials on the article.The article is about only one ethnicity, not about whole world.Khereid (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I responded with a comment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mongols#POV-pushing -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Khereid, I don't see what the point is of your giving wikilinks to articles with Roman numerals. Now, there is no vandalism here or in the other diffs you gave. On the other hand, your edits could do with a bit of explaining (like an edit summary, for starters), and the charges you make here are not proven by any evidence. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hyper-aggressive editor, Roccodrift

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

---

I'm dealing with an editor, User:Roccodrift, who is edit-warring, making false statements about sources, making false accusations, refusing to discuss article content and repeatedly templating my talk page even though he is banned from it.

These are big accusations, so allow me to back them up with diffs.

I simplified the language of Ted Cruz to use the summary from the source instead of quoting Cruz. Roccodrift immediately reverted, with an edit comment claiming I'm not sticking to the source. He also templated my talk page, accusing me of vandalism. Both of these accusations are unquestionably false.

I politely explained on the talk page, quoting the part of the article that directly supports the change, then reverted exactly once. He edit-warred back, falsely claiming a BLP violation. At this point, I stopped at 1RR to avoid even the appearance of edit-warring.

(There's more -- he's edit-warring against a few people on Economic inequality andtemplating User:EllenCT. A visit to his talk page shows that he's edit-warred over this page before and said some non-factual things about BRD.)

At this point, Roccodrift has violated a number of key policies and is extremely guilty of WP:TE. I am requesting that he be blocked for a suitable period of time, taking into account that this is not his first offense. MilesMoney (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

About being banned from your talk page. You recently gave a general amnesty to all who had been banned from your talk page. Has Roccodrift received a clear note of being re-banned from your talk after that? Iselilja (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have. You don't seem to have excused yourself from their talk page, though. Iselilja (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Dropping a notification on a user's talk page when an ANI has been posted about them is required as per the big orange header at the top of the edit page. Roccoshdrift hasn't banished MilesMoney from their talk page so dropping a notice was the right thing to do. It would be a courtesy if MilesMoney had refrained from posting to Roccoshdrift's page but in this case it's not really relevant. Blackmane (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, ANI notifications are required. But what I noticed was that at the same time (10 Dec) that MM notified Roccoshift about being banned from MM's talk page ban, he made himself two other independent edits to Roccoshift's page. 1 2. Iselilja (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I take your point, but like I said, banishing someone from your page does not have to be reciprocated. It's a courtesy to not post on the banished editor's page but no policy requires it. Also, apologies to Roccodrift for misspelling his name and have corrected my previous posting. Blackmane (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Miles should probably be trouted.

• At Ted Cruz, he made a bold edit [14] and his edit got reverted[15]. It's all well and good that he started a discussion, but then he reverted again [16]. That's edit-warring, any way you slice it.
• Immediately after this, Miles felt it necessary to revert my next-most recent edit. At Economic inequality, Miles re-inserted unsourced material (right along with 3 "citation needed" tags, no less), completely ignoring several edit summaries and messages on the Talk page that make the problem clear. Apart from anything else one might say about it, this is disruptive editing.
• I've recently tried to explain BRD to Miles [17], but I think what just happened at Ted Cruz shows that he still doesn't get it.
• We have UW templates for a reason: they help us communicate. Collaboration is impossible if there is no communication.
• I'm not going to have a fit about it, but I will just mention that this accusation of TE follows close on the heels of another accusation gratuitously made in an AfD nomination [18]. Miles was cautioned by an uninvolved editor [19], but apparently he doesn't think there's a problem with this sort of thing.
• Miles' complaint about "aggressive editing" appears to be projection. Truly aggressive editing looks like this [20], or this [21], or perhaps like this [22], or maybe this [23].

It seems to me that Miles' angling for a block is an attempt at gaming the system. Roccodrift (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The edit that started this by MilesMoney was correct, Roccodrift should have taken the time to read the source before reverting (twice) Nonetheless MilesMoney should have waited for editors to engage in the discussion he started in the talk page before reinstating his edit, that's how WP:BRD works. The original edit has been re-instated by another editor so I say everybody drop this.

A minor comment: I've recently had a similar issue with Roccodrift regarding his use of templates. I pointed him to WP:DTR and I'll once again repeat my recommendation: instead of impersonal templates that can be taken as somewhat aggressive, a polite message in the editor's talk page will always be better received. Roccodrift should perhaps ease up on the templates a bit. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

A minor point WP:TTR. If you feel that the templates can be taken as aggressive then they should be done away with. If regular editors find them aggressive, what do you think new editors think of them? 155.178.6.19 (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

My complaint isn't about content, it's about behavior. If my initial change could be considered Bold, then his Revert should be followed up by Discussion. He did not discuss; he just communicated with comments that are factually incorrect. He violated BRD, among other things.

For my part, I did follow BRD by opening up a discussion, but there was no reason to wait for others because the stated reason for the revert ("source does not support") was demonstrably false. There was nothing further to discuss. Now, if Rocco had stated some more general basis for disagreement -- for example, if he admitted that it was sourced but thought the ambiguous direct quote was somehow an improvement -- then I would have discussed it with him before my single revert. Of course, he communicated only through vulgar gestures: reverts, false edit comments, and templates modified with false accusations. In simple terms, he lied and bullied.

Rocco:

1. Aggressively reverted without discussion.
2. Left edit comments that were false.
3. Made false accusations of vandalism.
4. Repeatedly templated a talk page that he was banned from.

I don't see how these issues have been resolved by someone else reverting Rocco's changes away. Do you? MilesMoney (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"Lied" is pretty strong language. Most view it as a personal attack because it is an intentional deception. As for your talk page, why don't you just delete it? You seem to have banned just about everyone from it anyway. Arzel (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to use some other term for saying something that you know is false. He knew that the source supported the edit. He knew that changing the article to match the source isn't any sort of vandalism. If he didn't know, then he's guilty of reckless disregard for the truth, which is no better than lying.

Do you also support the rest of his behavior, including the edit-warring, the templating where he's not allowed, the refusal to discuss the content? MilesMoney (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney there's no point in opening a discussion if you're not going to wait until other editors comments. Was the matter so urgent that you needed to revert again before anyone commented? No it wasn't, so you should have waited at least a little while before reverting again.

As for the rest of the issues you mention: I don't particularly agree with the way Roccodrift handled the issue (specially the vandalism template which was completely out of place, hence my request to Roccodrift to ease up on the templates) but there's no real reason for blocking here as far as I can see. I understand you are upset but you'd be wise to follow Arzel's advise and tone down your comments. As much as I could agree with you, WP usually regards comments on how another editor "lied" as a WP:PA. Both of you should continue editing as usual and if something like this happens again, well then perhaps some sanctions will be necessary. Not right now though. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree about whether it was ok for me to revert exactly once after I completely refuted the stated objection, but this doesn't in any way offer Rocco a defense.

As far as I can figure it, there are exactly three explanations for Rocco claiming the source didn't support the edit (and therefore claiming BLP violations, vandalism, etc.). They are:

1. Rocco read the source, saw that it supported the edit, but intentionally lied.
2. Rocco did not bother looking at the source, but pretended he knew what it said, which is a different lie.
3. Rocco read the source but failed to understand the direct statement, which is gross incompetence.

No matter which horn of the trilemma you grab, Rocco should not be editing Wikipedia. MilesMoney (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't either.--MONGO 20:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed. MilesMoney (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand your frustration Miles. Just try to ignore Roccodrift if the opportunity presents itself. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no particular interest in dealing with Rocco, but he's made a point of accusing me of violating BLP and of being a vandal. That's hard to ignore. He's also edit-warred to remove cited material while falsely stating that it's not cited, which is very, very bad.

My hope is that Rocco takes a hint and dials down his aggression. I think that a suitable block would prevent further article damage during the block and perhaps even motivate him to dial down afterwards. After all, even Rocco's most ardent supporters here can't deny that his actions are beyond the pale. MilesMoney (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, if you have such a severe problem that you have to ban people from your talk page, maybe it's time to go on a short wikibreak. Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed. The only editor who is banned from my talk page is Rocco, and this is motivated by the fact that he has made a habit of leaving false templates on my talk page. Sounds like my only "severe problem" is that Rocco keeps misbehaving. As such, it is not so much my problem as his; he controls his own behavior and is responsible for it. Don't you agree? MilesMoney (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Potentially disruptive class project?

No idea what to do or what our policy is, so I guess I'll drop this in your guys' laps before I AFK.

There seems to be a class project to add content to Wikipedia, possibly regardless of weight or notability, some of whose edits may be disruptive. I wonder whether they're being graded on whether their content remains up, in which case it's an invitation to unconstructively edit-war.

Class project noticed here: [24]

I'm asking them what's up here: [25]

Sample edit that I would classify as disruptive: [26] (Edit: that was a weak example. Better example is one OlYeller21 was complaining about: [27])

I'm not sure how to follow "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." as it's not about a particular editor, but rather a group. I would take to SPI but I'm don't know whether it qualifies as meatpuppetry per se. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this should be cross-posted to Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents? EdChem (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I added a notice at EN/I (in this section) which links here and to the NPOV noticeboard. Voceditenore (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I should have posted there instead of here the first place, thanks! Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have notified two of the editors involved - Stellaiyeo (talk · contribs) and Midgeholland (talk · contribs) - about this ANI discussion. GiantSnowman 12:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. My name is Tavi, and at the risk of having my name added to the list of "Potentially disruptive class project" participants; I am one of the people who was in that class. I just had a few questions.

1. Is Wikipedia to be edited by anyone?
2. Were any students in the class willfully adding trolling, incorrect, or otherwise misleading information? Can you point to those edits?
3. Was it "disruptive" solely because we are all new, and make tiny errors here and there? Or is our actual information incorrect?
4. In fact, this whole incident seems very amorphous and unclear. Can you cite multiple examples with explanations as to why the edits do more harm than good?
5. If you'll see updated pages such as H. J. Mozans, and new pages such as Woman in Science, you'll see that we are doing our best to make sure that the new information is correctly sourced and cited. Or, are you also frustrated with these edits too?

Thank you for your time, and I hope this to be expeditiously resolved. TaviWright (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

What I suggest is to copy the contents of the article and put it into your user sandbox. And yes, everyone can edit Wikipedia, but see WP:COI. Epicgenius (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, I agree that GiantSnowman should post the articles there, and I would be willing to use my sandbox for such offending articles.

As far as Conflict of Interest goes, I do not know how there could be any. The class was graded on accuracy of content, and NOT graded more favorably if the information stayed up indefinitely - only that there was a discussion, and learning about how to edit wikipedia happened. TaviWright (talk)

I can't speak for other editors, but that addresses my personal main concern, thanks. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, just claiming things as a "conflict of interest" or "disruptive" without giving reasons doesn't help us reach a conclusion. TaviWright (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@TaviWright: The reason why I am mentioning COI is because you seem to know a lot about the sources needed for the article, and about the topic for said article. Please exercise caution when you are working on articles on topics that you are familiar with. Epicgenius (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I can see how that could be an issue. However I think you may be misinformed - we did not have prior knowledge of the article or topics. Most of the information was gathered while, or just before, editing. At the same time I understand that it is within interest to keep articles fair and unbiased.

Okay. I see that you are editing with good faith, rather than tendentious editing. Anyway, good luck with your project. Epicgenius (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There are scores of disruptive class projects every term, and the fit hits the shan from mid-November to mid-December, and then again the US spring term. For the incident at WP:ENI, what is the outcome here? Sandbox? These kinds of incidents happen by the boatloads, and eventually something will need to be done, but for now, at least they are being tracked at WP:ENI. Do we know the course? I'd like to fill out the incident report at ENI for future ref. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

TaviWright and Midgeholland are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Students, whose instructor may be Wadewitz. With student editing, if you just keep following back all of their contribs, you eventually can sometimes find a course. Rarely. Most of the time we just never hear anything and the articles end up merged or deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for a section move (It was posted in the wrong place)

Can an admin move THIS discussion from the WP:AN to the WP:ANI? The reason for the request is that WP:AN states "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators", while WP:ANI states "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." But, since neither User:Ahnoneemoos (the affected user) nor User:Caribbean H.Q. (the posting user) are administrators, the posting at WP:AN couldn't possibly be affecting any administrator as intended by the directive and, as such, it has not followed the requirement for posting there. On the other hand, the posting made by user User:Caribbean H.Q. is asking for the intervention of administrators and experienced editors, which is what this page --WP:ANI-- is for. Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It was posted here due to the SilkTork/Ahnoneemoos ArbCom issue, but I don't really have any objection against moving it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Um moving that very, very long section to here will achieve nothing other than the section being closed very fast. If there is still something that remains to be addressed, may be someone could open a new brief discussion (preferably taking in to account anything learned from that thread) explaining what that is with appropriate evidence. And Caribbean~H.Q., Ahnoneemoos, you Mercy11 and the IP could refrain from discussing the issue amongst each other, at most perhaps including one response to the original request and further followups to be limited to responding to other participants. Alternatively, may be accept no action is forthcoming and let it drop. You could always negotiate with each other in an appropriate place over whatever the problem is. You seem either very very good at it (or very very bad but I'm hoping it's the former) after all. Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. While topic bans (or site bans) can be discussed at either desk, AFAIK it's preferred to discss them at AN. Particularly when they are the intention of the thread and primarily arise from a long history of problems rather than in response to a recent incident (even though you will usually also take in to account the history). AN does mention this: "Issues appropriate for this page could include: ....ban proposals ...". P.P.S. I've been wondering whether to mention this and have decided I should particularly since Blackmane said the same thing. Before opening anything further on AN//I, you should consider whether or not it's likely to be rejected due the absence of a WP:RFC/U. Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I figure that if a RFC/U is going to be open, then the civility concerns presented by Mercy are more serious and should take precedence. The idea of the thread was not to "punish" Ahnoneemoos (and as such I did not want to enter into the whole "desired outcome" debate), but rather to stop an issue that has been spreading through several of the articles within scope. If a RFC/U is opened, I have no problem in participating in it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Caribbean HQ, have you heard of the WP:Wall of text disruption tactic? Notice the comments by User:Blackmane at this place HERE. You know my position regarding User:Ahnoneemoos, and I am not after "punishment" either, but neither banning nor blocking are punishments but instead means to avoid further disruption (as well as opportunities, hopefully, for soul-searching and/or rehab). Unfortunately for him, Ahnoneemoos is playing the going-in-circles game HERE. You are better qualified than me at summarizing and submitting petitions to forums. Perhaps you could open up a petition for review WP:RFC/U, I could then contribute. Hopefully an uninvolved admin via community consensus of whatever, can then help this matter to a fair closure for all. Mercy11 (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You can't lay the blame solely on Ahnoneemoos. It takes two to tango, and if Ahnoneemoos had been the only one causing the massive wall of text in the AN discussion (in other words, replying to nothing), people would likely have more easily seen the problem with Ahnoneemoos's contributions. It's perhaps fair to say that Ahnoneemoos contributed the most text (although they were the one who's behaviour was most at issue and for which there was a topic ban request) or perhaps the IP. And you Mercy11 contributed the least amount of text of the four primary participants. But ultimately that discussion only got the messy way it was because despite the fact it was supposed to be a request for outside intervention, existing parties to the dispute namely those four I've already named seemed held extensive back and forth with each other. Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Nil Einne, you seem to be assuming that having a topic "closed very fast" is somehow not beneficial. What's not beneficial about that? Is closing "very fast" somehow inherently better or worse than having an item sitting endlessly without closure? I am sorry, friend, but your "very fast" comments above are not objective at all and, thus, quite elusive, and as such not beneficial to reaching any understanding. You don't seem to have squarely provided any resolution or alternative to my section move question above. Perhaps you could be more precise? Mercy11 (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing beneficial to having a discussion closed very fast because no one can be bothered reading the extensive back and forth between existing participant parties (from before the discussion was brought to AN or ANI).

The topic in AN will be archived when people stop replying. If you want, someone can close the discussion at AN without the pointless moving, but I don't get the reason why you need someone to close the discussion nor why you would have to bring such a request here rather than at WP:AN, when the discussion could be simply to left to die a natural death.

And I have provided four alternatives before you replied. Either open a new concise request probably at WP:AN; open an RFC; continue the discussion among yourselves (which is more or less what is going on in the existing discussion) in an appropriate place (perhaps one of your talk pages) and try to reach some sort of accord; or finally, just drop it.

I don't get what you mean by 'not objective at all' or 'elusive'. I feel I have been fairly clear. And I have no connection to any of the key participants I'm aware of so whether or not my comment was right or wrong, helpful or not, I don't see why I would not be objective.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Since the discussion seemed to be heading in a bad direction, I did close the AN discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Mercy, I will not be baited into continuing a circular argument. The fact of the matter is that Ahnoneemoos is not interested in pursuing an accord. Not only that, but when one points out that he can't continue to victimize himself after a user posted to his page in a dickish manner, because he did the same before, then the drama sets in (this coming from the same user that likes to throw "fuckings" all over the place when involved in conflicts and even questioned my mental health in a thinly veiled attack). I am not going to get drawn into a maelstrom of drama, that plays to his advantage.

That being said, I have reconsidered my original position and determined that a simple topic ban may not be enough, notably because the user refuses to see that there is a problem. Hence, I am not really interested in pursuing a partial ban on a RFC/U. Of note is that of the few third parties involved in that conversation that favored him, none justified his actions in the politics/economics articles, they only defended him from a complete ban that wasn't even being discussed there. Even in a stalemate, the fact that even those that favored his position admitted that he "gets carried away" is notable. If the MO continues, then it should be considered regular disruption and then a RFC/U requesting an actual block could be argued. The ball is on his court. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. And I think we accomplished several things: (1) We proved that Ahnoneemoos has issues with various editors, not just you; (2) We memorialized HERE a historical record of Ahnoneemoos's violations into a single location and useful for future action (hopefully won't be needed); (3) We put User:Ahnoneemoos on notice that his (a)WP:Disruptive editing, (b)Non-WP:Civil behavior, and (c)WP:OWN tendency have not gone unnoticed, won't be tolerated next time, and that anyone of them is reason for a RFC/U. Hopefully there won't be a next time. For the record, let me add the following quote by Ahnoneemoos to your "otherwise pointing to his "years editing Wikipedia" comment as well, for it now appears that it is not only about his tendency to own articles but his tendency to claim ownership of editors as well:

"If you have an issue with someone from WP:PUR feel free to channel your inquiries through me."

[28]

With Ahnoneemoos's recent Declined history of his ArbCom request in the periscope as well, if User:Ahnoneemoos is smart I think he now knows he needs to play his next moves in a fashion more aggreable to the community. BTW, the 2 editors that came to his defense were never any bit of a concern to me. Experienced closing admins would have been able to read thru them in no time. Their comments were WP:OTHERSTUFF and pointing to unrelated ocassions when Ahnoneemoos did the right thing does not absolve him from cases when the did the wrong: doing the right ALWAYS is what you are expected to do to contribute here. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat and repeated blanking at Raúl Cuero

Greetings -

I frequently patrol WP:SPER, and one of the recent edit requests is a bit over my head. Raúl Cuero was semi-protected earlier today following repeated content removal and blanking by IPs. A few hours later, User:200.114.28.224 posted this edit request to the article talk page. Since it involves a legal threat and potential BLP issues I wanted to bring it to the attention of someone a bit more experienced than myself.

Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 22:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that's a legal threat simply because I can't exactly tell what the IP is trying to say; it's clear that s/he does not speak English as a first language. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitely a legal threat: "the person who write this article can be exposed to criminal complaint by lie" is a threat to prosecute the article writer, not just to sue like most legal threats here. Dark Sun (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It'd be nice of someone that spoke Spanish checked out those sources. Anyone? John Reaves 15:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I can read Spanish well enough to understand articles such as this one cited in Raúl Cuero. The Wikipedia article accurately reflects what the cited article said, which is not necessarily to say that the cited article was accurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hm. It might not necessarily be a legal threat, insofar as it could also be a complaint that the language of the article might be defamatory (even if that belief is wrong). See WP:DOLT. It's my understanding that there's a bit of a grey area between WP:NLT and WP:DOLT since, while NLT clearly prohibits the statement "I will sue if you don't change this article," the statement "The article's subject has threatened the publisher of one of the references with a defamation suit because of the same material we quote here," is probably different. Oblique references to legal liability can be tricky. I've always felt that where they're used to end a debate by chilling participation, there ought to be some recourse... but my long understanding has been that this is different than NLT. Anyway, I think in this case there's reason to think it might be the latter situation. But since the block's already out there, probably no reason to unblock without reassurances that it's not the IP personally threatening legal action. I do wonder whether an indef on what's probably a dynamic IP is the correct choice, though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Dolovis back again

I'm sorry folks, but he's back again. You know who: Dolovis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Background: in April 2012, Dolovis was blocked for six months after some serious and repeated gaming of the system, and general failure to abide by consensus, specifically when diacritics were involved. He volontarily (?) prolonged his absense until this spring. I noticed that, as his name started showing on pages I have on my watchlist, but I didn't follow his edits around as I assumed he had learned his lesson. There were also no new controversies (at least none that I noticed).

Now, however, after I have moved a handful (recently), or several (over time), articles on various Russian sportspeople to follow WP:RUS, at least one of them apparently created by him, he is going back in my move log, and is reverting them all, as it appears – I'm getting plenty of notifications (the count is now double-digit).

That's all good and well per WP:BRD, but obviously, I did ask him (politely) on his talkpage why he did that. His response was this: "Hi HandsomeFella. Please stop moving biographical articles to names not supported by English-language sources as you did at Dmitri Akimov, Andrei Akimov (footballer), Sergei Akimov (ice hockey), and others. Wikipedia is not for testing or experimenting with your skills as a translator from Russian to English. Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:Naming conventions (Russia), please follow the general WP rule WP:UE policy when naming articles. That is, when possible, we use the conventional English name (as used in verifiable sources) instead of the WP:Romanization of Russian rules."

That's the worst assumption of bad faith I've seen in a long time. I have around 29000 edits under my belt. I'm not "testing or experimenting with [my] skills as a translator", and I can read the Russian alphabet. I'm no newbie, and Dolovis knows that very well. (Besides, names are not "translated", they're transliterated.)

As if that weren't enough, he then went on to place the same inflammatory text as a "warning" on my talkpage, adding as clarification to his previous response: "I will also place the above message on your talk page as notice to others that you have been warned about your page moves. Cheers."

Those with a good memory recall that Dolovis has had frequent run-ins with several editors here, and (disclaimer) I was one of them. Without being too paranoid, it's hard to avoid the thought that this might be an attempt to get even, when given the opportunity. It would appear that he is trying to frustrate and/or infuriate me with his formal, but inflammatory, choice of words – but I'm not taking the bait. Be that as it may, this is highly uncollegial behavior, it assumes bad faith, and I think he at least deserves a slap on the wrist for it.

The issue at hand – the notion of WP:RUS generally being in conflict with other guidelines (mentioned above) – I intend to start a discussion on with an RM. (It's not pointy, "D" comes after "BR" in WP:BRD.)

HandsomeFella (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Dolovis notified. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply by Dolovis: I replied to HandsomeFella's concerns on my talk page here, but rather than engage in further discussion with me to resolve this issue, he has brought it to this ANI. HandsomeFella accuses me of not acting in good faith, but it appears that the exact opposite is true. I only became aware of HandsomeFella improperly moving articles to new names apparently based on nothing more than original research (i.e. no verifiable sources) because one of his article moves showed up on my watch list. It was only then that I realized that he had recently improperly moved several biographical articles, including Sergei Akimov, Andrei Akimenko, Sergei Akimov (footballer), Andrei Akimov (footballer), Dmitri Akimov, and Sergei Akimov (ice hockey). It is proper procedure to warn someone, even an experienced editor, if they appear to be running afoul of Wikipedia policies, which is the case with the above listed moves. Dolovis (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely not proper to "warn" somebody as a first step, if one is really assuming good faith, and not just pretending. The proper thing is to take contact and start a discussion on the other editor's talkpage – which happens to be exactly what I did. If the editor then fails to listen, then it's proper to issue a warning. First making a lot of reverts, then, after being contacted politely by the reverted editor, issuing a "warning" - and placing it on my talkpage! – is anything but assuming good faith. There was absolutely no ground for assuming that I would continue moving pages after realizing that they were contested. Still you assumed exactly that – i.e. you were assuming bad faith. The sequence of events exposes you.

Your claim "but rather than engage in further discussion with me to resolve this issue" falls flat on its face, considering I was the one contacting you – politely. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

As further explained at WP:UW, talk page warnings also serve to notify other editors that you have already been notified about the disruptive editing. Given that you had recently moved several articles contrary to WP:COMMONNAME, I thought it proper to place a warning on your talk page so other concerned editors could see that this issue had already been addressed. Dolovis (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You're only providing more evidence that you're acting in bad faith, the latest example being the accusation of "disruptive editing" above. There was nothing disruptive in my page moves, that were all done in good faith (if that concept is familiar), following a guideline that I may (or may not) have misunderstood.

It's not that I don't understand what user warnings are about, as you pretend to believe. You're assuming bad faith and using inflammatory wording, obvious for anyone to see. I suggest you retract it.

HandsomeFella (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cue Has it ever been considered that Dolovis may be is under a topic ban? "'For obvious and repeated gaming of the system, User:Dolovis is indefinitely banned from "moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles", broadly construed.'" This may not be a violation of the ban, but the user is already on a very short leash. Epicgenius (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue of this ANI does not concern diacritics, and even HandsomeFella admits that contesting his article moves is “all good and well per WP:BRD”.[29] The issue brought here by HandsomeFella is that he is upset that I placed a warning on his talk page about his improper article moves. If he didn't like the warning, he should have removed it from his talk page and moved along. Instead HandsomeFella has chosen to create a lot of drama and is making a mountain out of a molehill. Dolovis (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It is true that I didn't like the warning. It is also true that I didn't like the bad faith assumption that was its very foundation, and was even more emphasized by the totally baseless accusation of "disruptive editing" above. When one approaches an editor in good faith, as I did, such a response is totally unacceptable, and such behaviour should be strongly discouraged. That is what I reported you for. Had you just responded in kind – with an emphasis on kind – you wouldn't be in trouble again. You need to learn quicker from your experiences. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is really a matter for ANI, but I randomly clicked on one of the articles listed (Sergei Akimov (footballer)) and there aren't even any sources in it. So Dolovis's rationale isn't sufficient for undoing ALL of the moves. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 17:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

self admitted sock

• Formal Appointee Number 6 (talk · contribs)

From their first comment they admit that they have communicated with the user before. Blatant sock. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom:, AIV then, rather than here? Just looking at the guy's edit pattern I could tell he was a sock without even reading the edits pbp 00:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

will do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This is obviously an alternate account, but unless you can point to an actual violation of WP:SOCK (which posting talk page comments normally is not, unless it is to appear as multiple voices in a discussion) or unless there is good reason to think this is al already blocked or banned editor, I see no reason for a block. DES ^(talk) 00:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Behaviorally, there is very strong evidence that the account is being used by Arnhem 96 (talk · contribs) for block evasion. I've just blocked him indef for that reason. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

And why was Arnhem 96 blocked? And their talk page access withdrawn? No-one has pointed to an editor (blocked or not) of whom they are a sock. Their only crime seems to have been embarrassing Werieth, in the SPI of Betacommand where Werieth had just admitted to 9,000 edits under another identity. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy Dingley the edits where not under a different identity, Please review Wikipedia:Unified login Werieth (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

And its not like I was hiding them, commons:Special:Contributions/Werieth and see the link on my user page. Werieth (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Just like Betacommand, you still haven't learned the grammatical use of "where" vs. "were" (although per both of your usual practice, you'll now edit your grammatical error to hide it). Andy Dingley (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, Andy. This is a previously checkuser identified blocked editor ([30]). Regardless of the result of the other SPI, this is a block-on-sight issue. Black Kite (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Has a CU been run on Formal Appointee Number 6? Or on Arnhem 96? Because if they haven't, then that's a pretty serious accusation for you, a heavily involved admin, to be making on zero evidence. We have much better behavioural evidence than Werieth is another of Betacommand's accounts than we do to link Arnhem 96 to another randomly picked account. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

...apart from the fact that this account admits it ... I give up on this one and won't comment further. You're obviously not a stupid person, but if you want to continue to ridiculously defend an obvious sock of a blocked/banned user seemingly on the basis that they agree with you, well knock yourself out. Black Kite (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Well its nice to meet you too! i always enjoy meeting socks impersonating other editors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that this Formal Appointee person has been blocked, but would any admin consider revoking his/her talk page access too? S/he is using it to trade insults (and judging from the list of names at the top of his/her talk page, I doubt his/her behavior will cease. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, they'll find a way through their local library or whatnot. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cue Won't we need a checkuser to verify that? It may just be some teenager that created an account and tried to act stupid. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Safer Wholesale

Resolved

 – TheDailyFlows blocked by User:Mark Arsten. 28bytes (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The templates at the top of Safer Wholesale are the subject of an edit war between myself and TheDailyFlows. Both of us are on the edge of WP:3RR and I have no wish to see either of us sanctioned for our edits. I am requesting a neutral administrator to "take charge" of the AFD and cleanup templates for the duration of the AFD. Once an administrator or even a neutral non-admin indicates what the templates should be, I will not edit the templates except to restore them to that state for the duration of the AFD. I would politely ask that TheDailyFlows agree to do the same. Because this is at AFD and because the AFD template is one of the templates involved, I am posting here rather than in a non-admin dispute-resolution area. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I started to take a look but it looks like User:TheDailyFlows has already been blocked for edit warring (8 or 9RR is a bit much), so I think this can be marked resolved. 28bytes (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This may be a moot point, the other editor managed to trip 3RR, so we'll have to wait 24 hours to see if this request is still necessary. If the issue re-appears I will re-file as a fresh request. In any case, if at least one administrator can watchlist the page and the corresponding AFD that might help avoid a return trip here. I am truly sorry that this new editor managed to get off on the wrong foot here, he's had a frustrating last day or two. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The rule is clear, AfD templates should not be removed while the AfD discussion is open, doing so is a form of disruption even if 3RR is not breached, and can lead to blocks all by itself. Article issue tags such as {{tl|notability} and {{refimprove}} should be removed only if the editor also edits to fix the issue, or if the editor thinks the tag does not properly apply, then before or just after removing the editor should start or participate in a discussion on the article talk page, and should not persist in removing if the removal is reverted, pending a consensus on the talk page. multiple removals without discussion can be considered to be disruption also. As to whether the tags belong, that should be discussed on the article talk page if anyone disagrees with them. DES ^(talk) 21:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the tags are moot until the AFD concludes anyway. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree: In my dream world (which doesn't exist) every article that is at AFD for notability would be about a topic that actually is notable, and during that week the article would be improved with quality references that clearly demonstrate that the topic is notable and at that time - even before the AFD concludes - all editors would sing Kumbaya and agree that the notability and reference-related tags should be deleted. As I said, that's my dream world it does occasionally happen (minus the musical interlude). In this case, the cleanup templates will probably become moot as soon as the AFD concludes, as it looks like the article will be deleted in about a week barring someone adding references that others have been unable to find. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright claim on Pyramid (card game)

Can someone familiar with how copyright law deals with describing card game rules deal with [31] and Gkrsoft's edits. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have notified the user on their talk page that they can simply remove any copyrighted information. After all, nothing on this page is sourced... For this reason adding copyright notices "copyright (c) Ckrsoft" etc is not appropriate as such material should not exist in the article to begin with. It is unclear which content on the page the user is referring to. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe the editor is objecting to the detailed description of the game rules rather than a straight copy of text. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that would not warrant removal in itself... I'd say WP:ORTS would have been the right course of action, as Pharoah suggested. At any rate as you've probably noticed he's since been blocked... I had reported him to WP:UAA already as it was clear his intentions were only on behalf of the organization. However to his benefit I'd argue the article should probably be nominated for deletion per WP:GNG. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

As I replied on the help desk, no one can claim a copyright on the general concept of how a game is played, at least not under US law. The version of the rules linked to from the help desk did not look to me as if it were close enough to the version in the article to warrant any removals or deletion on copyright grounds. All that said, I feat thsi probably foes not have enough general notability to survive an AfD, if anyone cared to nominate it. It was PRODed as non-notable in 2010, and restored as a disputed prod earlier this year, it seems. DES ^(talk) 22:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Pipes_of_Pan_song_by_Elgar_1900_cover.jpg

Resolved

 – You're quite welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please check if a larger version of this file exists in the history? It was mistakenly tagged as non-free, and, as such, may have been scaled down. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done, restored. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Gabriella~four.3-6, part II

Gabriella~four.3-6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user was blocked a few days ago for 24 hours for disruptive editing. And guess what? She's back at it, and has created many very short pages, and it is apparent from both these pages themselves and the fact that she has repeatedly blanked sections of her talk page [32] that she still doesn't understand how to create redirects, and our efforts to teach her have been unsuccessful.

1. She was requested to respond in a previous ANI thread. She did not.
2. She was asked to create redirects correctly in the future. She did not.

I would like it if something be done about this user once and for all, though I don't know what should be done, which is why I am coming here. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 23:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reblocked for a week and asked her again to listen to us and create articles and redirects in accord with policy. If she cooperates and indicates she will stop the problem behavior any admin may unblock without notifying or asking me first, based on your own judgement etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be advisable to look at the all the pages that she created, and delete all of the ones that look like wrongly created redirects.Epicgenius (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Gabriella~four.3-6

Could an Admin please look at the editing behaviour of User:Gabriella~four.3-6 please. They are creating many unhelpful articles and modifying existing, plain disruptive. I believe they have been blocked before for similar. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see the post above. Problem sorted :) Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Good. She also marks all her edits as minor. We really should get rid of that function. I don't see any purpose to it. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Continued tendentious editing at Talk:Morgellons

User Sierraparis was advised in this ANI case from July not to continue to cause problems. They have continued to chime in every so often about how the article needs to be rewritten (without actually proposing specific changes themselves) to give more credence to fringe views and include sources already determined to be unreliable. They literally do nothing else here on Wikipedia besides advocate for fringe views to be included in the article. They've already stated they are not here to contribute. Sierraparis isn't here to build an encyclopedia, is clearly a SPA, and needs to stop disrupting the editors. Proposing that they at least be indefinitely topic banned from medical articles and their talk pages. However, since not being allowed to edit doesn't appear to be a concern for them, I'd suggest going straight to an indefinite block. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support topic ban from all medical related articles. User was given WP:ROPE and then used it. Indeed, after being reminded a few weeks ago [33] (S)he has continued to re hash the same old stuff that almost got him/her topic banned back in July. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support and thank the anonymous user 69.23.116.182 for their continued crusade against disruption on Wikipedia. Maybe this should be moved to somewhere more conspicuous. Epicgenius (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support too much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and not much else. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support topic ban from all medical related articles.. WP:Nothere and generally disruptive and a waste of our time. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support, due to ongoing WP:IDHT problem. Most recently at Talk:Morgellons#Filament formation associated with spirochetal infection, makes repeated unsubstantiated assertions and misstatements about new journals using post-publication peer review, and doesn't appear to be reading or understanding the papers he suggests we use as sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support WP:MEDICINE-scope topic ban per above, unfortunately. Sierraparis was given WP:ROPE and warning in July but avoided a sanction as there wasn't enough evidence; now there's enough evidence. Although they have slowed down their pace of editing, the edits they have made exhibit a time-wasting unwillingness or inability to embrace sourcing policy in this area. Zad68 02:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Support; as ever, Zad68 puts it more eloquently than I could. bobrayner (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Action requested. Can we use the "snowball clause" here to save this suffering animal from more misery? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes please, this discussion has passed the threshold for action at ANI rather comfortably. Zad68 14:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Any chance of adding a block for IP user 98.196.159.176? Their contributions to Wikipedia have been adding a quick anti-Wikipedia rant to the Morgellons article and deceptively calling it "spell correction" in the edit summary, removing the subsequent anti-vandalism bot warning they got from their talk page, and adding a similar rant to the Morgellons talk page. For what it's worth, I'm the IP user who originally opened this ANI discussion, just posting from work instead of home. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, probably not necessary to do anything with that IP just yet. Zad68 14:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Indefinite block warranted?

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

---

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

Per WP:INVOLVED, I'd rather let the community decide if this is a case of WP:ROPE. [User response after second block for a month https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARetoru&diff=585988675&oldid=585963057]. It is also worth noting the gems in his [deleted contributions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions/Retoru]. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Jamie - can you be more specific about whats going on so I don't have to guess? You cite involved but are you involved as an editor or involved as the blocking admin? What led up to the block? Do you believe the response is what warrants an indef? What's going on?--v/r - TP 01:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the user's talk page would be self-explanatory. My involvement began when Retoru repeatedly reposted the dumb verbose rap song synopses and was given a final warning to stop. They did so again recently and I blocked for a month (previous block, for creating an attack page, was originally indef but reduced to a week because Retoru had made a small number of somewhat constructive edits. I also posted some additional info intended for a block-reviewing admin. Retoru's response to the block and additional info is what I'm suggesting merits an indef, but wanted to get additional consensus before extending the block to indef. (I try to err on the side of caution regarding WP:INVOLVED. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Just trying to see if there is any other reason you think you're involved. My opinion: At the very least, he needs to be topic banned from religion topics if he cant control his opinion. As far as an indef, not sure we've risen to that level yet. Just ignore his little rant about you, none of us are going to read it and suddenly say "Oh Lord, everything I knew about Jamie is a lie based on this newb's clear and well thought out perspective."  :)--v/r - TP 02:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The crux of my reason for suggesting an indef (other than the tantrum) was WP:NOTHERE, given that most of the edits were attempts to be subversive (i.e., listing someone's occupation was a "pedophile," while arguing "but it's true! They are a pedophile) and other similar gaming behavior. Either way, I'm fine with whatever folks suggest here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Reblocks are cheap. He's one day into a month block, and the only new behavior is incivility (which isn't really new anyway). Judging from the tone of his post-block comments, this user isn't likely to return anyway. An indef would only give him something to brag about off-wiki. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Google News Archive

I want to write a article. But Google news is shut down. What do I do? Tommieddd (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you have secondary and tertiary sources enough to create an article? Is the subject notable? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It is Kirk Everist. There may be sources but where are the archive? Tommieddd (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tommie. That's a good question, but this particular board isn't set up to answer it. The editors at the wikipedia teahouse will be happy to give you a hand, though. Good luck! Garamond Lethet
c 04:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Google News is running for me[34], as is the newspaper archive.[35] Doc talk 04:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@Tommieddd:

See this discussion on the miscellaneous village pump. Graham87 07:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Englishfootballfan block evading

Hello, Englishfootballfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a sockpuppet of User:Newestcastleman - blocked yesterday by SPI has begun to edit again, could an Admin please block too? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

@Callanecc: Thank you JMHamo (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Noting that I've also filed an SPI with a request for a CU to take a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

User Iryna Harpy — report of WP:NPA and WP:TALKNO

Iryna Harpy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dear admins, please check if bellow posts of said editor violate «no personal attacks» and if talk page of articles used as forum for discussing other editors and POV, but not discussing the ways to improve the wiki-articles, as it should be according WP:TPG: 06:04, 3 September 2013, 00:36, 3 December 2013, 04:41, 10 December 2013, 09:55, 10 December 2013, 04:04, 14 December 2013. As you may see, such behavior is lasting for quite long time. If it really breaks WP:CIVIL rule, please do something with it. HOBOPOCC (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Iryna Harpy's comments have seemingly become more and more heated. While this doesn't really make any sense (and the idea that Wikipedia has "developed a zero-tolerance attitude towards politically sensitive areas such as Central and Eastern European issues" isn't even close to accurate), this is pretty out-of-line. I would suggest Harpy learn a lesson in civility. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 00:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I would be grateful if the investigating administrators read the entire Holodomor talk page in order to establish the context in which any comments and missives were made, paying particular attention to this section; an RfC called by HOBOPOCCC as soon as his 24 hour block had been lifted; his assertion of 'proof' by recycling the rejected RS's once it had become evident that his RfC had been unambiguously rejected; simultaneous appeal to EdJohnston over content dispute where Ed's position on HOBOPOCC's approach are self-evident.

The very contributor who has accused me of "personal attacks" has violated a multitude of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I would be happy to provide a comprehensive list of these violations if I am required to do so. I have also added proposals to the Holodomor talk page that the RfC and that HOBOPOCC's continuous additions of spurious 'proof' be closed off: the majority of the salient points as to the plethora of objections to both his content proposals and incriminating POV push are outlined there.

To be frank, HOBOPOCC has demanded an inordinate amount of time from myself and other editors who do not have single purpose accounts and have, as a consequence, are drowning in a backlog on articles in serious need of fact checking, copyediting and demanding serious work on talk page consensus over the content itself. Thank you for your time and consideration. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Should the article talk page for Holodomor include the {{sanctions}} tag? My reading of Wikipedia:General sanctions is that it was superseded by discretionary sanctions through motion.[36] Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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

User:HOBOPOCC has previously been blocked for edit warring on Holodomor. After that happened he was warned about the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. Here he insists that a Ukrainian political figure should be re-identified and that 'First of all he was Russian.' His editing seems to be influenced by nationalist feelings. At Talk:Holodomor he insists that the deadly Ukrainian famine of the 1930s was just the local occurrence of a general Soviet famine, seeming to be unaware that there's a large nationalist brouhaha on that very question. His POV is so strong that it seems he can't read the sources correctly; any discussions that involve him seem to run on to thousands of words. His inability to work within policy at Talk:Holodomor suggests he is heading toward a ban from that page under the sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case, I apologize if I had you completely wrong, Harpy, but...that still doesn't excuse some of your comments. (Maybe you should have come here first.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend everybody who is discussing this case not to mix up charges (btw - absolutely ungrounded) on me and definite violations of definite rules of wikipedia of editor Iryna Harpy. Referring to my POV as reason to ban me from some topics - is nonsense! Editors shouldn't be banned just because he/she has some POV. Everybody of us has POV. Editor should break some rules of wikipedia, to be banned. And this is not the case about me — as for edit warring I was involved I was blocked already and I haven't committed any other violation of rules of wikipedia. Also I would like to remind everybody that content of the articles should be discussed on their talk pages, but not here. If everybody would like to discuss Holodomor issues - you are very welcome to appropriate place, your productive input, based on RS, would be highly appreciated.HOBOPOCC (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone here should read the Holodomor talk page and its archives to see the extent of the problem with HOBO ... he appears to hold a visible strong POV extending to even translating Russian sources :(. Irina is not at fault in this. Collect (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Another Incidient - I am an uninvolved party in the Holodomor article, but I have seen a similar level of personal attacks by Iryna Harpy against other editors (Poeticbent and myself) on other articles such as Białowieża Forest, where a simple request to follow the NPOV UNESCO naming conventions for the infobox name and an NPOV attempt to improve an article based on prior cross-border conventions garners a personal attack like this. It's not even a "heat-of-the-moment" edit, but a willful re-edit of her prior-posted comment. I firmly believe that over-the-top comments from Iryna Harpy such as ... I had been under the impression that you are an intelligent and FAIR man. Trying to disguise intentional manipulation of Wikipedia policy as a rational method of resolving 'disputed'/'controversial' subject matter because 'you' are unable to be neutral is an embarrassment to your status in the Wikipedia community.... Comments such as that are beyond the pale. Poeticbent is an upstanding and fair editor and does not deserve such abuse. I bring this up, fully expecting the wrath of Iryna's comments, but so be it. I warned her I would bring her reprehensible behavior up to ANI. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC) EDITED Ajh1492 (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Wow, that's cold. Maybe neither one of them should be editing the article (btw, I am also uninvolved). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 20:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Before more of these "attacks" on my behalf are levelled at me, could I suggest that the entire talk page dialogue regarding Bialowieza forest be examined, please. In the first instance, I did apologise to Poeticbent and, to my understanding, neither he nor I have anything less than a good rapport both before and after this heated debate. Again, I would ask that the talk page be the reference point, rather than selected instances of behaviour being used to discredit me. The entire article has been split into a Belarusian and Polish 'version' of a single instance world heritage area. Splits may be warranted in some instances, but this was undoubtedly a POV fork issue. Perhaps I should have made a formal complaint against Ajh1492's POV content dislike of the use of Cyrillic on the page (stating, "I have been saying since the beginning that the alt names field in the infobox should be only stated as the name is inscribed in the UNESCO WHS list (Belovezhskaya Pushcha / Białowieża Forest), nothing more, nothing less no cyrillic. I don't personally care if Belovezhskaya Pushcha is transliterated belarussian or russian.") Ultimately, there was nothing that would suggest that there was anything even resembling an attempt to reach consensus. The article was split into Belovezhskaya Pushcha National Park, leaving only just enough to prevent it from being qualifying as a stub, the majority of the work on the article over the years having been wrested and turned into the predominant Wikipedia article as Polish Białowieża Forest. If you were to read through the talk page, I have no doubt that you would also find Ajh1492's finger-pointing at me as being seriously ingenuous. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Erpert, as you are not an administrator, rather than make comments like, "Wow, that's cold.", could I suggest that you actually examine the relevant talk pages, the talk pages of those who are making accusations, etc. in order to get a broader picture of the dynamics at work before making judgements? None of the issues being raised occurred in a vacuum, and judging any alleged violations by me in such a serious venue requires more that looking at a single quote. It is befitting to examine the calibre and agendas of those levelling accusations. Looking at their user talk pages, contributions, et al may also assist in informing you as to their motivation and any agenda/s they may have. I'm not saying this in order to be rude to you as I take your criticisms of my behaviour as being in good faith. I do, however, think that it is essential that it be understood that there are contributors who hide behind policies and guidelines as a method of gaming the system. Thank you for your patience. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    • FYI: you don't have to be an admin to make comments on this board. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 23:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I am well aware of that and was not suggesting that you don't have a right to voice your opinion as a neutral party: I did note that I accept your appraisals as being in good faith and that I was certainly not deriding your input. I was merely suggesting that you check into a little of the backgrounds of those who are tabling complaints and those who are being accused of unacceptable behaviour. I am unable to defend myself without context being understood to be of primary concern. I edit in areas (including Middle Eastern politics), Eastern European history (hence politics), ex-Soviet satellite nation-states and other volatile areas of Wikipedia which are extremely demanding. Making best attempts at working on consensus building and intervening in order to create balanced articles tends to make me a prime candidate for a plethora of accusations being levelled at me. My objective is to keep Wikipedia a credible, encyclopaedic source. If that makes me unpopular and the target of disgruntled, biased contributors, so be it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ajh1492, you are aware that the comment left on Erpert's user talk page can be construed as being borderline inappropriate canvassing. Your bringing Poeticbent's attention to the matter was reasonable (although he would already have been aware of it as you had mentioned him), but alerting Erpert, who was already following this AN/I entry, was redundant. Expressing that, "I expect to get her wrath, but cyber-bullies need to be stood up to." on Poeticbent's user talk page is a little OTT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You have a track record of cyber-bullying that continues even here on the ANI. Anyone who disagrees with you is to be ridiculed and their opinion minimized. You are doing it to Erpert here just as you did on Białowieża Forest. As I wrote in early November, The splitting of the article was first brought up by AntonBryl, plus if you notice that I was originally opposed to splitting the National Park-related information from the Forest-information, but after researching PoeticBent's comments and looking at the foreign-language entries for Białowieża_Forest (especially pl:Białowieża_Forest, it became real clear to me that the Forest article needs to concentrate on the forest and two National Park articles need to be created. So the consensus at the time from the 3 editors was to split, so a bold edit later we have three articles (the NP articles were already redirects, Belovezhskaya Pushcha National Park since 9 April 2004 and Białowieża National Park since 21 September 2006). I wouldn't call Belovezhskaya Pushcha National Park a straggly piece of undeveloped nothing (left) behind[37], it is not a stub, it is over 4000 characters with a well-developed infobox - it would have qualified for a DKY if the time was taken to cite the information. Plus you claimed you were involved in the discussion to split the article occurred that in late October (the actual split occurring on 30 October 2013), yet your first comment on the article talk page isn't until 9 November 2013 and your first comment about the split wasn't until 10 November 2013. To this date I still wonder how can you claim you were involved in the October decision to populate the two national park articles when the edit trail clearly shows you weren't? Basically a lie to cover up for your uninformed rudeness. Ajh1492 (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

As for any apology to Poeticbent, it's up to him to respond, but you only issued your snide attempt after you were warned [38]. I still haven't heard an apology after your brusque, uncivil and uninformed comments on the consensus-baed and justified article split such as a straggly piece of undeveloped nothing (left) behind[39] and similar. As far as I'm concerned you're nothing more than a bully. Ajh1492 (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• My sole point with my comments on this ANI is that Holodomor is just one example in a clear track record of personal attacks by Iryna Harpy on any editor that dares to disagree with her. I don't believe that HOBOPOCC is pure as the wind-driven snow, nor is this discussion about me nor about any other editor, but THIS ANI is about Iryna and her persistent in-civil attitude toward editorial disagreements. Ajh1492 (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  +1. I can put my signature to above statement. HOBOPOCC (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User Alexandharrison

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

User Alexandharrison has been editing Wikipedia since 25 October 2013,[40] and has created a variety of new pages that have been deleted.[41] I went over his/her last fifty edits outside Alexandharrison's user page and found most of them reverted/undone. None of them were productive and I reverted/undid the remainder and posted a warning on Alexandharrison's talk page. He has under 200 edits that have not been deleted[42] If you have time, please go through each of Alexandharrison's edits from October 25th to the 21:12, 25 November 2013 edit. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Governors added to incumbents at Year X in US history

I'm more interested in eyes than in direct action, though I could argue that administrative intervention is an option--at least mass rollback is. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Yesterday Fundingmoney (talk · contribs), a relatively new editor, started adding long lists of US governors to the "Year X in US history" articles (not yet the names of those governors)--this one is representative. I asked them about it, reverted one, I asked them to stop, and then I posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, where predictably there has been no response yet. At any rate, my argument is that since governors are hardly as important as other listed entities (Congress, prez) this is a waste of server space (to the tune of 1000 bytes per article).

Well, since then they started filling in the blanks. So here's the thing. They haven't responded to my questions, and without such an answer, and without any discussion at the US Project, I am in something of a bind. Their continuing those edits is, in my opinion, disruptive, and I think these lists are worse than useless, but I can't really start hitting mass rollback all by my lonesome. So this thread is, I suppose, an attempt at a. getting more editors to look at this; b. getting Fundingmoney to start talking; and c. figuring out what needs to be done. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

My take is that since we're talking about Governors, which are state elected officials, that the material doesn't belong. It would make more sense if they were adding the names of all the U.S. Representatives and Senators but even that seems unnecessary.--MONGO 15:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I've warned the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Now blocked for 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cue Do all of these edits need to be rolled back? Epicgenius (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I rolled back the 1865 example and agree that these particular governor lists are unhelpful and inappropriate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Following from your example, I have reverted all their edits up to the 1875 example up to the beginning of the 20th century examples Drmies reverted all of them. Epicgenius (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

i have changed the title of this section to a more appropriate one--68.231.15.56 (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Are the swarms of "Year X in ..." articles intended to serve readers in some way, or are they just a place for editors to spend their time making thousands of edits? bobrayner (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Theeditor initially in question has been blocked as a sockpuppet. I'm not closing this thread, in case broader discussion of the "Year in country" articles leads somewhere. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:BieberLover23

Resolved

 – Blocked for 72 hours

Six months ago, the user received a warning about their edits, to which they responded with: "Hey, Darkwarriorblake, suck my dick." (as shown here). The edit was reverted on 13 December, but BieberLover23 reinstated it several hours later (see here). User has also been instigating an edit war on Fast & Furious 7, as seen in edits 1, 2, and 3. - Areaseven (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I blocked for 72 hours. There's adequate warning here and really nothing to discuss as far as whether the edits were in conflict with policy or not. Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Technoquat sock

Block please? [43] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 17:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

disruptive editing on Jung Myung Seok page

Harizotoh9 reverted hours of work on the Jung myung seok page including edits by multiple contributors and lumped everything into one category. I will not participate in edit warring but would like an admin to offer a warning and a block to this behavior as it violates wiki policy. Furthermore on Richwales talk page the user acknowledges their lack of familiarity with wiki procedures. I posted on the users page that they should ask for help and not perform edit warring. I just noticed that this is not the first time for this user to participate in this behavior and has been warned by Rutebega in Feb 2013. I suppose a more significant block may be in order. Pease help. MrTownCar (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) MrTownCar, judging from this, it seems like you're forum shopping because you're upset that the article doesn't look the way you want it to (no one owns articles on Wikipedia). Regardless of whether Harizotoh9 had been warned, you neglected to mention that you have been warned yourself about that article; and it definitely doesn't help that you insulted him afterwards. (You might want to read WP:POT.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the brilliant observation erpert. The difference is I learned to work within the rules of the system even if I don't like the system or what is posted in the article but I have made the effort. For some one to make a broad sweeping edit reversion reverting multiple contributors with opposing persectives and then claim ignorance about the process is quite ridiculous and intellectually dishonest. cheers.MrTownCar (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You've learned to work with the rules of the system? I don't know; this section makes me think differently. And after reading all the bickering on the article's talk page, it appears that the information that Hari removed was all based on unreliable sources. Basically, if you were tendentiously editing and another user reverted your edits in good faith, you can't then come to a noticeboard and expect people to want to overturn the reversion, much less block that user. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 03:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of all the rest, this is a BLP with some fairly serious stuff. In such a case, it's not unresonable to removal material which seems to be questionably sourced while discussion takes place. In any event you're apparently referring to a single edit (plus a merger request). Harizotoh9 hasn't edited the article since October before that. Nil Einne (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has already been going on for over a year. The usual pattern is that a consensus is reached, and several months later the two SPAs start editing again simultaneously. Shii (tock) 02:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion outside of policy by involved admin

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

---

I would like to bring your attention to admin BD2412 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The admin speedily deleted Marina Rodina with the reason "redirect to disambiguation page with no apparent solution" despite the redirect being an established alias of the subject as discussed previously here and here.

• User:BD2412 is not only the creator the article it redirects to, but also it's top editor. I challenged the deletion on this admins talk page, and their reason was Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#R3._Implausible_typos, despite the redirect being created in 2010, not "Recently created". And "WP:BLP".

Why has this admin just ignored previous discussions and speedily deleted the page? For the above reasons, I believe the page was speedily deleted outside of policy, and the admin has violated bullets points 1 and 2 of WP:TOOLMISUSE, and even after being challenged, has refused to accept responsibility and amend their mistake.--Sinistrial (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just to clarify one point, before this redirect was deleted, it was pointing to Marina Orlova, a disambiguation page that was not created by me, but by User:Den1980-. There is no reason for the title Marina Rodina to point to the disambiguation page, Marina Orlova. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • So then why didn't you just fix the redirect instead of deleting it? And you did create the page it was originally redirecting to for 3 years. See end history of Marina Orlova (Internet celebrity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Sinistrial (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
    • At the time that I noticed the redirect, the page had been moved; nothing on either Marina Orlova (Internet celebrity) or on Marina Orlova (actress) indicated that either page should be the target of such a redirect. I am certainly not obligated to retarget a bad redirect to an article for which it is still a bad redirect. bd2412 T 22:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
      • BD2412 if you thought there was a valid plac for the redirect to point to, you should have directed it there. If not you should have listed it on RFD. A redirect present for years is not "recently created" and so this was not a valid speedy deletion. Who created the redir or any of the pages it might have pointed to at any time is not relevant. Speedy deletions are for narrow, bright-line situations that have clear consensus in advance. Outside of these criteria, or even inside them when an admin knows the action will be contentious, XfD should be used instead. DES ^(talk) 00:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
        • As it happens, I did not think that there was a valid place for the redirect to point to; there is none within the context of Wikipedia's policies. Since there is no reliable source for a notable person named "Marina Rodina", a redirect to a disambiguation page not including that name fails WP:DABMENTION, and is basically a WP:CSD#A7. Furthermore, retargeting it to an existing BLP article for which no reliable source supports having this as an alternative name for the subject is a very clear WP:BLP violation. bd2412 T 00:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at Deletion review? JodyB _talk 00:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I agree. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppetry, more conspiracy-mongering, personal attacks etc at Ruggero Santilli and Hubble's law

Apparently, there is a conspiracy amongst Wikipedians (Jewish naturally) to denigrate the scientific theories of Ruggero Santilli: or at least, there is according to the contributions of User:Aabrucadubraa [44] and User:ClenserBlastAaa [45]. Obvious socks of the blocked User:ScientificEthics and his sockfarm. See here [46] for the last ANI thread. I've filed a SPI, but I think further intervention may be necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked them. If the SPI turns up anything, we'll go ahead and tag them appropriately. John Reaves 22:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, I've just created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aabrucadubraa. What timing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah - I'd added them to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zkurko. Dougweller (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

And before any of the above, there was another SPI, now closed and at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScientificEthics/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Multiple issues concerning User:Tom Fearer

This incident involves Vandalism, possible sockpuppetry and threats of violence. I'm not sure where to put this specifically, so I came here.

Within the past few hours, User:Tom Fearer began blatantly editing other editors' talk page comments on Talk:Retail loss prevention. I then noticed that Tom Fearer's userpage redirects to User:Camaro82, his apparent new username. Tom insistently undid my rollbacks, claiming he wanted his name removed from the page - no exceptions.

This continued on and after my WP:3RR was up, he posted on my talk page, claiming he's been receiving threats of violence from other users. However, I cannot find anything of the sort from either accounts' talk page history or on the current version of Talk:Retail loss prevention. He then went so far as to completely blank the article's talk page. He does not care if his account gets blocked/deleted, only wishing to have his name completely expunged from Wikipedia.

Again, I'm not sure where to put this and I personally have no idea where to go from here. I do not know whether or not this is an SPI/vandalism case with some threats of violence smoke-and-mirrors being made. Antoshi ☏ ★ 01:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The person who last sent me a threatening message is an unknown individual with the IP of 209.222.50.200. Go to my User Page and click on the October 2nd 2013 revision. In addition to this message I have received several threats in the past from fired co-workers since my account originally cited my email. I have had not had an incident that was sourced from this website since 2008/2009 when I was last and active user. I attempted to delete my name off the (retail Loss Prevention) talk page due to it showing up on Yahoo and Google searches with my name. I have also submitted a request for a name change to Camaro82 which I believe might resolve the issue for me and with the users on this site. I just want my name removed somehow, I set my Wikipedia account up when I was my early 20s and had I had the foresight back then would have not used my name. Forgive me for the signature jargon, I don't even recall how to do that properly on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Fearer (talk • contribs) 01:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a link to the edit I spoke of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Camaro82&oldid=575373310

I don't even know what this is referencing at all. But what gets me concerned is the KILL part, to me that is a clear cut threat as any. I have received emails from former employees who have been terminated by me and have had a similar vein of tone in the message. I take these threats completely seriously and as I stated before I would like my name reference removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Fearer (talk • contribs) 01:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That seems more like a vandal's way to frame a suicide threat on your user page, than an actual death threat. Would you like your username changed? Epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• I did respond to Tom Fearer's request for advice here, directing him to WP:REDACT and WP:TPO. Josh3580_talk/hist 01:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@Epicgenius, yes I would like to change my user name to Camaro82 if possible. I fairly certain that I submitted the request correctly on the Change User submission page. So long as my current name is removed for an alias I would feel a lot better about messages like that. I wasn't even aware of it until I did a chance Google search on my name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Fearer (talk • contribs) 01:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Tom Fearer: just a side note, since you mentioned you don't know how to write out your signature.. at the end of your text simply type ~~~~ (those four tildes) and your signature will be automatically added in at the end of your message. I'd have left this on your talk page but as noted, it's redirected to a different account. Gloss • talk 01:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Announcing your username change here, in front of the known universe, is not necessarily the best strategy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@Tom Fearer: The "Camaro82" username is not registered yet (despite the fact that the user page has existed for more than eight years), but you can register it now. You just have to request a change in username. It's at WP:CHU/S. Epicgenius (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The username request was submitted - and as soon as a 'crat gets around to it, there shouldn't be a problem with it being taken care of. Gloss • talk 02:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That's just what I was about to ask, thank you. Tom Fearer (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:QuackGuru

User:QuackGuru has been displaying disruptive editing for some time now, especially at the GERAC and Acupuncture articles.

• Disruptive tagging ([47], [48], [49]) even though he's been asked repeatedly to stop this ([50], [51])
• Stubbornly referring to other editor's contributions as "nonsense" (Talk:German Acupuncture Trials#Nonsense deleted) even though he has been asked a long time to refrain from doing so ([52])
• Refusal to accept talk page consensus (Talk:German Acupuncture Trials#Results should not be should be limited in the article, Talk:Acupuncture#Rate of serious adverse events).

The last time that several users asked GQ to stop his pattern of disruptive editing was on 02-Dec, but to no avail. Discussion with GQ is further hampered by him deleting all messages on his talk page as soon as possible. I request a topic ban. --Mallexikon (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I think WP:BOOMERANG should apply here. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I wonder if you even tried to discuss the matter with the user—all I see on their talk page is a link directing them to this page. User:QuackGuru removed the messages from their page, so not Mallexikon's fault. --Epicgenius (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine. WP:BOOMERANG. And please explain it to me. We got an almost constant discussion at the acupuncture-related pages. And we used to have a lot of problems with fanatic acupuncture proponents in the past, but recently it's just that hard-core skeptics bunch with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, which is killing the very spirit of WP. I do understand that QG and Roxy and Brangifer do what they do in good faith - I'm a skeptic myself. But when they overshoot their mark like QG, or like Brangifer here yesterday and administrators keep on turning a blind eye, article quality will drop. Cause anyone with a different opinion will feel bullied and silenced. I appealed to AN/I some time ago because another hardcore skeptic user deleted 80% of an acupuncture-related article (all sourced material), and then took the remaining stub and nominated it for deletion - administrator's interest in this was almost zero (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#GERAC). Everybody's complaining about WP being too white / male / tech-friendly influenced, and everybody's always talking about how incivility should not be tolerated - but obviously that's just talk. Thanks a lot, guys. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep me out of this GERAC mess. I haven't been following it enough to understand the issues. All I know is (and I'm speaking generally here) that when pushers of fringe POV try to keep mainstream opinions out of articles, that's a type of violation of NPOV we do not tolerate. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hore55

Hore55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created four articles with lists of airports in Southern, Northern, Eastern and Western Norway. I tagged those articles for speedy deletion, because they are redundant as we have List of airports in Norway. User removed speedy deletion templates from some of the articles, and I notifies him on his talk page not to do that ([53]). All four articles were later speedily deleted. But, Hore55 recreated all four articles in the same form. I tagged articles for deletion again, but once again he removed speedy deletion tags from articles ([54] and [55]). I reverted those edits and warned him again on his talk page not to do that ([56]). He then posted a message on my talk page to "get lost" ([57]). He than tagged articles I created years ago with speedy deletion templates ([58], [59]) including my own user pages ([60] and [61]). Please, try to stop this User's disruptive behavior. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Peridon has warned them regarding the "revenge" speedy deletion tags and I've redirected the articles they created to List of airports in Norway. So let's see what happens now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

persistent nasty incivility

I confess to being increasingly annoyed at the escalating incivility toward me shown by User:Katydidit at Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt in the last few days. (examples: "Would you at least do that and turn honest on that point, or do you want to continue lying with your repeated falsehood that has been proven untrue? If not, I can only surmise you don't want to honestly discuss this topic, and only want to smear and make-up stories because that is all you have to go on."; " You are mad, thoroughly, completely mad to make-up such outrageous, amateurish gibberish in vainly trying to support your unverified assertion, and that you refuse to add one cite as I have repeatedly asked. Blind, and mind completely shut tight, not just incredibly biased to the facts of consumer shortages, but blind and mindshut." "When will you finally wake-up to the truth and stop believing the government's propaganda that an increasing number of people are realizing are just a pack of lies?") He just gets worse and worse. Rjensen (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You are losing the debate, and continually refusing to acknowledge other authors that I cited--that was the reason for my reply to you, so you resort to doing this, and you still refuse to provide a source link as WP:Cite requires for unverified assertions. You are now smearing me unfairly, and I'm done trying to discuss this topic with you. I finally lost my patience with you, and that is why I said the things I said, in trying to get you to stop saying things that were proven false. Maybe I did go a little too far, but you weren't discussing fairly or cared about my links in citing others, and that is why I said those things I wouldn't have normally said to others in a discussion. --Katydidit (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Katydidit, I don't see your attacks as being justified. What I see is disruptive editing on the article (5 days ago) and contentious remarks - to say nothing of walls of text - on the talk page (the present). This board is hardly the place for bringing civility issues, but your comments are personal attacks, not just incivility. If you can't control your frustration and your tongue, go do something else. Based on your history, you mostly edit articles (as opposed to talking); as long as you can avoid your recent edit warring, perhaps you should stick with that.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I know I lost my patience with that other editor, but he was an exceptional case. It won't happen with him or anyone else again, because I haven't met anyone else as stubborn as he was in refusing to acknowledge the other authors and links I posted for his edification. --Katydidit (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You said that it won't happen again, which was fine...but what you said after that wasn't the best thing to say. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 20:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute that got personal. Katydidit's personal remarks are pretty bad here... but I don't think the situation is quite ripe enough to merit administrator intervention. I think working through other steps of the dispute resolution process, especially focused on clearing up the content dispute, might be a better first step. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

DrEdna

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

---

DrEdna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly using sarcasm and attacks against users, even after a final warning. See discussions at User talk:DrEdna#Talk page revert, User talk:DrEdna#December 2013 and User talk:George8211#Your posting on my page.. ^{[deliberate double full stops]} Also attacking in edit summaries. George8211 // Give a trout a home! 15:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I fully support this action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 15:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Uh, what action do you suppport? George8211, DrEdna attacked another editor in July. You posted a warning in November, even though, except for a couple of edits in early August, DrEdna had not contributed to Wikipedia in the intervening time. I can see that DrEdna is a piece of work, but why did you bother? It just gave her a chance to renew her nasty comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That was one of my flubs. I warned DrEdna about the remark, but forgot to check the timestamp. George8211 // Give a trout a home! 16:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that was my assumption as she did not sign her comment in the usual way.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds GREAT proceed with account deletion and/or blocking. Greatest conversation ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 16:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• The timing isn't great, but it seems that DrEdna is not here to build an encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) I agree, especially after this. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 20:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Greatest hot air conversation ever. DO IT ALREADY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 21:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you know who you are dealing with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 22:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Aside for the fact that threats are seriously frowned upon here...whom are you even talking to? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 23:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the user indefinitely for disruptive editing. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Masu7

User:Masu7 was blocked indefinitely for persistent sock puppetry but he/she continues to create sock accounts. The latest is User:MOttaCossaOb. Could somenone block this account and also delete the articles/categories created by this account: Royal College Panadura', Royal vs St. John's, Category:Royal College Panadura'? You will also need to protect these articles/categories otherwise Masu7 will recreate them using another sock.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:80.195.139.78

80.195.139.78 (talk · contribs)

Hi. This IP editor keeps adding unsourced dates-of-deaths to lots of BLP articles. I've warned them on their talkpage, but they continue to edit articles without sourcing them. Can and Admin step in and help? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Persistent disruptions by Evildoer187

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

---

Evildoer187 is apparently on a WP:TRUTH-mission on Wikipedia, causing disruptions everywhere. As is evident from the user's talk page (even though many blocks, warnings and topic-bans have been removed by the user (eg [62], [63], [64] many others remain), the user is on Wikipedia with the sole purpose of pushing his POV concerning topics related to Jews and Judaism. The user has already been topic-banned from editing areas related to the Israeli-Arab conflict. My first interaction with the user was today, though I see many others have encountered the same behavior previously. On Ashkenazi Jews, several users had discussed the intro. To give a very brief background, it is a fact that good, serious peer-reviewed scientific DNA studies have arrived at different views on the origins of Ashkenazi Jews. In keeping with NPOV, Wikipedia should not to take sides between these, but report the fact that science differs. According to Evildoer187's POV, Ashkenazi Jews are of Levantine origin. This view is contradicted by a recent and very extensive DNA study by 18 researchers, published in Nature. As far as sources go, an extensive study published in Nature is pretty much the gold standard of WP:RS. This study, which has been widely reported in leading media, shows that the origins of Ashkenazi Jews are mainly European. This, however, does not fit Evildoer187's POV, so he repeatedly deletes and rewrites, removing any reference to a possible European origin [65], [66], [67] As seen in the diffs, the user has deleted it both from the introduction and from the infobox, while gladly keeping references to smaller studies in less known journals which are in line with his POV.
In short It's apparent from Evildoer187's history that this is a single-purpose account for the WP:TRUTH, it's apparent from the user's talk page that this is done in a way which has led to countless warnings, blocks and topic bans. The fact that the user still continues in the same way despite all these warnings is indicative. Given this user's history on Wikipedia, and the apparent inflaming behavior and unwillingness to hear, I feel a topic ban for [User:Evildoer187|Evildoer187]] on any article related to Judaism or the Jewish people would be in order. It is evident that this user is here to push a certain POV, not to build a neutral encyclopaedia.Jeppiz (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Your inflammatory and aggressive attacks on me here are reflective of POV pushing on your part. I may have made mistakes in the past, which I will readily admit to, but it should be evident to anyone who looks at the page in question that I have done no such thing on Ashkenazi Jews.

I did not delete the peer reviewed paper in question. I deleted the news articles which discuss (and in some cases, misrepresent) the peer reviewed paper, which I believed was superfluous. Further, none of the studies cited in the article even remotely indicate that Ashkenazim are purely European, as he is trying to portray in the article itself. They only suggest that 80 percent of mtDNA origins are traceable to Europe, with the rest being of Middle Eastern origin. Genetic studies do not differ (among the ones cited at least) on the origins of Ashkenazi Jews. They all agree on Levantine origins. I was also under the impression that the related ethnic groups category pertains to groups who share more than just genetics in common, but also culture, geography, linguistics, etc.

In short, this editor is deliberately trying to misrepresent the study, and that in itself is indicative of POV pushing.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where you see "inflammatory and aggressive attacks" nor is it clear to me what you mean by "reflective of POV pushing on your part". I've taken great care to respect NPOV, giving equal weight to equally valid scientific studies, and I've argued at the talk page that the article should represent both views. The fact that you find that "POV pushing" is unfortunately very indicative. When you say I edited to suggest that "Ashkenazim are purely European" you're entering into lies and slander. Could you provide diffs to a version of the article by me that says that "Ashkenazim are purely European". If you can't (and you can't), kindly retract your slander above. I said quite the contrary, as can be seen from my edit of the talk page ([68]). I fear the unmeasured response by Evildoer187 only reinforces my impression that this user should not edit articles related to the Jewish people or Judaism.Jeppiz (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You immediately came out with attacks on my credibility and threatened to block me (even though you are not an admin) after just one edit. Instead of discussing or reverting rationally, you instantly demanded that I be topic banned. That is pretty aggressive, no?

If you were actually representing both sides adequately, then you'd have a point, and I would never have reverted you. But as this diff here indicates (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&diff=586222880&oldid=586221924), you posted that some studies claim that Ashkenazim are entirely European in origin, whereas none of the studies arrive at this conclusion. Further, you needlessly added news articles discussing a study which was already cited in the article.

I will not retract my accusations of POV pushing, because from what I can see, that is exactly what you are doing here.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin." Taken directly from the diff. None of the genetic studies say this, so either you're lying or you're not paying attention. I am inclined to go with the former.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. You're clearly trying to deflect the discussion.

• I did not threaten to block you, I posted a standard Wikipedia warning on your talk page.
• This discussion is not based on one edit or one article, but on your whole edit history.
• First you claim I said Ashkenazim are "entirely" and "purely" European, then you link to a diff where I wrote "mainly European". "Mainly" and "entirely" are two different things.
• The claim about Ashkenazim being mainly European is not mine, it's from the sources I used. That's how Science, one of the main scientific journals in the world, reported the findings of the study. NBC News and BBC News both did as well, though they are not scientific. Whether you agree or not is quite simply irrelevant. Science most certainly satisfies WP:RS and the fact that you accuse me of "lying" and "POV-pushing" for citing it is, once again, indicative of how you refuse to accept anything or anyone not agreeing with you.Jeppiz (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No, the study claims that Ashkenazi MATERNAL origins are mainly European. Your diff said "Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin." If you had clarified that part, or if you had cited the Zoossmann-Diskin study from 2010 which DID arrive at that conclusion (i.e. that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly European), I would never have had a problem with it, although it may have raised WP:UNDUE concerns since the bulk of genetic studies posit that a significant portion of Ashkenazi ancestry is Levantine. Further, it would still have been completely unnecessary to link to anything outside of the main study itself. Additionally, I stated my intent to remove the NYT article and replace it with the actual study, which I was not able to track down, so your accusations of censoring the other side/POV pushing don't hold water here.

I will, however, concede that I made a mistake with regards to your first two *'s. I will be more careful about that from now on.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The topic here is not the article, there's a talk page for that. My edit took into account both sides, and was even more careful in the claim that the article in Science was. Nuff bout that. The topic here is your behavior on Wikipedia and the way you edit, apparently causing inflammatory reactions all around.Jeppiz (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

http://forward.com/articles/185399/jewish-womens-genes-traced-mostly-to-europe-not/#

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/.premium-1.551825

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24442352

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2013/10/did-modern-jews-originate-italy

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/most-ashkenazi-jews-are-genetically-europeans-surprising-study-finds-8C11358210

These are the citations I removed in my original revert (see the diff). Notice how they each pertain to the same exact study, which was also cited in the same sentence (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html). This begs the question: why is he linking to all of these news articles when the study itself is already there (and which I did not delete)? I should hope that the reason is obvious and that I won't have to fill in the blanks. Moreover, notice how the study in question does not say, anywhere, that "Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin". Rather, it says that maternal origins are mainly European. If he had added the word "maternal" in the sentence, this dispute would never have happened. But he didn't, and so here we are.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those are the sources you deleted. Science.NBC News. BBC News. Among the best sources available to us, and Wikipedia welcomes secondary sources. Science wrote "A detailed look at thousands of genomes finds that Ashkenazim ultimately came not from the Middle East, but from Western Europe.", my edit was perfectly in line with that. And your behaviour in this thread is typical of your whole Wikipedia history. You deflect from the topic, you repeatedly lie about me. You declare one of the leading scientific journals in the world unfit as a source. That is the topic here. You do not contribute to Wikipedia, you disrupt it.Jeppiz (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I have not told any lies about you. The evidence of your actions is right there for all to see. As for myself, I have done nothing wrong, save for not going to the talk page when I should have (which I admitted to).

And you still have not answered my question: why are you using all of these news sources which merely report on the study, when the genetic study itself is already cited? Especially when said study does not arrive at the conclusion you say it does. It reeks of POV pushing, and I don't know how you could argue otherwise. Further, I never said the Science journal source was unreliable, just superfluous and unnecessary because the study it talks about is already cited in the article.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

And upon closer inspection of the Science article. "So a different team of scientists, led by geneticist Martin Richards at the University of Huddersfield in the United Kingdom, embarked on a new search for the origins of these four founder groups. The team focused on mtDNA, which is often employed in genetic studies because it is easier to sequence and allows analysis of huge population samples. However, mtDNA is inherited through the mother and not the father, so it reveals the history of maternal lineages only.

Geneticists have identified certain mtDNA markers that define lineages in different parts of the world. Behar’s group had traced the Jewish founder groups to two mtDNA genetic lineages called haplogroup K and haplogroup N1b. The Jewish lineages were nested within these two larger groups, which include both Jews and non-Jews. So Richards and his colleagues first set out to understand the history of these broader lineages. They analyzed about 2500 complete and 28,000 partial mtDNA genomes of mostly non-Jews worldwide, plus 836 partial mtDNA genomes of Ashkenazi Jews, to see where the Ashkenazim fit into the overall history.

The result was very clear-cut, the authors say: As reported online today in Nature Communications, more than 80% of Ashkenazi mtDNAs had their origins thousands of years ago in Western Europe, during or before Biblical times—and in some cases even before farming came to that part of the continent some 7500 years ago. The closest matches were with mtDNAs from people who today live in and around Italy. The results imply that the Jews can trace their heritage to women who had lived in Europe at that time. Very few Ashkenazi mtDNAs could be traced to the Middle East."

It is indeed referring to mtDNA specifically, which hardly equates to "Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin", as you put it in the article. If you had wrote instead "Ashkenazi Jewish maternal lines are mainly of European origin" (never mind the fact that you needlessly padded out one study with at least 5-6 news articles reporting on it), there wouldn't have been a problem. But you did not do that. So tell me again how this is not lying, on your part?Evildoer187 (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You deliberately deflect and do not WP:HEAR. I discuss the article on its talk page. I leave it for uninvolved admins to consider your disruptive history on Wikipedia, which is the topic here. It is evident from your talk page and edit history. You are not here to build an encyclopaedia.Jeppiz (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:HEAR "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.

Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. One option to consider in these situations is to stop, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you; see if you can see their side of the debate; and work on finding points of agreement.

Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, because they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed."

I fail to see how I've violated this rule. You are the only one, to my knowledge, who is incessantly battling me on this issue. There was one guy who disagreed with me yesterday, and another on the talk page who ostensibly agrees with me. That's not consensus, last I checked.

Moreover, I have seen your side of the debate, and I understand exactly what the problem is. You are misrepresenting a study in the article and padding it out with news articles reporting on the same study which is already cited. So on the contrary, I did WP:HEAR you. The fact that I'm calling you out on this does not mean I'm not listening to your side. You are dissembling here.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not playing your deflection game and this isn't about me. Your claim that only one other person has commented on your behavior is ridiculous. You have been topic banned and you have been blocked several times for your extremely disruptive behavior. Any admin can check out your talk page, or rather your talk page history as you've deleted most warnings and blocks.Jeppiz (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm refuting the charges you've brought against me here, and pointing out how the entire dispute on the Ashkenazi Jews article (which resulted in this thread) is a result of your editing behavior. As for me, I acknowledged that I've made mistakes, and I've been working to improve on it. You, on the other hand, manipulated sources and violated WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV.

Moreover, I did not claim that only one other person commented on my behavior. I stated, clearly, that one other person disagreed with me on that issue. You accused me of violating WP:HEAR on that topic, when it is evident that I did not.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I said you don't WP:HEAR in this thread. You continue to try to deflect by discussing Ashkenazim. That is not the topic here. The topic is your disruptive behavior throughout your entire history on Wikipedia, your many blocks, topic ban, and the inflammatory arguments you bring to articles.Jeppiz (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you did not. You accused me of violating WP:HEAR on the Ashkenazi Jews article. You even said so in your initial comment i.e. "Given this user's history on Wikipedia, and the apparent inflaming behavior and unwillingness to hear". This was prior to our argument on this page, indicating that you were accusing me of violating this Wiki norm on Ashkenazi Jews. Further, I have acknowledged (this would be the third time, in this thread) that I have made my share of mistakes, and that I am working to improve, so your accusations of deflection don't hold water. I should also note that I have sought WP:ADOPTION, but was never picked up.

Moreover, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out your problematic behavior, as it provides relevant context.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Comment from uninvolved editor Oh, for crying out loud...this is the longest thread I have ever seen in a back-and-forth argument between two people in a single day. I'm not sure who's right and who isn't (although Evildoer, making an entirely new thread about this same situation wasn't the best idea), but both parties might want to consider taking a wikibreak for a day or two.

And now Jeppiz has commented in that thread. Seriously, you both need to chill out. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 00:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In any case, I don't want to spend all day arguing on here, so I'm gonna back off and wait for an admin to show up.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Since I could not reply to Jeppiz on the thread below, I will do so here instead.

• No, not revenge. I even told you on your talk page that I was going to take action against you here. I've been pre-occupied with other things. I don't live on the internet, after all.

• You did not try to reflect both sides. You took one genetic study (whereas you claimed there were several), misrepresented its conclusions in the article, and buttressed it with at least 5-6 news articles which pertain to the same study. That is POV pushing. Dictionary definition of it. Evidence for this is provided in the diff.

• I only did that in the related ethnic groups template, because my impression was that related ethnic groups pertains to groups who share more than just genetics in common. What do Ashkenazi Jews share with Southern Europeans and Italians other than genetics? What do they share with Arabs, Samaritans, Sephardi Jews, etc? That was my point. Also notice (check the diff) that I did not remove the genetic study in Nature, which is what all of those additional news articles were discussing. He is not being truthful here, and that's the problem.

• Taken from the same article. "So a different team of scientists, led by geneticist Martin Richards at the University of Huddersfield in the United Kingdom, embarked on a new search for the origins of these four founder groups. The team focused on mtDNA, which is often employed in genetic studies because it is easier to sequence and allows analysis of huge population samples. However, mtDNA is inherited through the mother and not the father, so it reveals the history of maternal lineages only.

Geneticists have identified certain mtDNA markers that define lineages in different parts of the world. Behar’s group had traced the Jewish founder groups to two mtDNA genetic lineages called haplogroup K and haplogroup N1b. The Jewish lineages were nested within these two larger groups, which include both Jews and non-Jews. So Richards and his colleagues first set out to understand the history of these broader lineages. They analyzed about 2500 complete and 28,000 partial mtDNA genomes of mostly non-Jews worldwide, plus 836 partial mtDNA genomes of Ashkenazi Jews, to see where the Ashkenazim fit into the overall history.

The result was very clear-cut, the authors say: As reported online today in Nature Communications, more than 80% of Ashkenazi mtDNAs had their origins thousands of years ago in Western Europe, during or before Biblical times—and in some cases even before farming came to that part of the continent some 7500 years ago. The closest matches were with mtDNAs from people who today live in and around Italy. The results imply that the Jews can trace their heritage to women who had lived in Europe at that time. Very few Ashkenazi mtDNAs could be traced to the Middle East."

He made no reference whatsoever to maternal DNA, which would have provided some much needed clarification. Instead, he (tellingly) omitted it and put "Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin" in the article.

• Adding news sources which all discuss the same genetic study is problematic, and you know it. It would seem that you are deliberately trying to bypass WP:UNDUE by making it appear as though these studies (and you did say "studies") are more numerous than they actually are. For the passage pertaining to the Middle Eastern origins of Jews, the citations were much more varied and clearly extracted from different studies. Needless to say, if you are being honest, I expect there will be no objections if I employ the same tactics vis-a-vis the Middle Eastern origins of Ashkenazim.

• My accusations against you are not unfounded. The evidence I have posted here shows that clearly. I do not think I should be topic banned because although I have made mistakes, I have not edited the Ashkenazi Jews topic in a disruptive manner, as he claims.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Rarevogel

User Rarevogel has been engaged in a long-term edit war over the ethnicity of Alhazen. For example, they initially replaced a long, referenced discussion of Alhazen's identity with "Iraqi Muslim": [69] They've been engaged in making similar edits to the same text for nearly two months now. They have been warned for edit warring on the article [70] They did recently finally engage in a discussion on the Talk page, but at the point where it was still far from clear that there was consensus for change they went ahead and made an edit to the same text anyway: [71] There was some support for deleting the overly long discussion in the lead, so in the interests of moving the article forward I largely let the edit stand. Rarevogel then basically implied that their opinion was the only thing which mattered in the article. When I said that if the consensus in reliable sources was that Alhazen could be described as an Arab, that's what we should use, Rarevogel told me "Go fuck yourself": [72] I haven't looked at Rarevogel's other edits to other articles, but interestingly they have recently been warned for removing the word "Arab" from articles: [73]. I personally think Rarevogel's behaviour is unacceptable, and that some sort of block is required to make that clear. --Merlinme (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Rarevogel's response to being told "Go fuck yourself" was unacceptably rude was "I meant to say: Go piss up a rope". [74]. --Merlinme (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I warned him/her about the personal attack. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 21:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even see the second attack at first (I'm not sure what "piss up a rope" even means but I am sure it was meant to be pretty derogatory). I second a block. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 21:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Exceptionally rude user, would need some time to reflect on their behavior.Jeppiz (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but grumble a bit that the issue that brought this to ANI (and what everyone seems to be focusing on) is that Rarevogel swore at another editor he was arguing with. I also question whether being told to fuck off constitutes a personal attack instead of simple incivility. By the way, being told to "piss up a rope" works essentially the same as "fuck off" (both could be seen as vulgar variants of "go fly a kite"). And reviewing the other edits here, while I do see evidence of perhaps overly BOLD editing, I think the description of the first diff at the very least belies that this is at its core a content dispute (though one of a traditionally highly contentious nature: the ethnicity and nationality of a historical figure). I really think more diffs are needed to demonstrate a pattern of incivility rather than isolated frustration stemming from this content dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't think it's relevant that Rarevogel has been warned for removing "Arab"? And I've never had someone swear at me like that in seven years of editing the encyclopedia. I described it as gross incivility, it was another editor who described it as a personal attack, but either way I don't see why I should have to put up with it. The Talk page conversation goes: Me: "You may have a point, but please give references to support your viewpoint"; KansasBear notes Rarevogel's tendency to remove "Arab"; Dicklyon finds zero sources for Iraqi, some sources for Persian, some for Arab; Rarevogel then deletes the section; I let it stand but remove "Muslim", which was rather over-emphasised in the lead, and note that Rarevogel really shouldn't have made an edit in such a controversial area without much clearer consensus; Rarevogel comes back with "It shouldn't be controversial bro... The only thing we know for sure was that he was an Iraqi and a muslim, and that he wrote exclusively in Arabic", giving zero sources; we then get: Me: "I'm not your bro. And if the consensus of authorities is that it makes sense to describe him as an Arab, please don't impose your own personal opinion otherwise on the encyclopedia." Rarevogel: "Go fuck yourself. Its not a matter of opinion. I've stated the facts. The burden is on you to prove that he was Persian or chinese or whatever, ehrn there is no evident proof. Its not on me to prove he wasnt." Me: "a) Yes it is up to you to justify your opinion, using reliable sources; b) "Go fuck yourself" is unacceptable. I'll now raise at WP:ANI." Rarevogel: "I meant to say: Go piss up a rope. Sorry for using the f-bomb, but you shouldnt be so rude to people." Now, could anyone please explain to me what on earth I did to justify being told to go fuck myself? And why Rarevogel's relentless determination to assert that Alhazen was an Iraqi Muslim while providing zero sources is helping the encyclopedia? --Merlinme (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

All I see going on here is Rarevogel said something rude during a content dispute. That doesn't make it a behavioral dispute warranting administrative action. And as to your points about the content dispute, this is decidedly the wrong forum to hash them out, but I'll point out that from my admittedly ignorant perspective, that someone is a Muslim and hailed from what is now Iraq (sources for both points are in the article) makes it trivial to say he was an Iraqi Muslim. At the very least, that's what I gather Rarevogel's position is. If that position is wrong for reasons other than sourcing (which, as I've argued, is not a problem), then I suggest you respond along those lines at the talk page and follow the dispute resolution process. ANI just isn't the right forum for this content dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to get sidetracked over a (resolved) content dispute, but to explain why calling Alhazen Iraqi is controversial, it's like describing Sitting Bull as American would be controversial if you didn't explain the difference between the geographical area and the modern country; that's why no reliable source describes Alhazen as Iraqi.

That wasn't why I came here though, I came here because I thought that telling someone to "go fuck themselves" is not acceptable under any circumstances. This is the first time I've ever reported anyone for incivility, but I thought that clearly crossed the line. There is apparently a difference of opinion on this though, so I've had a look at WP:Civil: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." "Even a single act of severe incivility can result in blocks; for example, a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor." "3.Civility blocks should be for obvious and uncontentious reasons, because an editor has stepped over the line in a manner nearly all editors can see. In cases where you have reason to suspect this would not be the case – cases where there is reason to believe that taking admin action against someone who was uncivil would not be an uncontentious (or nearly so) prospect – it is expected that discussion will be opened on the matter, via WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U, before any admin action is taken." Personally I think Rarevogel obviously and uncontentiously crossed the line; being told to "Go fuck yourself", and then told to "Go piss up a rope" is surely "extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor". Rarevogel has given absolutely no evidence of any intention to give an apology or modify their comments. I do not have great confidence in my own ability to resolve the matter calmly while being abused, which is why I have asked for outside assistance in making it clear to Rarevogel their behaviour is not acceptable. Whether it justifies a block according to current policy, I don't know, but I would appreciate at the very least that Rarevogel is warned to not to use that kind of abuse again. I am relatively thick skinned in these matters, but I can imagine (for example) expert editors rather being put off editing if the atmosphere on article Talk pages is closer to flame wars than scholarly debate. --Merlinme (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:70.134.229.223/User:70.134.228.221

Since a couple days this IP user is Wikihounding me and my edits, using 2 IPs (I assume 70.134.229.223 is also 70.134.228.221 same subnet whois Private Customer - SBC Internet Services SBC07013422800023051028141157 (NET-70-134-228-0-1) 70.134.228.0 - 70.134.229.255) , inhibiting my work, making poorly based complaints and generally being rude/arrogant (not only on my talk page but also in an article I'm currently improving). Please check the user's contribs. I feel annoyed and harassed. I have no problem with polite critic or people pointing out that I made a mistake, but in a polite tone. Any help is appreciated. ₪Stormmeteo ^Message 21:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@Stormmeteo: Sorry, but that doesn't look much like wikihounding – you and 70.134.228.221 only edited four pages in common (two of which are your respective talkpages). You and 70.134.229.223 only edited two pages in common: Medicane and Appleton, Wisconsin. WIth only three pages in common, that doesn't exactly constitute stalking. Four? Maybe. Five? Definitely. But two or three? That is probably just an overlap. Correct me if I am wrong. Epicgenius (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless Stormmeteo has diffs exhibiting something more serious, this isn't wikihounding, and isn't a candidate for administrator intervention at this time. It looks like a single, narrow dispute, where one of the IPs has stated things a bit more aggressively than I might (but definitely a far cry from incivility). And frankly, the statement that the anonymous editor is "inhibiting your work" on an article you're improving is concerning; you don't own the articles you work on here, and there's every indication the IPs are editing constructively (see this diff or this diff). Honestly I really want to know exactly there was in this revert that served to harass you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:MilesMoney : edits in various articles (categories, sources)

MilesMoney (talk · contribs) has re-added -twice- obviously contentious and potentially defamatory content to the BLP of Dana Rohrabacher, supported by a partisan source with a less-than sterling reputation. Diffs: [75] [76]

Miles has elected not to start a discussion, nor has he made any attempt to find a better source (which may well be available, if he were to bother looking). Instead, he prefers to try to force in his edit, even though it has been pointed out that it is a clear violation of WP:BLP. Roccodrift (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I did start a discussion, but you went directly to WP:ANI, bypassing the talk page, WP:RSN and WP:BLPN. To repeat what I said:

Dana Rohrabacher said this at a congressional hearing, so it's on the public record and we have CSPAN videos confirming it. The citation is to http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/04/26/1928321/rohrabacher-boston-islam/, which includes both of these original sources while defending us from the appearance of WP:OR. There is no WP:BLP issue here as there is absolutely no question that he said these things and that it was notable.

I stand by this. If you disagree, however, let's take this to the appropriate forum, not this drama page. MilesMoney (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

An appropriate and well-researched SPI has been filed against Roccodrift: WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Belchfire -- Brangifer (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There has been a flurry of disruptive edits by User:MilesMoney, who really ought to know better. This could perhaps be better discussed at WP:EWN, but the user in question has been editing disruptively across a range of article - adding dubious categories unsupported by the article, and then reverting while refusing to discuss. User:Roccodrift is correct to remove the poorly sourced material on a BLP. StAnselm (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The best reason not to go to WP:ANI is that it gathers well-wishers such as StAnselm, who's unhappy with me for reverting a flurry of bad changes he recently made. MilesMoney (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Two corrections. First, I'm always willing to discuss my edits. Second, I didn't add categories: I restored the ones you tried to remove because you were wrong to remove them. Hope that helps. MilesMoney (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding Miles' additional BLP violations from today: Pamela Geller [77]; Gary Bauer [78]; Robert Spencer (author) [79]. The common thread here is that I had performed an AGF revert on each one of them within the last hour. In fairness, it should be noted that Miles' didn't attempt to edit-war on these other articles. Roccodrift (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The common thread is that these BLP accusations are false. Rather, the two of you are guilty of whitewashing articles. MilesMoney (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a waste of time. If you think I violated WP:BLP, go to WP:BLPN. This bit of forum-shopping appears to be retaliation for my earlier report. MilesMoney (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"Right Wing Watch" is not a reliable source for anything, except maybe details about Right Wing Watch, and it is certainly not a reliable source for a BLP. Using it to label various living people as "far-right" is extremely inappropriate. It violates basic policies regarding categorization, and especially violates BLPCAT.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, but this is the wrong venue to discuss such issues. I've opened a WP:BLPN report on the original complaint. You are free to open reports on any of the others that's been piled on. I think we're done here. MilesMoney (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Here we read where other editors are "guilty" and they are "whitewashing" articles. The truth is that Miles is too eager to add unwarranted spin to articles – MM is categorizing the people as "far-right" when a simple "right" is/might be supported by the sources. (The term "far right" is not used in the blog (rightwingwatch.org) for the Robert Spencer article.) Gary Bauer gets a "critics of Islam" category because the rightwingwatch.org blog mentions him in passing. Worst of all, MM posts the references in-line rather than using proper citation format (as in the Dana Rohrabacher edit). – S. Rich (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Here we read that an article entitled Anti-Islamic Sentiment Cheered at Values Voter Summit depicts Bauer as anti-Islamic. But I already posted that on the appropriate talk page so why am I repeating myself here? No good reason, so let's end this. MilesMoney (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This report has been made obsolete by the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dana_Rohrabacher#Murdering_children, where Rocco and I have agreed on two reliable sources to replace the original source. Now we're done. MilesMoney (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gary_Bauer#Critic_of_Islam is where we came to an agreement on sources. MilesMoney (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles, you are "always ready to discuss" and yet as a minimum you have banned people from your talk page as follows:

• 22 September Srich32977 (talk · contribs)
• 26 September Adjwilley (talk · contribs) - not sure if this is a ban: it says "go away"
• 3 October PrairieKid (talk · contribs)
• 8 October Yworo (talk · contribs)
• 16 October MrX (talk · contribs)
• 21 October Sitush (talk · contribs)
• 2 December Carolmooredc (talk · contribs)
• 2 December 65.102.177.223 (talk · contribs)
• 5 December Roccodrift (talk · contribs)
• 7 December HectorMoffet (talk · contribs)

There was a bit of a hiatus part way through that sequence when you were involved in the discussions regarding your article ban/WP:AEGS. All the above were then unbanned on 7 December during a prior ANI thread involving you, when I was preparing the above diffs on-wiki. But then you started again on 10 December. I know that you are keen to see article-related discussions take place on article talk pages and that is fair enough but the pattern does not suggest one of co-operation. Put simply, if people object to your article edits then you ban them from your talk page. Sure, you're now saying that this thread is irrelevant because a discussion has now opened elsewhere but, again, that seems to be a common event: take it to the limit and then make a tactical withdrawal. Why not try avoiding taking it to the limit in the first instance? Or just drop out of it all, as I have done? - Sitush (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so kindly for joining in but you are entirely mistaken. As I stated on this very page quite recently, there is only one person banned from my talk page, and it's Rocco. Please get your facts straight instead of trying to meddle. MilesMoney (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not mistaken. Please read what I wrote. - Sitush (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It has always been my belief that the article talk page is the first place for any dispute to go. If it cannot be resolved there and is based on specific issues, such as RS or BLP, it should go to the related notification page, such as RSN or BLPN. User talk page notices, especially templates, are not always a good idea. In particular, when they make a false accusation, this gets in the way of discussion.

The issue with this report is that we have a reliable source for Dana's public statements, so there's no doubt whatsoever that he made them. The dispute is now being resolved on the article talk page and on BLPN, so this is the wrong venue.

What makes it particularly counterproductive is that some who are uninvolved in this dispute but hold prior grudges are taking this as an opportunity to pile on. That happens a lot on ANI, and it's very unfortunate. Please don't contribute to it. If you literally have nothing to add on the issue, please remain silent instead of raising unrelated issues. Thank you and goodbye. MilesMoney (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your conduct is being discussed, and this is one of the appropriate venues for that to take place.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

My conduct isn't the issue, the content is. By ignoring this ANI, I've already been able to fix Dana's Gary's article to our mutual agreement. This ANI is useless or worse than useless. MilesMoney (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

For another example of how this ANI is worse than useless, it's been used in an attempt to shut down the BLPN report intended to clear up the issue of whether thinkprogress.org is reliable for quoting Dana's public statements. MilesMoney (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles, in slightly less than five months your talk page has seen a 3RR warning, two for AGF, 2 for AN3, six ANI notifications, one article ban per AEGS, two BLP warnings, four for disruptive editing, seven for edit warring, one for removal of maintenance templates, eight NPA notices and at least another six of various types revolving round disruption & talk page issues. They came from about 15 different people and they are only the tip of the iceberg - there are far more comments about your style on individual article talk pages/central forums etc. I know that you are doing a fair amount of stuff in contentious areas but so am I and, believe me, if I had that sort of record from ca. 2500 contributions then I'd be taking a pretty close look at my own behaviour. - Sitush (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have diffs for all this stuff, and more, obviously. I could post a table listing the warnings etc up to 7 December if anyone really wanted to see it. In fairness, I should have noted that MM has also received three barnstars, all from the same person. - Sitush (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No, Miles. Wrong on all counts. Your conduct IS the issue.

You reverted twice, without discussion, after you were told in edit summaries that there was a BLP problem with the source.[80][81]. You made no attempt at discussion [82] until you were informed in an edit summary that we were coming to ANI [83], then you reverted yet again [84] without correcting the problems with your material. You claim to have reliable sources, so where are they? Had you produced a better source, we wouldn't be here.

The idea that you think this is "being resolved" is laughable.[85] Your sole contributions to resolving the issue is to insist that you are right and to declare that your source (Thinkprogress) is "perfectly reliable" [86]. Roccodrift (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, ceasefire. A number of people are eligible for disruption blocks at this point. If you are thinking of saying something abusive, don't. Parties are expected to be on best behavior for ANI discussions.

I also full protected the article for three days.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if I'll be able to respond after this comment, but, frankly, GWH, I disagree that anyone other than MM is being disruptive. This report does not exist in a vacuum, and the catalog of MM's misbehavior is quite lengthy, perhaps more suitable for an RfC/U than a report here, although I came very close to blocking MM based on his latest disruption, both in article space and here. The only thing that stopped me was I don't like to make potentially controversial blocks when I'm tired.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Roccodrift's above was entering (or starting) mutual abusive conflict. While I don't disagree on root cause, the potential for either side to cross the line is evident to me, so I generalized. I encourage other admins to review for deeper action; I am trying to tamp down the disruption and that is easiest without taking sides. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. I could have expounded those diffs with a more dispassionate tone. Roccodrift (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

@MilesMoney:, this is the third post involving you in the past week. Please try to discuss issues with other users, rather than reverting and insulting them as is described above. Epicgenius (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That summary is neither fair nor accurate. For example, my most recent visit here was to report Rocco for some terrible behavior that, unlike his 3RR violation, fell short of block-worthy. Quite likely, the reason he filed this report here instead of simply going to BLPN is to retaliate. But you knew that already, right? MilesMoney (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Once upon a time, there was an article that accurately quoted Dana's public statement about Islam.
• Rocco removed that section, claiming there was an obvious BLP violation.
• It wasn't obvious to me, so I checked the source and found that it backed up the deleted material. I put it back, explaining that the source is reliable.
• Rocco removed it again, claiming there was "potentially defamatory content".
• This didn't seem true, since nobody has ever doubted that Dana made this statement and Dana's not denying it, either. The truth is an absolute defense against claims of defamation. Suggesting that he take it to BLPN/RSN, I restored it.
• Apparently, the idea of taking this issue to a talk page of some sort appealed to Rocco, but he ignored the suggestion of an appropriate venue and instead threatened to take it to ANI while erasing the cited material again.
• Around this time, I took a moment to get back to the open window I had on the talk page to finally submit my new section. I then restored the deleted material one last time, commenting "(yes, please turn yourself in at WP:ANI)", which was an allusion to the fact that Rocco's own behavior was bad, in that he was edit-warring to remove cited material while refusing to discuss it on the talk page or a relevant notification page.
• Rocco removed it again. For those counting, he violated WP:3RR, while I did not. Of course, he can claim a BLP exception, but it's not legitimate because there is absolutely no question about the correctness of the quote.

This is probably why Georgewilliamherbert said that more than one editor could be blocked over this report. MilesMoney (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It's still edit warring and 3RR is not an entitlement.--MONGO 02:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Taking a look at the article's history it's quite clear that Roccodrift breached the WP:3RR while completely ignoring WP:BRD. If Rocco had an issue with the source AN/I is most definitely not the place to air them, WP:RSN is. That said, Rocco has accepted that the information can be reliably sourced so other than a warning as per WP:BOOMERANG I'd say this should be the end of this. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 02:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This is erroneous. I have not accepted that the information can be reliably sourced. Quite the opposite, I have stated that I searched for a source, and none could be found [87]. To reiterate, the reason we are here is not a content dispute; the reason we are here is that another editor repeatedly inserted a BLP violation into an article. Roccodrift (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney has already been article-banned for previous BLP violations.[88] Perhaps we should consider a topic ban regarding all WP:BLP? To honest, I don't think they're here to build an encyclopedia and I'd even support a site ban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

How very bloodthirsty and extreme of you, but did you notice that the material I restored is directly supported by a reliable source? Or that I'm banned from a single article that is not itself a BLP article. MilesMoney (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

A BLP issue can arise in practically any article involving humans, not just ones about living people. I've always though that this edit probably was a fair reflection of your approach to Wikipedia, although you did make it at a particularly frustrating time for you. I think that you perhaps oftensee your participation as an exercise in how far you can go. - Sitush (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and yet there is no legitimate BLP issue on Dana. Rocco has yet to even explain his objection to the reliable source. Does he have one? With Gary, Rocco was mistaken and has retracted his objection.MilesMoney (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You cited an non-reliable source for contentious material regarding a living person. Even worse, you edit-warred to include to include the BLP violation.[89][90][91] What part of that do you not understand? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Much like Rocco, you seem unable to support your claim that the source is unreliable. But if it is, then WP:ANI is the wrong place to discuss it. As for edit-warring, Rocco clearly violated WP:3RR and WP:BRD. Why is it that you do not hold him to the same standards? MilesMoney (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This has been explained to you before. You cannot use non-reliable sources such as an advocacy organization as third-party sources for contentious material about living people. Why are you still doing this? Clearly, the previous BLP sanction wasn't enough. As for Rocco, removing BLP violations is exempt from 3RR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you do me the courtesy of quoting the part of WP:BLP or WP:RS which says that an advocacy organization is not a reliable source here? MilesMoney (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources lists which sources are reliable. But in any case, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. It is your job to explain why a source is reliable, not the other way around. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I asked you to answer this question but you haven't. There is nothing in either WP:BLP or WP:RSN which supports your claim. I think you need to retract it now, along with your attempt to kill me. MilesMoney (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There have been significant discussions of advocacy at RSN as aquick check at the archives would show. [92]The general discussion is that publications of advocacy orgs are not RS or are reliable only for their own opinions. That is they are (if used at all) treated like op-ed opinion pieces. It is up to the editor who adds the information to show that it is RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

What you linked to is selective case law, not policy. Try again. MilesMoney (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Aren't you the one who said this should be decided at RSN? Yes, that was you: [93] Roccodrift (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and there's a WP:BLPN report just waiting to be decided. However, policy does not say what you AQFK wants it to say, and the decision is a matter of discussion. MilesMoney (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Admins note No opinion on the topic. Per WP:INVOLVED, "advice about community norms...do not make an administrator 'involved'", I am addressing a matter of policy only. The policy that AQFK is referring to is WP:IRS: "While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. On the other hand, an opinion in a reliable source is still an opinion, rather than a fact. Biased sources should be used limited and with utmost caution."--v/r - TP 14:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions...

...were authorized by arbcom Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#Discretionary_sanctions.

Both accounts seem to meet the definition (at least of late) of WP:SPA on Tea Party issues, albeit in equal and opposite directions.

Any reason *not* to give both the discretionary sanctions warnings / notifications to both Roccodrift and MilesMoney?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think either are SPAs, and I wouldn't think SPAing would play into discretionary sanctioning. The issue is, I submit, is more with POV and editor inaction problems. – S. Rich (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, there is an objection (assuming that DS warnings are all you plan to do here)

1. . The article Dana Rohrabacher is not ostensibly related to the Tea Party topic.
2. . Neither account meets the criteria for SPA.
3. . The behavioral issues and issues concerning core content policies (WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, etc.) will remain unaddressed and are likely to continue in other topic areas.

I understand your reluctance to issue blocks and I think your restraint is commendable, but your proposal amounts to simply kicking the can down the road. Roccodrift (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

An appropriate and well-researched SPI has been filed against Roccodrift: WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Belchfire -- Brangifer (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a Tea Party issue, and it's not even a BLP issue (since there's been no argument made for why the source might be unreliable). The root cause is that Rocco went on a spree of whitewashing this morning, and I reacted to it. That's where it started, and that's what's unresolved to this very moment. MilesMoney (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Rohrbacher has been supported by Tea Party groups and spoken at their functions, but does not fit the traditional Tea Party mold (and was a congressman long before the phrase Tea Party had any modern political meaning). Question for UNINVOLVED ADMINS AND EDITORS - is that connection too tenuous to apply the Arbitration case discretionary sanctions, "broadly construed" as they were written? I agree this is not core to the Tea Party, but it seems related, and the editor behavior here is exactly the type of tedentious conflict this was intended for. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I see a connection to the Tea Party. It seems tenuous to me. I don't see it as Tea Party article unless all Republican articles are now Tea Party articles. That having been said, this editor seems to have real issues with BLP policy and Reliable Source. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: MilesMoney topic-banned from all WP:BLP content

Given that this editor has already been sanctioned for BLP violations in the past,[94] and the fact they they see nothing wrong with edit-warring to include poorly sourced, contentious information regarding living people,[95][96][97] I propose that MilesMoney be topic-banned from all WP:BLP content, broadly construed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

How does this differ from being banned from Wikipedia? MilesMoney (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a bad idea, actually.--MONGO 04:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so it's not a coincidence that each and every person voting to kill me is someone who's tried before to get me indeffed. This is a sham. MilesMoney (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. As proposer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could address this, first. MilesMoney (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I asked him to quote from WP:BLP or WP:RS to support a rule he apparently invented. He was unable to. MilesMoney (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support due to demonstrated lack of comprehension of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and others. Roccodrift (talk) 04:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There was an issue raised on your talk page by someone else that seems relevant. Specifically, could you please confirm whether you are a sockpuppet of User:Belchfire or someone else? MilesMoney (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

An appropriate and well-researched SPI has been filed against Roccodrift: WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Belchfire -- Brangifer (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This is extreme and punitive, especially given that I did not violate BLP with Dana or Gary. MilesMoney (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support per multiple tendentious edits and BLP violations. And looking at this thread, it's clear that he just doesn't get it. Something like this is necessary to prevent further disruptive editing. This edit is a clear example - it's re-adding information that had been challenged. And the edit doesn't even reflect the source - there is nothing there about "generating controversy". The fact that MilesMoney continued to re-revert here makes this a clear case of edit warring. He rightly started a talk page discussion, but then didn't wait for that discussion to be resolved. StAnselm (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support – noting, of course, that MM and I have had less than a harmonious relationship. I do not think MM really wants to participate in a collaborative fashion. Even as this discussion is underway, MM presents confrontational talk page comments. – S. Rich (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Srich32977, MilesMoney has recently told you on your talk page that he would oppose your Admin candidacy for which you are trying to develop support. [98] Under the circumstances, in order for you to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, may I suggest that you recuse yourself from this matter in which a site ban has been mooted for Miles. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 04:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I will reply on my talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose There is clearly a problem with MM's behavior and I've advocated sanctions against him before, but this particular sanction is preposterously overbroad and clearly overkill in this particular case, not to mention no sanctions are proposed against the other party who was also guilty of at least editwarring. Is MM hotheaded and contentious and even obnoxious? Yes. But in this case, he added accurate and sourced information to the article and initiated discussions on the talk page and BLPN. Is the source insufficient for a BLP? Perhaps, but it isn't so obviously unreasonable that it merits sanctions, it means it is a matter of discussion in the very forums he was discussing the issue in. Was he edit warring? Sure, and we already have procedures in place to deal with that behavior. The article is currently locked so there is no danger of that behavior continuing for the time being. If MM is to become a reasonable editor here, we must not only discourage negative behavior but encourage positive behavior, and this proposed sanction will do little for either. If MM does not continue to engage in discussion in an appropriate manner regarding such articles, I would not be opposed to revisiting the issue of a similar, but more narrowly targeted sanction. Gamaliel (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You say there is no danger of that behavior continuing for the time being, but what about the BLP violations on all the other articles that this editor has made in the last few hours? [99][100] ? StAnselm (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No danger at all. With the first article, I reverted exactly once. With the second, I reverted, then was asked to add a source, so I did. No edit war there. You seem to have undermined your own claims. MilesMoney (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what criteria editors of that category have decided on to distinguish between 'far right' and 'ordinary right', but this does not appear to be a prima facie case of a BLP violation but a matter for talk page discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I do have sources referring to them as far right, such as http://edlnews.co.uk/index.php/latest-news/latest-news/1220-tommy-robinson-set-to-announce-a-new-far-right-organisation-with-geller-and-spence. MilesMoney (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

And if you think that source is anything approaching a reliable source for a BLP, there is a significant WP:COMPETENCE issue regarding your editing, and it is best if you stay away from BLPs. StAnselm (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC and ADL both say they run a hate group. I don't think that acknowledging them as right-wing is exactly a stretch. MilesMoney (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

And even this is demonstrating your lack of understanding of BLP policy. To make your own jump from "right" to "far right" is completely unacceptable. The reason I am supporting this topic ban is that you don't seem able to appreciate that. StAnselm (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Try again: The source I gave says far right. MilesMoney (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean this source? The fact that you are even posting it here is indicative of BLP-incompetence. StAnselm (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that the source appears to be a poor one, but it appears to be an accurate one as The Guardian concurs. Gamaliel (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel. "in this case, he added accurate and sourced information to the article". If you are referring to the islam edit on Dana Rohrabacher, I will beg to disagree, as WP:BLPN seems to do. The edit alleging that Rohrabacher sees Islam generally as a religion that encouraging murder of children was misleading; it's a very severe libel, that - if believed - might have put Rohrabacher at risk of being denied entrance to the UK (on the same grounds that Spencer/Geller were). Users who remove these kinds of BLP violations should not be accused of edit-warring; and it is an important principle that BLP disputed material are to stay out of the article until there is consensus at the talk page to include it. Iselilja (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, on WP:BLPN, we seem to have come to a consensus for a slightly modified phrasing. If only this issue had gone to BLPN as I first suggested, this circus could have been avoided. MilesMoney (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Having seen MilesMoney in action for several months now, I'd noticed a far better style of communication recently. The aggressive actions of Rocco seem to have prompted a reversion to Miles terse and contentious manner of expression, and here we are. Nevertheless, nothing in this thread warrants the broad sanction proposed here and at most these incidents might justify a 48 hour block for both MilesMoney and Roccodrift. However, as Gamaliel has said, with the article now protected, why not just close this thread and give a warning to both warriors. I suspect that some of Miles' claque of detractors will be disappointed, but what the hell? SPECIFICO talk 05:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This isn't about edit-warring; it's about BLP violations. Here we have a situation with an editor who repeatedly violates BLP. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
    • This isn't about BLP violations, as Rocco accepted my source for Gary Bauer and nobody has yet explained what specific rule opposes my source for Dana. I asked you repeatedly and you keep ducking the question. Why? MilesMoney (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
      • This has been explained to you multiple times by multiple editors. WP:ICANTHEARYOU applies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
        • That's not what might be called true. It's been asserted, but it's now clear that the claim you made is not in either WP:BLP or WP:RS, and is instead your own interpretation of how these issues have been handled in the past. In other words, it's only an opinion. MilesMoney (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
          • Of course, it's been explained to you multiple times by multiple editors. This is the very definition of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
            • What's the TLA for repeating a refuted argument and refusing to notice that it's refuted? Is it IDHT? I ask because you're very guilty of this. MilesMoney (talk) 08:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• <ec>Oppose for now If you are going to propose an editing restriction, you need to be extremely clear about what the person has done wrong, complete with diffs. Which exact edits are you claiming are so clearly bad that this restriction is needed? Could you provide a handful of diffs and explain why those diffs are so troubling? And yes, I did read most of the above discussion and chased down some of the diffs. None seemed beyond the pale, but I could have missed quite a bit as I'm not hugely familiar with the topcs/people involved. Hobit (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Links given by "A Quest For Knowledge" are all to the same incident. And that incident is troubling. First of all the source is a highly-biased one. Secondly, reading the transcript I think one could say he was criticizing radical Islam rather than Islam on the whole (a rather large difference). I'd like to hear MilesMoney acknowledge they were wrong to add the material due to sourcing problems and doubly wrong to edit war over it. I'm not in favor of topic banning people over one thing (and yes, other things were listed above, but none I found overly troubling among those I looked at), but if he can't understand and acknowledge the problem he can't be editing BLPs. Mainstream reliable sources are needed for claims like this. Hobit (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  I freely admit that I should not have edit-warred against him, regardless of the merits of the version I supported. Instead, I should have done what I did with Gary Bauer, which was to find a source that could not be criticized. With the Dana issue, I suggested early on that it should be resolved at BLPN, and it looks like it now is. MilesMoney (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  Do you understand A) that the source wasn't one we should be adding a controversial claim with and B) that in the original document he cites "radical Islam" rather than Islam in that quote? Hobit (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Extreme punishment, spearheaded by users who have a vendetta against Miles. People can rightly chide Miles for his past remarks to other users (though he has dramatically improved in this regard). But his substantive contributions to articles have generally been rooted in arguable interpretations of policy. Even if you think he is engaged in TE (which I don't), the burden of proof for such a draconian measure is massive, and is not met by OP (who doesn't even provide diffs). Steeletrap (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Steeletrap. Where are the diffs? We don't ban people without evidence. GregJackP Boomer! 06:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently, these last two editors claiming there are no diffs haven't read the original report. Roccodrift (talk) 06:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Here are the diffs. Here's where they were previously banned[101] and here's where they see nothing wrong with edit-warring to include poorly sourced, contentious information regarding living people,[102][103][104] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose I lean against this solution, but this editor's actions at this ANI show either distressing lack of competence, lack of understanding of RS, and/or a bad case of IDONTHEARYOU. Capitalismojo (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose, per Gamaliel. This seems to be a case of retaliation, failure to AGF, and escalation=disruption, especially when a more collaborative approach could have solved the whole problem very peacefully. According to Roccodrift: "the reason we are here is that another editor repeatedly inserted a BLP violation into an article. Roccodrift (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)" The edit in question was the same (ergo identical) content, with the citation in quotes. By failing to AGF, Roccodrift was essentially saying that MilesMoney was fabricating the quote. An AGF and collaborative approach would have stated: "Per BRD, let's discuss while you find a better source, preferably the original." That should have settled the matter. I haven't examined the diffs, but BRD would usually be sufficient to force the discussion to the talk page while the question of the reliability of the source could be discussed. Since ThinkProgress was being used as a secondary source of an actual quote, not just their opinion, its use would usually be justified if it was accompanied with the primary source. Whatever the case, this demand is total overkill.
  Roccodrift, try to AGF next time and not escalate this to a battlefield by bringing it here, when the talk page should have sufficed. That's disruptive and wasting all our time. You should to be on trial here for disruptive misuse of this noticeboard. Let's call it even and hope you both learn a lesson.
  MilesMoney, it's really not a good idea to delete comments on your own talk page (until you archive it later, after the dust has settled), or to stop discussion there, unless you clearly leave a message (undeleted) that the discussion is to be continued on the article's talk page. Deletion of comments is really an uncollaborative slap in the face and doesn't create goodwill. (In fact, the worse the comments, the more grounds to keep them visible... ) We should try to get along with adversaries, not offend them even more. I hope that helps to defuse things in the future. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I concede that deleting comments from my talk page is usually a bad idea. That's why I recently switched to archiving. The last comment I deleted was from Rocco, a few days ago, and there were a couple of reasons why I did it. First, he has been asked not to post on my talk page. Second, as I explained in my pre-deletion response, his template was illegitimate. If he wants to discuss articles with me, he can use the article talk pages. MilesMoney (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban, although I'm not sure I would necessarily support a site ban at this point. There really isn't much I can say that hasn't already been said, but WP:IDHT is an understatement when it comes to Miles' behavior.

Actually, on second thought, support a site ban. I just realized that Miles was topic-banned for this very same thing barely a month ago, and now s/he's back to his same old routine, so it's clear that s/he just doesn't get it and that s/he is not here for the good of Wikipedia. (Maybe his/her theories would work better on his/her own wiki or something.)

Side note: @Steeletrap, I don't really see this proposal as being spearheaded by users with a vendetta against Miles; in fact, the person who proposed this is A Quest For Knowledge, and s/he appears to be an uninvolved party. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

A few quick things:

1) "Miles" is a typically male name, so you should use male pronouns.

2) AQFK is not involved in this particular incident, but they've bumped heads with me before and are nowhere near neutral. I wouldn't use the word "vendetta", if only because of WP:AGF, but they're on the short list of editors who can be counted on reliably to support any attempt to get me blocked, banned or otherwise harmed.

3) If there were an actual BLP issue, it could have been resolved on the article talk page, BLPN or RSN. It was brought here because ANI is where you make a report that others can pile onto and turn into a lynching.

4) Did you notice that you endorsed a site ban when "only" a BLP ban was requested. Think about what that means. MilesMoney (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you opened the can of worms yourself about a possible site ban. And after all this, you still don't seem to think that you did anything wrong (btw, I didn't assume you were male because your userpage doesn't state your gender). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I simply pointed out that such a punitive, overbroad topic ban would be tantamount to a site ban. You're the one who cheered that one. MilesMoney (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support, based on a wider concern for MilesMoney’s behavior at Wikipedia.

• The edit alleging that Rohrabacher sees Islam generally as a religion that encouraging murder of children was misleading based on my reading of sources and indicated at WP:BLPN; it's a very severe libel, that - if believed - might have put Rohrabacher at risk of being denied entrance to the UK (on the same grounds that Spencer/Geller were). Users who remove these kinds of BLP violations should not be accused of edit-warring; and it is an important principle that BLP disputed material are to stay out of the article until there is consensus at the talk page to include it. MilesMoney still alleges he had the right to include this edit despite BLP worries without waiting for talk page consensus. This is in line with the problematic thinking I have also previously [seen] (Temporary removal of BLP material) by MM.
• Regarding the general Roccodrift/MilesMoney conflict, I can’t help but feel that those two editors to a certain degree deserve each other. I am most familiar with MilesMoney, and I think the underlying problem with that user is the utter contempt they have for other Wikipedians and for Wikipedia as a whole. This is clearly laid out in their so-called post-mortem note of 28 October 2013, in which we are informed that

• They came to Wikipedia having heard that Wikipedia now mostly consisted of “crazed and inbreds”, so they wanted to see with his own eyes
• What they found was that Wikipedia is “a hostile environment controlled by incompetents and sociopaths”
• Furthermore “There is a War on Vandalism here that's as artificial and endless as the War on Drugs or War on Terrorism, and which has likewise become a way to channel paranoia and bigotry”
• And further ”Wikipedia is not merely as corrupt as a banana republic, it is a failed state akin to Somalia. It is not in decline; it has fallen.”
• They conclude “Try as I might, I can only muster up pity and disgust for the otakus trapped in this web”

• At their time at Wikipedia, they have practically only involved themselves in contentious articles and debates. Less than 20% of their edits are to articles (of which several are reverts/controversial edits; he has been at 4RR at least twice, 1,2); the rest is mostly discussion at various talk pages, ANI etc. The first article, they heavily invested themselves in, Ayn Rand, came under discretionary sanctions; they then dedicated themselves more to the Ludvig von der Mises institute, resulting in them being topic banned from the article.
• There is also other kind of erratic behavior, for instance when MilesMoney was investigated as a possible sockuppet of Still Standing, they responded by filing frivolous SPIs against Srich and Orlady.3
• The combination of hyperbole language (as demonstrated above), contempt for other users and strong preferences for conflict stuff including sensitive BLPs, makes MilesMoney a very problematic user to have at Wikipedia. Even their userpage cries of a massive battleground mentality.
• I am surprised that MilesMoney hasn’t already been sitebanned based on a NotHere and Massive Battleground mentality. The “post mortem” note seems to indicate that they are quite surprised as well "that's 104 days, exactly two weeks longer than my initial estimate"
• Iselilja (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This summary is neither fair nor accurate. For example, it's impossible to libel someone by quoting their public statements, so that's a red herring. Likewise, we all know that the sock accusations are false, so bringing them up now is just an attempt to smear me. Anyhow, you've repeatedly supported getting rid of me, so this is to be expected. MilesMoney (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose A 1RR restriction or sanction that is he is reverted he needs to gain consensus before he can revert the same content again would be fairer. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose mainly per Gamaliel --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• oppose sorry, but this looks like a case of revenge against MM by editors who don't want to deal with him. He already has shown signs of improvement in discussion versus in the past. Epicgenius (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support It appears that MM needs a temporary cooling off period, not a prolonged ban. BLP concerns are very important. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support as a minimum. I think MilesMoney should be indeffed now...it's pretty obvious were dealing with prior banned editor anyway.--MONGO 14:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

If you have a problem with me for my own behavior, that's unfortunate but allowed. Lying about me is not; I've been cleared of all sock accusations. MilesMoney (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.--MONGO 18:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• oppose at lest on the basis of the Rohrabacher dispute. A quick look at the Wash. Post profile on him shows he has a tendency to make quotable and outrage-generating statements. As far as the Islam quote is concerned, there's no real basis for disputing that he said it, and he has something of a record of similar comments. The response to the insertion has not been anything remotely resembling consensus-building; instead, it quickly turned into a campaign to chuck MM out of access to the article. MM needs to work more collaboratively himself, but his opponents look to me to taking an WP:OWNERSHIP approach to the articles in question; the questioning of the reliability of the quote is patently not in good faith. I have more issues with MM's application of categories, but I must also say that some of the categories in question invite abuse. Mangoe (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Should have happened long ago and his ban on Libertarian articles should not have been limited to LVM only. Arzel (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, sanction is too far-reaching for the evidence given. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support When he isn't putting negative and biased and sometimes inaccurate content with poor sourcing into BLP articles, he's supporting keeping in equally bad content from other biased editors. Topic ban on libertarianism also would be warranted. (See WP:RSN discussions where he's defended blog entries and other poor sourcing, after talk page discussions did not convince him and others of that poor sourcing: Gene Callahn blog; Callahan again; Matt Bruenig.) And I would not fight a site ban. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Several postes in the above discussion sugest that biased or advocavy sources should not be used, and that MM should be sanctioned for inserting them. Please note that [[WP:RS}} says (in part): "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are good sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Also this is too broad a santion on too little evidence, in my view. DES ^(talk) 16:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. There was no BLP violation. FYI, here is my proposal for the article: Speaking of radical Islam, "That's what we're up against, people who will murder children, intentionally murder children," said Rohrabacher in an interview with Newsmax.com.[105] Newsmax is a WP:SECONDARY source. QuackGuru (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: is the issue specifically BLPs or political BLPs/articles? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose "Broadly construed," specially used this way, ir more damaging than problem-solving. I'd recommend a more narrower sanction that actually touches the issue from the inside, not from the outside. I recognize that there is a problem that needs to be solved, but this is not the way. Maybe another proposal? — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • @Hahc21: What would you suggest? A 1RR restriction? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Whether general 1RR or some other sanction for Miles would be helpful or not, I don't think proposing it here will be of much value. The better venue would be WP:RFC/U, where editors could bring forth evidence and proposals in a calm and orderly way, not the quick-reaction approach of ANI. The urgency to do something now now now isn't clear enough to gain consensus here, nor is this a productive venue for slow deliberation and weighing of numerous options. --RL0919 (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User: Jeppiz

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

---

I've been meaning to do this earlier, but I got caught up in other things. This user has engaged in POV pushing on Ashkenazi Jews. When I tried to rectify this (see this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&diff=586222880&oldid=586221924), he accused me of disruptive editing and POV pushing. The problem here is threefold. One, the passage "Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin" is not supported by the genetic study cited. So either he's being lazy, or he's deliberately manipulating the source. His immediate and aggressive reaction to my reverting him would indicate the latter. Two, he padded the study out with links to news articles and journals which report on the same study, which is superfluous and arguably a violation of WP:UNDUE. And the fact that there was only one actual genetic study cited in that passage makes the claim "Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin" even more erroneous. Instead of discussing this rationally, he became accusatory and is now trying to have me topic banned. I am hopeful that this dispute may be resolved peacefully.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Speedy close. This discussion is already taking place here; we don't need two discussions about the same thing (but frankly, both of you need to take a time out). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 23:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• First of all, this topic is an obvious revenge. I came to WP:ANI [106] to point out that Evildoer187, a repeatedly blocked and topic banned user, is causing disruptions everywhere he goes. This is the revenge.
• Second, what he calls "POV-pushing" is attempt to reflect both sides in a thorny issue, the origin of Ashkenazi Jews. Some scientists say the Levantine, others Europe. To reflect this, I wrote " Scientific studies differ on their origins, with some DNA tests suggesting an origin in the Israelite tribes of the Middle East, Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin." Several scientific sources were provided for both claims. How on earth is this "POV pushing"? Several other users agreed with my edit on the talk page.
• Third, Evildoer187's response was to delete the second half, leaving only the reference to the Levantine. Who is POV pushing?
• Fourth, Evildoer187 claims my sentence "Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin" is not supported by the sources. I quote from Science, one of the leading scientific journals in the world and one of the sources I used "A detailed look at thousands of genomes finds that Ashkenazim ultimately came not from the Middle East, but from Western Europe."
• Five, my "padding out" is normal Wikipedia practice. Using secondary sources is welcomed at Wikipedia. Sources I used included Nature, Science, BBC News and NBC News, all of which satisfy WP:RS.
• Sixth, and the only correct aspect. Yes, I do think Evildoer187 should be topic banned. He is a highly disruptive user who is here for the WP:TRUTH. His edit history is revealing. I am almost glad he started this retaliatory thread with all the unfounded accusations just to get back at me. This shows exactly what kind of user he is. So yes, I repeat my call that Evildoer187 should be topic banned from all articles related to Judaism and the Jewish people. His whole history on Wikipedia shows that he cannot edit these topics without causing a great deal of disruption and conflicts.Jeppiz (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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

CensoredScribe

Could I have some more eyes on CensoredScribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ? I am worried about competence, but would like some third opinions on whether he's an actual problem. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Just going by what's on the user talk page, I see a track record of running into issues with WP:MEDRS, but it doesn't look like it's been an issue lately. I also see a number of notices from BracketBot and DPL bot recently. Finally, briefly skimming CensoredScribe's contribs, I see a lot of recent activity, some of it arguable (e.g., WP:NOTNEWS issues: [107], [108], [109]), but I don't think it's anything obviously bad. Without diffs or a better hint of what you're seeing, GWH, it's a bit hard to evaluate this more. I think it might be too soon for ANI. Also, CensoredScribe has now been notified of this discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This editor is inexperienced but enthusiastic. The balance of these two things is a net positive, though there are opportunities for improvement. I see MEDRS as a problem to which editors like him are the solution, rather than the other way around. This is something to address by talk page discussion, not ANI. To be clear, I think that the encyclopedia is much better off when it references exciting, important new developments in science rather than leaves them out, even if occasionally (as with the second diff above) they should be a little more cautiously worded. Wnt (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've had this editor on my radar for a few months now and they're a bit of an odd duck...maybe more than a bit.  (I don't mean WP:DUCK but duck). Their meandering blog-like edits to their User page make for interesting reading indeed... the edits are usually made in response to some article edit of theirs that got reverted. Their article edits are bizarre to say the least, just browse through them. Sources are often cited but are only sometimes WP:RS sources and the content added almost never meets WP:DUEWEIGHT, they're often some weird bit of trivia needing a revert per WP:NOTNEWS. I can't say that on the whole this editor is a net-positive although I can't say this editor is outright disruptive either. What does Wikipedia do with an editor like this? Zad68 16:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, good feedback. Will use normal talk-with-editor process, that's generally more preferable to admin actions anyways. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Smauritius disruption.

We are currently having issues with a single editor at Shraddha Kapoor. Issues have been ongoing for quite some time, they include sockpuppetry [[110]] which was used to pass this article to Good Article Status, and overall WP:OWN issues. Several Editors have attempted to discuss this at length on the article talkpage and the editors talkpage but we are having problems with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviors. Examples of this is [[111]]. Also edits like [[112]] saying an article with 10 categories has no categories makes me think we are dealing with an editor who just doesn't get it. I have notified the other editors, I've also asked for pending changes protections so the article changes propsed myst be reviewed by a reviewer to at least try and make this a decent article, at this point maybe a block should be issued but at the very least we could use more editors to watchlist this page. I am notifying the others involved. The sourcing needs to be checked source by source as well because some of the claims being made are not in the sources at all. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've declined the protection request because I don't intend to apply pending changes level 2 against the community consensus unless a local consensus here believes it's necessary. However, since it's one user, protection isn't ideal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • On a side note would you mind pointing me to that consensus? I would like to review it so I am not wasting time in the future. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
    • No worries, this RfC and this RfC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked User:Smauritius for 3 days for edit warring and disruptive editing. But given the disruption to the article (including through CU proven sockpuppetry) I'd be in favour of an article ban from Shraddha Kapoor. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I personally think a topic ban may be unnec at this point..maybe just give him WP:ROPE see how they respond. It may not be needed if they get the point..if not then I would support it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I would hope that they take the time during this block to re-evaluate their position and come back with a new appreciation for collaboration. A ban might be jumping the gun. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Let's see how they react after the block gets expired. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I dropped by the article and reverted and warned Smauritius over some rather pointless but disruptive edits. I'm inclined to think that WP:COMPETENCE might apply rather than anything else. That does not mean that all is lost, and serious proactive mentoring may do the trick. Fiddle Faddle 16:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• This may or may not be related to the topic, but I find it unusual that the article was delisted as a good article less than a day after promotion. Does it have to do with this users disruption? Epicgenius (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Epicgenius The good article status was awarded by this users sockpuppet [[113]]. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, thx. Epicgenius (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

From the sock farm that brought you List of Jewish American fraudsters I present

List of American fraudsters of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev. And, perhaps for a precedent, List of American fraudsters of Irish descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). For both of these new ones we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American fraudsters of Jewish descent but I'm probably going to delete at least the Jewish descent one shortly as a recreation of an article deleted at AfD as well as a creation by a blocked editor after lunch. Some of the background is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American fraudsters and the earlier ANI discussion[114]. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, someone beat me to it. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dougweller#Feedback — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.1.214.45 (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This is getting funny. Should those be revdel'd or something? Ansh666 16:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

IP blocked and posts revdeleted. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Continuous legal threats and promotion by User talk:Bigsundayowner

SPA to make legal threats and insert promotion on Big Sunday. Left a threat at my talk. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 16:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed that personal attack from your talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd just reported the user to WP:UAA but per edit, they should be indef'd asap. Blackmane (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I just blocked. Considering the promotional edits, the organizational username, and the past warnings for legal threats, I saw no reason to stop short of an indef. DES ^(talk) 17:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)