Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

At the advice of policy wonks Johnuniq, Bbb23, and DangerousPanda I am bringing this matter to ANI rather than to AN. The case, involving Skyring (goes by Pete) and HiLo48, is this.

On 4 November 2013 I closed a lengthy ANI discussion and logged an interaction ban between the two. The particulars of that discussion are on the record: it was painful, and there was considerable doubt about Skyring's editing and ways of interacting. At any rate, the ban was logged. Since then each has complained to me about the other: I warned Skyring once and then blocked him briefly, a month later I think; recently I warned HiLo but stopped short of blocking him.

But now disruption has risen again, with a thread started by Pete on Talk:Soccer in Australia. HiLo argues, in a nutshell, that Pete has followed him there, and with some reason. Pete has only one single edit in the article, a revert of HiLo (from August 2013, before the IBAN), against 40 by HiLo, going back to 2010. The talk page is similar: 24 edits for Pete, going back to August 2013, and 375 by HiLo.

So, the question is, is the section Talk:Soccer_in_Australia#About_time_we_talked_about_the_name_again, started by Pete on 1 February, to be taken as indicative of him following (hounding) HiLo to one of the latter's favorite haunts, and thus perhaps of baiting him? It should be noted that the section discusses the whole soccer/football naming controversy, in which HiLo has been outspoken and on the record. In other words, one could expect that this important matter would attract HiLo's attention, and an IBAN preventing him from participating in that thread takes one of the longstanding voices in that debate out of the equation.

Let it be noted, but I need to wrap this up, that NE Ent left Pete a note on his talk page that supports the notion that this was inappropriate on Pete's part (correct me if I'm wrong, Ent), and that Johnuniq and DangerousPanda subscribe to that idea too. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the effort, Drmies. Just let me clarify there. My interest is not in the sport, so I'm not active on the article page. Rather, the question of the terminology is what arouses my interest, and that is confined to the talk page. In fact it is pretty much what the talk page is all about, and I urge editors to take a look for themselves. It is painful.

My contributions there have been ongoing for some time. August 2013, going by the page history and this diff. There may be earlier edits, but that one predates the IBAN. Further discussion on the RFC for name change, where I supported the current title. After doing a little research I find that "Soccer" is now deprecated amongst media and sports organisations, accordingly I now support a name change to reflect the changed reality.

This seems to be a majority position amongst editors, going by the !vote taken. There are some points raised in the discussion immediately preceding, where my position is made quite clear: we should set aside our own personal opinions and look for good sources. My feeling is that whatever I might have called the game fifty years ago as a schoolchild in Victoria, the name has changed, especially over the last few years,

Do we have any guidance on where to proceed? My understanding is that both participants to an IBAN are able to participate in !votes for RfCs and so on so long as there is no interaction. I think every editor involved is entitled to a voice in that sort of discussion, and if any editor were to lodge a !vote in the ongoing "Gauge Support" discussion I would not seek to have it removed on a spurious technicality. It is a matter of fairness and commonsense. --Pete (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pete's response here is effectively the same as it was on Drmies's talk page. I find it disingenuous at best. I think there are several of us in agreement that what Pete did was "wrong". The harder question is what's the remedy, and we may find significantly more disagreement there. Not being a policy wonk (no matter what Drmies says), my view is that Pete violated the WP:IBAN, either its spirit or by implication. If HiLo had responded directly, he would obviously have violated the ban, and I think Pete was goading him to do so. (BTW, I have no history with either editor that I'm aware of, or at least remember.) It reminds me of the I Love Lucy episode (everything does) in which Lucy bets with Ricky that he can't lose his temper for 24 hours and he bets that she can't not buy a new hat for the same period of time. During the next 24 hours, Lucy keeps doing things to try to make Ricky lose his temper. He comes close but always pulls back. I heartily recommend this episode for anyone interested in implied IBAN violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2)Skyring's contributions on Soccer in Australia are within the allowed activities of WP:IBAN. However, given their lack of prior interest in the subject, as documented by Drmies with the cool tool, the strong opinions at the ANI discussion which lead to ban, the vast size of both Australia and English Wikipedia, in which to engage in questions of terminology, the number of editors already having a robust discussion of the issue, I would say it's of minimal benefit to the Encyclopedia to focus their efforts there; given the potential for conflict between two editors who just don't get along I requested they strike their comments and disengage. NE Ent 00:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If anyone wants to take the trouble, they might review Special:Contributions/Skyring and see if there is a net benefit from Skyring/Pete's presence—I suspect the answer is no. At a minimum, I support an indefinite topic ban for Skyring regarding soccer/football and its naming controversy. At Drmies' archived talk, I noted (at 1 January 2014) that, checking the entire history of Talk:Soccer in Australia showed that:
  • HiLo48 made a total of 303 edits starting in October 2009, with 111 in December 2013 and none in 2014. In the December edits, 19 mention "soccer" in the edit summary.
  • Skyring made 3 edits in January 2014, 3 edits in December 2013, and 5 edits in August 2013, and no other.

I have seen enough of Skyring's style to know that his recent interest in the topic of soccer is almost certainly gaming the system to irritate his opponent—HiLo48 always participates in a new outbreak of the soccer/football battle, but he cannot participate at the moment because the section was started by Skyring. Of course no one can prove that this is an intentional tactic by Skyring, however proof is not needed since all the community wants is drama reduction and productive editing, and anything that might be baiting should be stopped. The great soccer/football debate will continue without Skyring's participation. Skyring will use any opportunity as seen at User talk:Drmies#Sorry to bother you again where Skyring just happened to have noticed that his opponent has commented at User talk:Spinrad (which has a total of five edits in its history)—in the comment, HiLo48 has technically breached the IBAN, but it is such a harmless explanation that only someone going for blood would seize on it. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies is well aware that we monitor each other's contributions. As for "going for blood", in the section linked, I requested a gentle reminder and that no further action be taken. I don't want to see anyone in trouble, but I do want the personal attacks to cease. That's why I supported the IBAN in the first place. --Pete (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

checking the entire history of Talk:Soccer in Australia showed that: HiLo48 made a total of 303 edits starting in October 2009, with 111 in December 2013 and none in 2014.

Well, It's interesting that you should bring those contributions up. For starters, you say "none in 2014", but I count 76. Perhaps I could ask an independent editor to check my figures?

Looking at some of those contributions makes for interesting reading, coming from someone who claims they don't make personal attacks. --Pete (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo pointed out, on his talk page and here, that no evidence is given of personal attacks, and I think it's important to point out, for the new readers, that I see no personal attacks by HiLo on Pete since the IBAN. (That's the issue--not whether HiLo has been rude or whatever to other editors--that's unproven, you cannot make that case under your IBAN, and it's not of interest to this discussion--note after edit conflict and Pete's contribution.) It's not even really relevant here, nor is it relevant how exciting or important discussions on the Australian soccer nomenclature are. Indeed, I'm beginning to think that the lengthy commentary by Pete on this matter is intended to draw attention away from the actual matter at heart: whether we should see their interest in the Soccer in Australia article and its talk page as a kind of hounding/baiting. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a number of personal attacks directed against me since the IBAN began. Specifically on HiLo's talk page. I've drawn your attention to them, Drmies, asking that they stop, but you are a busy person, and doubtless have other matters on your mind.

I've commented on the baiting already. Where are the diffs? --Pete (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs are given: edit counts by both of you in the article and the talk page, and your starting that section on the naming issue: first sentence, fourth paragraph of my initial posting. You have left a "What's going on" section on my talk page, the answer to which (if there was a question) is this very ANI report. You also posted "Sorry to bother you again", where you pointed to this diff, and I responded, as did Johnuniq in this very thread. You pointed at a possible IBAN violation (archived, I believe, on my talk page) and I warned HiLo. I do have other matters on my mind, one of which is that I'm getting kind of tired of this thread and responding to your lawyerish comments. And no, I do not believe you have responded in any kind of substance to the baiting issue. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point was made before: There is nothing in an IBAN preventing either of us from participating in discussion. The key point is to avoid the other party. Editors do not "own" articles or talk pages, regardless of how many edits they make or who was first. In this case, both of us were active on the relevant talk page before the ban was applied and we have since confined ourselves to different threads. Call it lawyerish, if you must, but that's just a commonsense reading of the relevant policy: "Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way."

So where, precisely, is the hounding? Can you - or anyone else - provide a diff that is one party baiting the other?

If it is your contention that HiLo48 "owns" the article and its talk page, then I find that very problematic indeed. So do you, apparently. --Pete (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not contend that, but I am becoming more and more convinced that you posted on that talk page, seeking to overturn consensus on a topic where you had earlier sought confrontation with HiLo (your one edit to the article), in order to pull them out and violate the IBAN--yes, to bait them. And you're doing the same thing here: you know that HiLo is itching to rebut, and it's a good thing they're keeping their cool. You know, in this battle between the two of you I used to think there was equal blame, more or less. I don't think that anymore. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that talk page, it is quite clear that there is no consensus to be overturned - it is one long argument. My posts there are aimed at finding and presenting reliable sources showing that the name of the sport has changed. As I noted earlier - did you even read it? - there is no point to baiting the other party in an IBAN and then running to AN/I claiming a breach. That sort of tactic is easily seen through and would boomerang if either party tried it. You raised this AN/I discussion, requiring me to come here to rebut the charges made against me. I have stated my case, I have been honest, I have pointed to the relevant policy and asked for evidence. And nothing concrete is forthcoming but irritation. Which I share.

This comes down to a simple point. If the other party "owns" the article and talk page, then say so, and I will refrain from posting there any more. If not, then I am perfectly within my rights to take part in discussion on a topic which attracts me through my interest in language and popular culture. The mere act of posting is not baiting. I didn't mention the other party in any way, I didn't respond, I didn't interact at all. Go me. Go both of us.

And finally, yes, I very much prefer that all parties keep their cool. That's what this whole thing is about. That's exactly what I want. HiLo48 deserves praise for keeping calm and biting his tongue. May he ever continue to do so, and may we all of us continue to be civil in our dealings with one another. Thank you. --Pete (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Am I allowed to comment here? HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think WP:BANEX says yes, and Pete already has. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. What personal attacks? That unsupported negative statement is the typical sort of nonsense that gets posted at AN/I without consequence. I have not communicated with Pete/Skyring since the ban began. I have made absolutely minimal comments about him. That disruptive statement alone is so unhelpful it should demand a serious consequence, quite apart from the other problem being discussed here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I may be someone who is regularly opposed to HiLo's way of dealing with things, but even when I'm on the opposite side, this is one of the clearest gaming of the system attempts that I've seen in a while - as Johnuniq notes, it is hard to prove that this is intentional, but it is still obviously intentional. Skyring has contributed a miniscule amount to any association football/soccer article, whereas HiLo is far more regularly involved. Skyring being topic banned from anything to do with association football/soccer would be entirely appropriate. And yes, HiLo, you can comment here, since this is an ANI discussion about the interaction ban. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• HiLo48 has a perfect right to present his side of the story in his own words and he shall have no interference from me.

  To those whose mind is made up, there is no point arguing. Think what you will. For my part, I am perfectly within my rights under the limitations of an IBAN to participate in Wikipedia discussions on those topics which interest me, and while football does not, popular culture and language has been my fascination from university, and the question of what a particular sport might be called is an important and intriguing one. The name is changing within Australia and it affects not just the one article, but many others. If an Australian player moves to the European leagues during the offseason, does he play Soccer or Association Football and how do we describe him?

  It is not in my heart to goad or bait HiLo48 into breaking the ban and then pounce around and crow over it. Anyone who knows how Wikipedia works also knows exactly how that would play out here. It would be a pointless exercise and it would boomerang badly. If it happens, then it can be dealt with, but it also seems pointless to discuss something that hasn't happened, especially when other editors are projecting thoughts and motivations into my mind that do not, in fact, exist. "It is hard to prove that this is intentional, but it is still obviously intentional," one editor claims. Well, it's not. I know what's in my mind, and it is not that.

  I have looked carefully at the restrictions and exemptions of an IBAN and I see nothing there to prevent me from continuing my ongoing participation. Looking at the discussion page and archives for that topic, likewise. In fact it seems to me to be a good deal less restrictive than recent interpretations and if it is going to be enforced in a different manner to the words of the policy, then perhaps it is time to reword the policy.

  If anyone thinks that there is any baiting or goading going on, then let them put forward diffs. I'm prepared to stand by my statements. All I ask is that policy be followed, evidence presented, and that fairness prevail. For all parties. --Pete (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Perfect! You've got a convincing air of innocence gently blended with the wikilawyer's prove it! However, this is Wikipedia where the purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to endlessly debate whether something looking like a turd really is a turd. Is there any reason to imagine that Skyring/Pete's continuing presence in soccer/football issues is required for the encyclopedia? Johnuniq (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  From my perspective the answer is no. I am quite familiar with the events leading up to this case. In the past I have been extremely critical of HiLo48, but more recently I have come around to seeing matters differently. To be brief, in my view if Skyring/Pete gets off with a soccer/football topic ban he will be getting off easy. Jusdafax 06:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm reminded of a little kid who stands just 3 inches beyond where a dog's chain end, and, when reminded they were told not to tease the animal, says but you said I could play anywhere in the yard if I stand outside the dog's circle! Earlier in the thread [1] Skyring claims HiLo is monitoring their edits (they know that how?) and they "want the attacks to stop." These are violations of the ban. But the important thing isn't the letter of "the law" (WP:NOJUSTICE), but the spirit, and Skyring is clearly violating it. My first thought was along the lines of topic ban from Soccer in Australia, but I'm concerned that's just kicking the can down the road. Perhaps the interaction ban could be amended to include That means stay the heck away from HiLo48, cause the next time it looks like you're edging anywhere close to him we'll skip the three days of discussion and just jump to the point where we block you, for however long it takes you to get the hint. NE Ent 10:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a comment about process here. I'm looking at several editors using language related to their assessment of my motives and thoughts. The comment above is a good one "I'm reminded of a little kid..." Well, I'm not a little kid, I'm well into my fifties, and I'm not as naiïve as those assessments assume. Baiting the other party in an iban and then running to an admin or ANI with a complaint is not a winning strategy on Wikipedia, as I trust everyone here is aware. I certainly am, because I've now mentioned it three times.

I'm seeing guesses from editors here about my motivations and intentions that project "that little kid" onto me, and that's quite revealing. It's quite incorrect, because it's not in my mind to annoy or harass the other party, and I've asked for diffs to show the baiting. which have not been provided. Standing just beyond the angry dog's reach is a lovely image, but not really applicable here, where both parties are editors of many years experience and presumably able to control themselves. HiLo48, if I may mention him one more time in this thread, is not a barking dog and has in fact demonstrated considerable pride in his ability to NOT react. Those of you with experience will know that this is quite something, but some editors are treating him as if he were on the verge of snapping, and me as if I know this and am goading him that last little bit.

Neither of us are barking dogs or mischievous children. We are people of some maturity and we have both demonstrated restraint over the course of this iban. Sure, there have been some minor breaches, but at least on my part all I've ever sought has been a reminder of the rules rather than any sort of penalty.

So, instead of evidence - a deliberately provocative post, weasel wording, actual baiting or trolling or goading - I'm seeing statements based on emotional projection, revolving around little kids and barking dogs. These are actually quite insulting to both parties, and when I compare these imagined motivations against what is in my own mind, they are quite wrong.

Now, having said that, I can see where this is heading, and I'm obviously not going to change hearts and minds here and now, but I will flag my intention to appeal to whatever step is next. Presumably the Arbcom, and in that forum, we will be dealing more with procedure and evidence and less with emotion and gut feelings. There are some questions in my mind about the limits of interaction bans and "spirit of the law", mentioned above. That is intended - and worded - not to be pettifoggingly precise, but to minimise disruption, and I think it has worked very well in this case. Apart from presuming upon the good nature of Drmies with questions and minor complaints, and this current little dramafest, which in my opinion is quite unneccessary and irritating to all concerned apart from those habitual attendees here who cheerfully chuck in their five cents worth of psychiatric assessment. --Pete (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my comments have been a bit over-excited, but the essential problem remains—there is an IBAN between two users, and one of those users is widely known as supporting a particular outcome in the soccer/football debate, and has over 300 edits to the talk page, starting in October 2009. By comparison, the other editor has had a very minor involvement, but would now like to take a role that happens to oppose the first user. The community is mostly concerned with minimizing disruption and maximizing benefit to the encyclopedia, and following that principle suggests that the best outcome would result from the second user avoiding soccer/football. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So. Where's the disruption that you want to minimise? Not trying to be snarky here, just curious if you can point to any at all. Apart from this unnecessary thread, of course. --Pete (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following this thread and your previous interactions with HiLo48 for some time but have not felt the need to get involved. However, this post just leaves me speechless. In the vernacular the only appropriate response is to say "don't come the raw prawn here, mate". You are well aware of what you have been trying to do and have been called out for it. Pretending to be all innocent is just not going to cut it. I would suggest that admitting your error and giving sincere undertakings not to repeat them is your only hope of avoiding an enforced Wiki-holiday. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly well aware of what I am trying to do. I know what is in my own heart. And you are wrong. Simple as that. But I ask again. Where is the disruption? In your imagination, it seems. Can you point to anything that has actually occurred? Something outside whatever fantasy you are imagining? Seriously now. Where is the evidence?

That's why I mentioned process above. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and evidence. We check our facts. We don't speculate, imagine, fantasise and pretend. Apart from AN/I, it seems. --Pete (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would people please specify a preferred outcome because the advice offered above has not been accepted, and this section is getting too long. A couple of us have hinted that more than a topic ban may be helpful—it might be more realistic to apply an indefinite block until it is clear there will be no further exploratory incursions. However let's just examine whether Skyring/Pete should be indefinitely topic banned from all soccer/football topics and discussions, broadly construed. Is the following correct (not including the views of the two editors concerned):

• No recommendation yet: Bbb23, Drmies.
• Support topic ban: Johnuniq, Jusdafax, Lukeno94, NE Ent.

Please make any corrections or updates required, and I hope others join the discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ban and/or block. NE Ent 12:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban for Skyring from soccer/football, because I find NE Ent's analogy cogent: "but you said I could play anywhere in the yard if I stand outside the dog's circle!"[2] The next time Skyring applies his wikilawyering and timewasting skills to this IBAN ("exploratory incursions"), I support a swift indef block. Bishonen | talk 12:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Given that the discussion has progressed to this point, I boldly went and created a section for it. So to lay it out:-

1. Skyring, who signs as Pete, is hereby indefinitely topic banned from all articles relating to soccer/football. Attempts to skirt/wikilawyer around the topic ban will be met with escalating blocks.
2. Any future attempts to skirt the interaction ban, as viewed by the community, will be met with an indefinite block. The usual exceptions to IBAN's still apply but attempts to game those exceptions will also be met with an indefinite block

Does that about sum it up? Blackmane (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's strict but I think it's the only solution. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• As a general comment, it seems like the general understanding of IBan (outside of this case) is that 1) both editors can edit the same article, but not interact with each other. and 2) commenting in a thread started by the other is interaction 2a) commenting in any thread the other has commented in is interaction and 3) that includes RFCs or other "official" discussions. Would not just establishing that commenting on official proposals, without mentioning the other person or their argument is acceptable resolve the issue, and let HiLo comment on the RFC? Other ways of interpreting IBan seem to be subject to easy gaming - if you can predict which articles/discussions someone will like get their first and its locked out. Yes we can handle that with topic/community bans, but why not just drop the king of the hill game and make IBan deal with actual interaction? I suppose that does makes it a bit more subjective to enforce... Gaijin42 (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IBAN's are notoriously difficult to deal with. Just last week there was a rather lengthy discussion about an IBAN that is in force and whether there has been violations and/or gaming of it (not going to name parties, but regulars at ANI will know who I mean). I added in the condition "as viewed by the community" for obvious reasons. What one editor sees as an IBAN violation may/will not appear so to the violator. This condition solidifies the burden on a community consensus that a violation has occurred. Against a community consensus that the IBAN has been violated there is no wriggle room to wikilawyer around. Blackmane (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban and warning - lets do this quickly and move on. Distasteful, but probably for the best. Jusdafax 01:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For clarity, I had better sign here although I have supported above. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Skyring's edits here and here indicate that they just don't get it. Consequently I support a block, but if consensus is for a topic ban and warning I will support that, but I rather think that if we choose to go down that route we'll just be back here once again pretty soon, since Skyring has shown that they are either unable or unwilling to understand that it is not just the letter of the law that matters but its spirit. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Emphasize support of topic ban - Best case scenario: Skyring backs off HiLo altogether, HiLo is therefore able to relax a bit in discussions, Wikipedia gets improved. Worst case scenario: Skyring violates the topic ban or continues to try and skirt around the interaction ban, and gets an indefinite block. Either way, the disruption should pretty much end here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What disruption are you talking about? Apart from this ANI thread, which I didn't start. Seriously now, if nobody can provide diffs or evidence of disruption, then this thing is going to be appealed to a more reliable forum. I posted on a talk page, continuing my pre-iban participation, and I did it without the intention of baiting or trolling. Feel free to compare the tone of discussion in that thread with others on the page. Be fair, please. --Pete (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*comment I saw this coming from a mile away and the position that this would put User:Skyring|Pete in. However, I don't see any interruption of an IBAN going on here, neither Pete or the parties involved parties are interacting with each other directly. Where is the IBAN actually being broken here? What is actually going on? I don't see a "quick and dirty" fix as resolving anything in this case. No disruptive behaviour has resulted from either of the two open discussions and they have their own direction flow, in fact they are two completely different discussions. I wont bring the other user into this discussion because it's not about them, I just don't see what Pete is doing wrong here by having an open discussion thread. If I've missed anything in particular in the difs for this please enlighten me where this is the case. --Orestes1984 (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're not seeing the violation, then either you've not read the thread carefully enough, or you're just not looking properly. HiLo is well known to be a regular contributor to Australian soccer/association football articles, whereas Skyring is well known not to be. Beyond that, HiLo is actively discussing (in multiple places) the possibility of various name changes involving the articles. However, the real nail in the coffin is that HiLo supports things remaining at soccer (not that I'm saying he actively wants to move it, just that he is questioning various changes of the term); Skyring is very deliberately setting himself up in entirely the opposite position, by opening a thread that suggests that a move to "association football" is enacted, knowing full well that HiLo is prevented from posting there by the terms of the IBAN. This is a blatant violation of the spirit of the ban, as well as a deliberate attempt at gaming the system. Skyring knows it full well, and you can see the smug undertones in some of his posts as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Smug undertones"? I have to laugh at some of the things being said here. Dead wrong, Lukeno94. Rattling chains is not what I'm about. That's mean, juvenile fun, and it's rather disappointing that so many are projecting their fantasy onto me. "Smug"? Geez. Spit on me a bit more, will ya? --Pete (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh - as an Australian editor I've had positive interactions with both (my little exchange with Pete during the original IBAN discussion probably not being among them). Like then, Pete seems determined to dig himself into a hole and not see what everyone else is seeing. If it was unintentional, starting a football discussion while under an IBAN with one of Australian-football-editing's most vocal participants is pretty dumb. If intentional, it's deliberately baiting and antagonistic, but I don't think that's what Pete is about. The simple course of action would be for Pete to accept it was pretty dumb and commit to editing in completely different areas. If he can do that then further action shouldn't be necessary. I'd only support action if he can't or won't - I don't think further action is justified at this stage. Stalwart111 20:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read the original IBAN thread when I inadvertently breached it myself... I could not have expected to have been across that one, particularly when I spent a long spell out with not editing here. No offense to Pete, he seems pretty reasonable. HiLo on the other hand seems less so reasonable... BUT, Pete... SERIOUSLY man... Sometimes it seems you like to dig yourself a good hole. I have my issues with HiLo... But I also know exactly when to shut up and do what the administrators tell me to do.

Inadvertent or not I see both sides of this issue:

1) HiLo has A LOT of cheerleaders for the position he takes up and I could see them deliberately bringing issues to AN/I just to rattle those that oppose his position

on the other hand

2) Either deliberately, or not so opening up a discussion topic in an area where HiLo likes to patrol was more than a little silly... I saw what was going on as soon as the thread was opened. I just have a little faith that Pete didn't do this deliberately. Just my two cents worth...

I don't think Pete deserves a complete topic ban, but I think he should be more wary of inadvertently opening up discussions that he knows full well HiLo cannot contribute to. I'd also loath to see the position put forward here either by interpretation or otherwise that administrators are giving sway to one side of this polemic debate or another... There is already enough accusations flying around and we should all have a little more respect, particularly for admins, which HiLo in particular has at times been in open descent of. I think the current IBAN is enough with a warning that doing something like this again WILL result in a topic ban. I would not like to see a potential voice, one way or another on this matter removed completely and could see how topic banning Pete could be interpreted as giving sway to one particular side of the Soccer in Australia debate. --Orestes1984 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grumpy because I don't like being railroaded, but I fully appreciate about digging myself an ever-deeper hole. Story of my life. Stalwart, you've come closer than anyone else here to saying something that resonates with me. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In your defence Pete, the last time I was dragged up here before AN/I similiar attempts at character assassination were tried on me with incorrect difs which resulted in HiLo48 running away from a boomerang. You should know as well as I do the types of things that go on with HiLo48 and his supporters and you should by now know better to walk into a situation where you can have your pants pulled down like this... Unfortunately, it's just a waiting game to see how the administrators here interpret this one. --Orestes1984 (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I may offer some advice in my turn? I'd appreciate it if we kept the other party out of this as much as possible. It's my actions under the telescope here, not anyone else's unless they contributed in some way. --Pete (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea, both in the context of this discussion and in your wider approach to the IBAN and editing in general (which, for each of you, really shouldn't be defined by the IBAN anyway). HiLo has a long history in particular topic areas and you have a long history in other topic areas. The areas where you naturally overlap seem few and far between. I'm all for expanding your horizons but as long as you can each expand them to areas the other has little interest in, you should be fine. In this instance you stumbled across one, probably should have left it alone but didn't. As I said before: meh. Dumb, not intentionally disruptive. Stalwart111 05:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, dumb but not intentional, or at least I don't believe so, I believe Pete seems more reasonable than to throw stones at barking dogs --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, as I think the proposal I'm offering below (in the same edit as this comment) probably works better. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the existing IBAN is modified as follows: The interaction ban currently in force between Skyring (talk · contribs) and HiLo48 (talk · contribs) is modified to exclude all articles related to association football, broadly construed. This exception also applies to all deletion-discussions related to such articles. This modification would allow Skyring to edit articles that HiLo48 have been editing without hindering HiLo48's ability to edit those articles. It's the least restrictive modification I can think of. (P.S. My proposal basically allows Skyring and HiLo48 to interact on articles related to association football (= soccer) as if the IBAN wasn't in place, and exceptions would apply to XfD/DR as those are not exactly on article/article talk namespace.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No An IBAN was enacted to avoid pointless drama. What is the point of bending over backwards to provide a mechanism so the two users can snarl at each other in a topic where the issue will not be resolved for a another few years (I gather that "soccer" is slowly being replaced with "football" in some places in Australia, or some would like that—don't know which, and when/if that happens, the articles here will be renamed). A comment above includes "HiLo48 made a total of 303 edits starting in October 2009...", and that shows that Skyring's interest is recent and minor, and need not be accommodated. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I proposed this because we cannot assume (and probably shouldn't assume) that Skyring is doing it on purpose, on the basis of WP:AGF. Besides, if we take Skyring's initial response to the original request, we can safely assume that it probably would not re-introduce mess, if Skyring indeed only has passing interest. I do not see the harm of doing this. (Besides, remember, just as consensus can change, so can people's interests. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Categorically no - WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, and given that Skyring and HiLo have plenty of history, assuming good faith is categorically not appropriate here, in the face of other evidence. This alteration is essentially saying to Skyring that he can start doing this at every article HiLo has ever edited, and can essentially render the IBAN moot. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost a week. Things have not improved. Can I ask for some sort of resolution please? HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My summation of the restrictions gathered a small amount of traction but I don't think any admin could really call it a clear consensus. I'd say that the only clear point is that there will be a final warning with regards to the IBAN. As for the topic ban proposal, I think there needs to be a much clearer consensus for support/opposing it. Blackmane (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think any closing admin might be swayed by that "Things have not improved" comment. But, apart from this thread, I've done little else on Wikipedia this past week.[3] My attention has been on family matters. So what sort of improvement is the community looking for here? --Pete (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this stage any topic ban could be seen as a clear breach in policy that AN/I is not used to resolve outcomes on RFCs. I also believe that consensus can and does change often enough, and furthermore based on previous discussions here a lot of the discussion going on at talk:Soccer in Australia has not crossed any particular line YET. Pete's infractions here by the standards of what has led up to this are relatively trivial in nature and I don't believe they were deliberate. A final warning not to do anything that could be construed as requiring interaction with HiLo48 is appropriate here... That means staying away from talk page discussions where HiLo48 is known to be present except for the purposes of voting. Pete should be allowed at this stage to edit any page that he wishes, so long as that doesn't at the same time involve interaction with HiLo48.

The long and the short of it is that Pete should stay as far away from HiLo48 as is practical, and vice versa... The simple message for most of us including Pete is that nothing good will come of these interactions which is why I have also self imposed my own restrictions here. It's clear we all feel strongly one way or another about all of this, but the long and the short of it is that nobody on that page or elsewhere in these or similar discussions is going to come to a common accord through regular discussions when they are dealing with views that are of two polar extremes. --Orestes1984 (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with any RfC. And we don't vote on Wikipedia.

Can an Administrator PLEASE finalise this? It's over a week now since it got here. The existence of this discussion has led to more nonsense being posted about me and the page in question above, and to Pete/Skyring starting a farewell thread at Talk:Soccer in Australia, attracting even more nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Won't someone please think of me... HiLo you need to read the boy who cried wolf, poor you, poor, poor HiLo. You never stop to think you bring the nonsense on yourself... There is a vote going on actually at the moment about where we should go about this in a less drama filled manner and things such as this are exactly what I was talking about. --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't like HiLo any more than you do, but that post was bang out of line, and extremely unhelpful. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlefolk. Please. I have the luxury of being able to say that this thread is about me. I have no control over it, nor would I wish anyone to feel they are unable to speak, but it is not helpful to attack others in this particular discussion.

Just me, apparently. :) --Pete (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Orestes, thank you for proving my point. I hope that when some helpful administrator finally notices this thread, they decide to also do something about you. Please go away. You are not helping anybody. HiLo48 (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's out of line for me to propose that we all just follow the wikipolicy as laid down: Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way. Apart from the exceptions laid down in policy, one of which is dispute resolution in appropriate forums (such as AN/I).

Apparently I need do nothing at all to evoke complaints with bold fonts demanding urgent action, as we see above, which came three full days after my last contribution to the talk page of the article in question. The timestamps tell the story.

So, instead of guessing the states of minds of two different individuals, why not simply apply the iban as per policy and if one side or the other does something that is clearly disruptive or a clear breach of the ban, then we don't need to argue over whether an editor owns a particular article or discussion or RfC or whatever, the evidence will be right there as a diff.

I'm a big boy now, well into my seventh decade, and I'm prepared to own up to my sins, such as they are.

I don't think a topic ban or series of topic bans is needed to prevent either of us from editing the same pages or discussions, so long as we avoid each other. That's the purpose of an iban. And if we want to !vote on a question which interests us both, such as this one, from which HiLo48 may have felt excluded, then we should be able to do so. That is only fair.

After all, our longstanding areas of interest overlap in the field of Australian politics, and if we attempt to sort out who came first to a thread and who had more contributions, then there are going to be some right tangles to unravel!

I don't mind editors holding contrary views. I think it is good for the Wikipedia to have different points of view and different opinions. We seem to have been able to write good articles on controversial topics - such as this one - where strongly-held editorial opinions differ. So long as we editors are civil to each other, follow wikipolicy, and AGF, all goes well.

Why not do the same in this case? Just, you know, follow policy. No action required but both parties warned that itchy eyes are upon them and clear transgressions will be sternly and swiftly acted upon.--Pete (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compairing how many edits Pete did Compared to HeLo48, I found that Pete only did 6.4% of HiLo48`s edits, So why would he be hounding? Happy Attack Dog (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48 has made over 300 edits to the talk page starting in 2009, while prior to the incident in question, Pete only had a dozen edits starting in August 2013. Pete has now camped on that talk page and shows a commitment to arguing strongly against HiLo48's position now and in the future. That is what is known as WP:GAMING an WP:IBAN because HiLo48 cannot respond to anything that Pete says, and while an IBAN allows for two parties to make separate comments in a RfC or whatever, the soccer/football topic cannot be fully resolved (because it involves changes that are allegedly happening in real-world word usage), so the only reasonable outcome is to ask Pete to work elsewhere. Not doing that would make all interaction bans void because, by this precedent, one party could always oppose the other party in any topic. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned with Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) and his view of BLP. He has been creating a whole heap of unreferenced BLPs, examples include Csaba Sógor, Franck Proust and María Muñiz de Urquiza. All three articles are now referenced - but the references have been added by other users. Pigsonthewing seems to be on some kind of mission to churn out as many of these poor, BLP-violating articles as possible, and I view his editing pattern in this regard as disruptive as he seems to be expecting others to clean up after him. Despite me raising the matter at his talk page 48 hours ago, he continues, with the latest, on Salvatore Caronna, containing one 'reference' so poor that it is basically unreferenced. As a minor issue, you will also note many of the articles containing basic formatting errors, further evidencing that Pigsonthewing shows little care for the articles he is creating. My request for him to add a basic reference (something as simple as a bare URL link to an online biography) to the article before clicking 'save' does not seem onerous. GiantSnowman 17:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• For such an experienced Wikipedian, these actions are very troubling. I think the creations are linked to a message on his userpage; "I am working on the European Parliament project over the next five days and shall have limited opportunity to edit here." My guess is that he is just churning these out and intending to come and fix them later, but that doesn't sit well with BLP at all. I've read his comments in his talk page discussion, and this is incredibly concerning; it's an atrocious response to a genuine concern, and shows a tremendous lack of interest in following policy. I wonder if Pigsonthewing has ever read WP:BLP? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I have a tremendously low opinion of unsourced articles (I am in favor of deleting them immediately, regardless of subject matter), and an even lower opinion of people that create unsourced articles (with the caveat that if the creator has only been here for a week, they might not know better). Now that he is aware that users consider this a problem, and now that we know that he doesn't intend on handling the issue constructively, I recommend that Pigsonthewing be blocked for disruption if he creates another unsourced BLP article. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I wouldn't create something like this but to call it a BLP violation is putting it a bit strongly; the first two Google hits confirm. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While not a "violation violation", the fact is that all new BLP articles are required to be sourced, full stop; while in that particular article's case you could say it's technically sourced, the other three linked in the OP don't even have that and would be instantly - and justifiably - {{Blpprod}}ded. While I can understand Andy's desire to have all European MPs bluelinked - and we should - creating substubs like that is...inexplicable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it's an important requirement they be sourced and concerning her is not taking the time to do so. Looking through it's probably best to merge these all into a list, as most don't appear to have anything else worth saying (i.e. a biography) and parroting a self-written bio is probably not a good idea. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The project is Wiki Loves Parliaments / European Parliament:

"We now have the opportunity to visit the European Parliament in Strasbourg in February and perform a photography and editing project for the 764 MEPs there. In particular as the next elections for the European Parliament are upcoming in May, these new articles and photos are under a strong focus of the public."

If these articles are going to be "a strong focus of the public", the public isn't going to get much information from these sub-stubs. But maybe the MEPs who are up for re-election (or their aides) will nip in and fill them out? The prospect of getting their own articles in Wikipedia before the elections may have helped spur the MEPs to grant access for this project. Nothing wrong with that per se, but surely the requirement isn't to create an article literally within 30 minutes of taking the MEP's picture as was the case here? I don't understand the rush. Voceditenore (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to see how this post is actionable. Certainly you can't be calling for administrative sanctions against someone for creating stub BLPs? If you see one floating out there without references, prod it and it will be deleted per policy. My impression is that these are being created with high likelihood that they will be fleshed out in the short term. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It is utterly inappropriate to create a whole host of unreferenced super-stub BLPs. This is not a complaint about "stub BLPs" (these are one-liners), and there are far more than just one being created without references. For such an experienced Wikipedian (one with 110k edits at least), this is completely inexcusable, as his response to the case has been. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• From an established user creating articles in this type of condition is unacceptable. They are fully aware of our policies and a view to come back to them simply isn't good enough, should be left until they have the time to do it properly. And the part of the reply by him saying Your alternative is to not be a dick is entirely uncalled for and certainly doesn't address the clear issues here.Blethering Scot 20:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah well. Those stubs are really not good and very disappointing--but it can be argued that we're better off with them (I'm not saying I subscribe to that argument). The initial question about them was fair, and then stuff goes downhill, with a bit of support from "helpers" on both sides. Andy calls Snowman a dick, Snowman goes to ANI. But try as I might I cannot find where our BLP policy forbids a BLP without sources from being created in the first place. (That a sourceless BLP can be prodded doesn't mean a sourceless BLP cannot stay.) So no measure will be taken against Andy, and unfortunately his stub creations and the subsequent overreaction (this very thread--sorry, GS) is just one more unpleasant experience for all involved. Best thing to do for all involved editors is to turn some of those articles into DYKs; that's the only thing that will make you feel better. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry but to say this is a "overreaction" is unfair, numerous editors seem to share my concern about this editor's lack of regard for BLP. GiantSnowman 11:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Giant Snowman and count me as another concerned editor. If you create a series of unreferenced BLP's and you have 110k edits, you are way out of line. I don't care what policy or lack of it says, common sense in my view says it is just selfish, and the name calling by Pigsonthewing compounds the attitude problem. As far as editor and admin action on this issue, since it appears to be ongoing, I'd be willing to look at a ban on new BLP's for Pigsonthewing as a remedial step. I further find it troubling that there has been no response here. I'd call it gaming the system. This all approaches a protective block, as I see it. Jusdafax 12:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support an indefinite topic ban on the creation of all new BLPs, to remain in place until such time as Pigsonthewing can understand they fully understand the policy and the problem. GiantSnowman 12:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While it's not quite the "Paris is the capital of France" quintessential wiki-example, saying in The Age of Google "María Muñiz de Urquiza is a member of the European parliament" (EP) is pretty darn close. Has Andy falsely accused anyone not a member of EP as being one? I'll quote part of WP:BLP: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." (emphasis original). Is Muñiz de Urquiza's membership in EP actually being challenged? NE Ent 12:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• However that ignores the fact that all BLP articles must have one reliable source, it also ignores his questionable reaction to being brought up on it. Someone with his longstanding should clearly know better on both counts. Their is no need or urgency to create these articles in this state.Blethering Scot 12:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "all BLP articles must have one reliable source" -- wp:blp says that where, exactly? NE Ent 13:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with NE Ent at 12:46. Cut Andy some slack here. He's a very busy, highly experienced contributor, who generates very solid material -- as well as launching initiatives like WP:WikiVIP, which really caught the media imagination.

Currently he's trying to get a lot of stuff done in the European Parliament, as well as give a good impression of WP to some important opinion makers. Can we please therefore show a bit of trust in an editor with a long and excellent track record, and leave him to get on with what he's doing. If there are still problems in a week, then by all means we can come back to it. There's a lot he will be aiming to do in a very short period of time with this EU Parliament outreach, in a foreign country with contacts he needs to make and build as he goes along. So let's get out of his way. However stubby these articles may be in their initial transient state, there is every reason to be confident they are likely to evolve rapidly, and long-term issues are unlikely. Jheald (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that Snowman's objection to Salvatore Caronna was paricularly absurd. The guy is an MEP, so clearly notable; and, while the article was only a micro-stub, its content was sourced by the reference given. If you're introducing Wiki to a group of people, a stub like this can be exactly what you need as a baseline, to then show the article growth process (as well as giving a basic active URL that's then in place for any automated or semi-automated tools you may be then using).

Again, Pigsonthewing is a very experienced editor, doing (yet again) important outreach work. So let's give him some trust, and the chance to get on with it. Jheald (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but to even remotely compare the widespreadness of the knowledge of an MEP's name/role to Paris being the capital of France is utterly absurd. Almost everyone knows that Paris is the capital of France. Many people, myself included, have absolutely no idea who these people are, and there is absolutely no excuse for creating an unreferenced BLP, because it takes 10 seconds to dump in an unformatted reference, thus negating the problem. If you don't have enough time to reference a BLP, then either create it in userspace, or do not create it at all. I cannot fathom how any of you are defending these actions. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• He's is an experienced editor thats the point. There is no reason whatsoever that an experienced editor should be creating articles in this state, time is no excuse. We have userspace and afc for a reason nor is the European Parliament project an excuse that these should be rushed into article space. Personally i would support a topic ban as he clearly has no sense of wrong about creating articles of a living person in this state and is intent on ignoring that policy. His reply to GS and further ones on his talk page were also highly uncalled for.Blethering Scot 18:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If ya'll want to make up a rule that no unsourced BLP articles can be created, start an RFC. But as of today, there is no such rule. NE Ent 22:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia has no rules, and you know that full well, Ent. You also know that it is inappropriate for any user to create an unreferenced BLP; that's the whole reason BLPPROD exists, after all. It is excusable for a newbie who doesn't have any grasp of policy. It is categorically inexcusable for an editor of 110k edits, let alone one whose initial response is "Your alternative is to not be a dick". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Pigsonthewing has dismissed our concerns as nonsense. GiantSnowman 13:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uuuuuuuuurgh. Guys, there's a significant difference between random drive-by editors creating single-line articles on Brazilians who may or may not have played professional football (watching those BLPs is a hell of a task, and one which those responsible should be thanked for) and project ambassadors (with years of experience) creating them as part of a hands-on attempt to get more editors involved in the project. This isn't some sort of breaching experiment designed to break down our rules on BLPs: quite the opposite. Nonetheless, Andy is (as one of our most public editors) someone who should be setting an example, and it would be unfortunate if those very editors he's attempting to encourage ended up getting rapidly batted for creating their own unsourced BLPs. I'll have a word. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which he has since removed without a response. GiantSnowman 18:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you helping? Is this helping? Is it making your proposed topic ban more likely? If I didn't know all the actors involved here my eyes would certainly have rolled out of their sockets already. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Pigsonthewing's refusal to deal with the matter in a constructive way helping? No, it's making it worse if anything as it appears that he doesn't give a damn. Also what topic ban? Another editor mentioned one, I said I would support it - that's it. There has been no formal proposal. GiantSnowman 12:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that he cares rather more about the root of the matter (improving our biographies) than the (quite bafflingly, in this case) naive onlooker might assume. I do think you're correct that he has no interest at all in being chided by random admins for small-scale pseudo-infractions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Chris, your position is incredibly confusing. You chide Pigsonthewing for creating unsourced BLPs in your first comment, and then seem to be suggesting it is all OK in that one? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I told someone else off for asking him not to, and then did it myself. The inconsistency is truly baffling, so long as one completely ignores the provided rationale. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per Callanecc's suggestion I thought of bringing this issue up here. I know it wasn't that long since Katrina started posting and copy-pasting hoax articles of Filipino child actors, but this is eventually becoming a nuisance, given his persistent and relentless efforts at recreating and spawning faked articles. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Having had to perform unnecessary good-faith research until it occurred to me that this might be a sock jobber, I would support a ban so that future victims could revert all edits instead of having to go through requisite good faith welcomes, and good faith explanations for why you deleted their hoax articles, and good faith warnings, and good faith detailed reportings at AIV or SPI... Because we all spend far more time getting our "this person is an asshole, and here's the proof" case together than the sockpuppet spends committing their nonsense over and over again. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agreed on that, as that would save time with knowing what's going on. Not to mention that since this is a regional, Philippine-centric subject, and relatively few people from outside the country knows the ins and outs when it comes to local showbiz, it would be of significant benefit for other users and admins to be informed about Kat's modus operandi. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support ban – Agree with Cyphoidbomb; this editor has wasted far too many others' time. Epicgenius (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Timestamped to prevent archiving. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Persistent disruption over several months --JamesMoose (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Persistent hoaxers have absolutely no place here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Chronic hoaxsters have no place on Wikipedia.  — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I am surprised that stronger action wasn't taken much sooner. If someone is knowingly creating hoaxes, they should be banned (not indef blocked, but banned) on the spot. We shouldn't have need to go through two dozen sock accounts before getting to this point. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CensoredScribe has already violated his topic ban regarding categories by adding several pages to Category:Size change in fiction, Category:Giants in television, Category:Giants in films, and Category:Fictional characters who can change size: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. I was alerted to this when he edited Power Rangers and Ultraman.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong you are mistaken. The restriction I was given according to User:Georgewilliamherbert is for making new categories; not adding to existing categories. "Per [7] the community has concluded that the following editing restriction is placed on your editing, going forwards:

CensoredScribe is limited to creating categories that have met with consensus, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion or another appropriate venue, be it a Project talk page or ____ (fill in the blank)."Size change is quite clearly an element of ultraman and power rangers no one would deny as they are in every single episode. Please discuss why you don't think these examples are not appropriate; rather than just revert; it is more encyclopedic and sets a better example. I would like to know why you are doing this. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A good portion of the debate was held because of your poor determinations of whether or not the categories you added met WP:DEFINING, and it was my impression that the actual topic ban also included that, beyond whatever Georgewilliamherbert posted on your user talk page. However, I cannot seem to find the discussion in the archives at the moment to confirm this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone have an opinion on whether this revert (of admittedly poor content) is abuse of rollback? Drmies (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have rollback anymore. And as far as I was aware that was one of several poor category additions/changes. I did not know it was just a really bad sentence added to that one page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  You should still have added an edit summary. It wasn't clear why you'd reverted and that wasn't vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  A minor quibble I know, but that was done with Twinkle, not with rollback, so not using an edit summary was definitely out of line. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't see the content of the edit until it was pointed out here. And even then, WP:rollback is allowed to be used to revert multiple problematic, even though not vandalistic, changes across several pages given that the user of rollback leaves a message on the talk page of the other editor. As it was the case here and all last week, CensoredScribe posted something on my talk page before I even had a chance to go to his.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't see the content of the edit until it was pointed out here.? So you just effectively "rolled it back" without even looking at it? Am I reading that correctly? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I hit "revert" on every edit he made that seemed to be related to the ones I saw pop up on my watchlist. So one of them was not the same as the others and I didn't double check it and was not aware of this fact until brought up by Drmies. Who gives a shit? It was not a great edit anyway. And as I stated above, I would have gone to CensoredScribe's user talk to explain the problems with the edits he made but he is just too god damn fast and went to me first.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose topic ban on CesoredScribe against any mass-changes, mass-additions, mass-deletions, and any other large changes to categories. He may add-remove categories from any one article that he is focused on editing specifically.--v/r - TP 04:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. You don't impose sanctions on an editor for not violating a topic ban. Either find proof that this editor was formally banned from adding existing categories, or start a new case based on his modifications of existing categories actually being problematic behavior in and of itself, or leave him alone. Wnt (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  "start a new case based on his modifications of existing categories" This is a new topic ban for a new case. See Ryulong's diffs above. User fails to meet WP:DEFINING as described above. Same problems existed in the ANI thread 3 days ago.--v/r - TP 05:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my point is you shouldn't confuse whether he's violating a ban with whether he's violating policy. My interpretation of the OP was that the diffs demonstrated he was violating the ban, rather than violating WP:DEFINING. It's hard for me without knowledge of the topic to evaluate that; I would assume that so long as one giant Power Ranger character exists that is redirected to Power Rangers, the article can be properly categorized under Giants in Fiction. Wnt (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If one character in all of a work of fiction for which there are probably several hundred named characters falls into one esoteric category, it's okay to categorize that whole work of fiction within that category?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way you put it I don't know; as I said I don't know the series. But if he says size change occurs in just about every episode, I'm more likely to believe his characterization than yours, because he actually seems to like this stuff. In any case, someone better figure out - if the basis for a topic ban is that his interpretation of DEFINING is unacceptably poor, someone ought to know whether the edits cited are defining or not, right? Wnt (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban with the understanding that he can only add-remove categories where it is obvious that he has been editing the article, not just minor changes and then a category change. I would also support a complete topic ban for anything to do with categories. I got no response when I posted to his talk page telling him that adding El Cid to Category:Mythological sword fighters was inappropriate, and I have now no confidence in his ability to deal with categories at all. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban, as it should've been put in place in the last ANI thread, irrespective of Ryulong's questionable actions/behaviour. The example highlighted Dougweller shows that CensoredScribe at best has no idea what they are doing, and at worst, is being willfully disruptive. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, CensoredScribe's incompetence in this area is troubling, as he has constantly been made aware for months now that his categorizations are not proper, and even with an ANI thread that has forbidden him from making new categories, he thinks it's perfectly fine to treat existing categories the same way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunate support. This editor has demonstrated, alas, that he requires further experience with Wikipedia before he can be trusted with categorisation. A topic ban will allow time for him to learn the ropes without the temptation to act, and once he can demonstrate he groks the system, it can be lifted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Administrativd Note - I do not believe any violation of the existing topic ban I enacted has happened, and told CS so on his talk page. However, for evident reasons, I have asked them to stop all category related edits while this ANI discussion runs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban on any category edits - This user has taken up far too much time from other editors policing their edits around categories, not just creating categories but in their addition of articles to inappropriate categories. I've had my run ins, and some of the warnings on his talk page are from me, but it's taking up far too much of everyone's time now and it's becoming unfortunately obvious that they are not able to make sound decisions when it comes to adding an article to a category or not. Canterbury Tail talk 13:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't believe Power Rangers having size change is being questioned is it? Every single monster they fight does as much, if they have to constantly be using the power for it to count than superman doesn't have any powers at all by Ryulongs definition. Compared to the other 100 some fictional swordsmen I have added; which were not reverted; I think making an honest mistake with classifying El Cid as a mythological sword fighter is acceptable. None of the characters from bleach were listed as swordsmen before I mentioned it. Why don't we actually discuss whether any of the films or anime I've been adding categories to legitimately feature size growth or giants in fiction? What other category have I been adding to and creating a problem for, exactly? CensoredScribe (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  CensoredScribe, this isn't about your particular choices on a handful of articles. This is about your established inability to understand WP:DEFINING.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Massive process fail We have a tradition, which makes some sense, that Block discussions belong in ANI while ban discussions belong in AN. OP started a post in ANI with an allegation of a topic ban violation, but no proposed remedy. Perhaps the expectation was a short block, but it wasn't stated. Then it is pointed out that the edits were not a violation of the ban. Some felt the edits were not appropriate, so think a revised topic ban is warranted. Maybe it is, but modifying the terms of a topic ban belong in AN. As for whether a ban is appropriate, I see six edits identified, and unless I miss something, not a single edit to the editors page identifying a problem. I don't think we should be topic banning an editor without a single word to the editor identifying the problem. Recommendation - drop this discussion, explain to CensoredScribe why the edits are not ideal, and see if it continues. If so, entertain a topic ban in AN.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  What? Why should this venue matter? Why should the fact that I did not mention a remedy matter? We already had a ban discussion here last week about CensoredScribe where he should have understood what the issue was. He clearly has not.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, not specifying a remedy makes it hard for editors to support a remedy. You are in ANI, which hints you were looking for a block. But you did not say. Why should we have to guess? Maybe you just wanted someone to talk to the editor? I did. You had a ban discussion,a nd told the editor to stop doing certain things. Now you are bringing something else up. Fair enough, but they deserve a warning.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  You asked why venue matters. ANI is specifically a place to ask for admin actions. What admin action are you requesting? A topic ban is NOT an admin action.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I came here because I thought he was violating his topic ban which obviously would have resulted in a block. And the fact that he and I were both blocked for 3 days is enough of a warning.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Ryulong how would power rangers work without size changing monsters? What does Ultraman do? CensoredScribe (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not relevant to this discussion, CensoredScribe. And learn to indent FFS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose He didn't violate any rule, he not creating new categories, only adding to existing ones. Are the examples listed valid edits? I don't know enough about most of the series to comment. I believe Ultraman has constant size changing in that work of fiction, having the capsule monsters that the guy who made Pokemon said inspired him. So that would be a valid category there. Dream Focus 16:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue with WP:DEFINING was problematic beyond his creation of new categories and was brought up by SummerPhD in the previous thread and one before that and tons of sections on his user talk. Simply banning him from making new categories without discussing them beforehand has not solved the issue with his complete lack of understanding of WP:DEFINING and the evidence that he is competent enough to edit, something brought up in both threads.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Time to close? I've contributed to the discussion so I am not comfortable closing it, but it is now clear that the original request was for a block, and there's no support for a block. There may be reasons to consider modifying the ban, but I'd like to see clearer identifications of the problems, and continued violation before even considering a ban. If that happens, propose a ban at AN. Can we close this?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No... A, you misunderstand the venue issue above, both AN and ANI have served both roles repeatedly, and B, there's a rough consensus now for the wider ban. Closing now would be a disservice to enough discussion to see if an slternative is supported. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to change the rules to allow ban discussions here, then we need to change the rules first. Please see the note on Wp:An

Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals,(emphasis added)

Note the absence of such language on Wp:ANI Do we mean what we say, or not?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, See: Wikipedia:CBAN#Community bans and restrictions. To quote:

Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

The "preferred" is and has been in theory rather than in practice. ANI has seen half plus epsilon of such discussions since CBAN was first permitted. This is not unusual or against policy or precedent... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if we totally ignore the longstanding process, and allow a topic ban discussion, I do not envy the closer.

• User:TParis proposes prohibiting "mass-changes, mass-additions, mass-deletions..." without defining "mass". The diffs show examples of up to three. Adding three categories to one article constitutes "mass-additions" Seriously?
• User:Dougweller supports a topic ban but defines it differently than TP.
• User:Lukeno94 supports a topic ban but doesn't specify which of the two options are supported.
• User:The Bushranger supports a topic ban, but words it differently than any listed above.

So the first task of the closer is to figure out which topic ban is being supported.

The second challenge for the closer is to confirm that the editor has been sufficiently warned.

The editor was given a topic ban on 6 February. There is a single edit after that date identifying issues with categorization. Are we seriously about to enact a topic ban on the basis of one warning? Seriously, what is the harm in explaining to the editor what edits are problematic, and considering a ban if editing behavior does not change?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was supporting User:TParis's proposal with the alternative of being banned from all category work. I understood "He may add-remove categories from any one article that he is focused on editing specifically." as defining mass, my wording means basically the same thing. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller is correct, I was very specific that CS can edit a single article and add cats. But he cannot make mass changes to many different articles to add a bunch of cats. That editing is where he becomes problematic.--v/r - TP 21:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) A note: Topic ban proposals are regularly held here, as are community bans; it is the latter that are technically supposed to be primarily noted on the "regular" AN. As to the editor being sufficiently warned, the last ANI thread should show that. I support a complete topic ban from anything to do with categories primarily, and anything leading up to that on a secondary basis. To resume being disruptive immediately after that thread, it doesn't matter how many times it happened, it needs to be stopped from happening again. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand what's wrong with the fifth cited edit. CensoredScribe put Honey, I Blew Up the Kid in Category:Giants in film. Ryulong reverted this. [10] Now even I've seen that one - the kid is a giant in that, isn't he? I see he also removed the category from Attack of the 50 Foot Woman,^[11] and the two edit warred (as on some other pages) for some time, but there a third party eventually reinserted it. I mean, what's the explanation for how this isn't a case of Giants in film? Wnt (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was my original thought, but it is a new category, which I believe was covered under the topic ban.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see an edit history for this category going back to 2012. Wnt (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't research it, but I looked at the edit and saw the cat at the bottom of the page in red. I believe Category:Giants in film exists, but the edit was to add Category:Giants in films (one letter difference). I do not know whether it was a typo, or whether the editor attempted to create a new cat which turns out to be close to an existing one.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done adding categories; all categories need to have some kind of definition as to how much of the work needs to be dedicated to a concept for it to be defining of that work. An element only appearing at the climax would still be important to the plot even if it has relatively little screen time. I will post on the categories for discussion what the definition of defining should be. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constant comments like these from CensoredScribe show that he is not aware what WP:DEFINING is and a ban regarding all categories is necessary. He has been told repeatedly that simply because something happens within one episode it does not mean that the whole of the TV show falls within that category.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

CensoredScribe's discussion of the issue attempts to define how much screen time an element need have to be a "defining" element. This is after repeated attempts to explain that we need secondary sources using the element as defining[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]etc. To be fair, CS started most of these talk threads. However, that's pretty much all CS did: start the thread and abandon it. As a result, my comments are repetitious. One-sided conversations are not my specialty. I don't think CS "gets" that we want verifiable characteristics that reliable sources say are defining. More to the point, I don't see any indication that CS can "get" it at the moment. As I was probably too involved in this mess at the beginning, I'm not giving my mop-and-bucket-less opinion on a topic ban. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban for CensoredScribe from anything remotely having to do with categories. Enough is enough is enough is enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban for CensoredScribe from anything remotely having to do with categories. Edits like this [24] show an inability to understand WP categorization and to work constructively with other editors. Ryūlóng may have been a bit over-hasty at times, but CS is the underlying problem here. DexDor (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to make it more clear that even adding a category requires a reference; as I have never seen a category with a reference tag directly following it on any page before. I assume you want an acclaimed critic or academic scholar saying something was defining like I did with Superman the unauthorized biography which supports the idea he is a vigilante with a reference to the comic in question. Also, I would like to note that only on my talk page not on an ANI discussion has someone mentioned Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories which would have been more useful for this kind of discussion than categories for discussion. Cfd specifically does not mention the word creation; finding the proper place to propose categories took much longer than I expected and no one was willing to help me. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god, CensoredScribe just stop. If you are not banned from adding categories to pages as is the current consensus here, any category that is added to a page must be corroborated by the article's content and be considered a defining aspect of the work. Just because one character grows 50 feet tall in one single part of a work of fiction does not mean the whole work of fiction meets the "Size change in fiction" requirements. Just because one fictional character is enslaved for a very small portion of its existence does not mean that character can be considered a "fictional slave". If what you want to categorize the article is not mentioned in the article or by any reputable sources, then don't put it into that category. It's just common sense.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - CensoredScribe is now creating bad faith category for deletion requests. See Catgeory:Mansions in fiction for instance. I quote the nomination rationale. "I think this is a valid category which would demonstrate the view of the rich as seen in fiction. The category would presumably include a lot of gothic fiction like Batman, the Adams Family, The Munsters and Dark Shadows. However as I am wrong about categories; this means this category should be deleted for being trivial." Canterbury Tail talk 12:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? The only other person who chimed in there also !voted to delete. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• SNUHRN, did you actually read the rationale? The category may be prime for deletion, but that rationale was hugely out of line, and clearly in violation of WP:POINT. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Have been watching this from the sidelines for a while and I'd also throw in my support for a very broadly construed topic ban on all things related to Categories per Andrew Lenahan. However, given the above disruptive behaviour, I wouldn't be averse to an indef block. Blackmane (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The witch hunt will probably continue, but I can't say nothing. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban for anything remotely related to categories - a bad-faith nomination of a category (regardless of its actual merits) has to be the last straw. Furthermore, CensoredScribe should be formally warned that any further such behaviour (whether related to categories or not) is going to result in an indefinite block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While I was very critical of CensoredScribe pre-block, it seems like most of the argument here are for editing decisions that were done before the block which would make an expanded block more like punishment. I haven't checked every diff posted here but I think an expanded topic block is only warranted if there have been egregious (not minor) mistakes post-block. Let's see if the current editing restrictions are effective first before expanding them.

Like many discussions on blocking editors, what is palpable is other editors' frustration with CS's past behavior. But he was given a block for that behavior which is over. An expanded topic block/editing restriction should be based on his editing decisions after coming off a block. I also don't think it's wasted time discussing this if it helps one editor to become a more productive contributor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is continuing problematic behavior after the block expired, even if it was not exactly what he was initially banned for because everyone wanted to be soft on him. But his categorization ability has been problematic for longer. SummerPhD had several discussions with him on his talk page and he was brought to ANI before the ban and block were put in place. It's clear from his CFDs for Category:Mansions in fiction and Category:Martial arts tournament films that he does not even know what things meet CFD. There's been enough coddling.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moderate Intensity Operations has repeatedly added fake information to The British Soap Awards:

• [28]
• [29]
• [30]
• [31]
• [32]
• [33]

...and several more of the same variety. -- Fyrael (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify a bit, the user continuously adds a table for 2014 award winners, but there have been no awards in 2014. The source given is simply the 2013 winners and the info in the new table seems to be completely made up. -- Fyrael (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you considered using Twinkle to Welcome them using the one specifically related to requiring reliable sources? I see a crapload of warnings, but not a single welcome and introduction to the rules. Have you even tried discussing rather than templating? ES&L 12:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When the user is intentionally adding information that they know to be false, it seems like it goes a little beyond informing them that they need proper sources. Also, yes, I created a section on the talk page of the article to enable discussion, albeit a little later than I should have. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, not all of this user's edits are bad. This edit was a good one, correcting the year the awards began (infobox had said 1998; he brought it into agreement with the prose of the article as 1999). I've thanked the editor for that one. —C.Fred (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion is no longer relevant as I have now decided to leave Wikipedia. Moderate Intensity Operations (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 69#Phineas Gage.

See User talk:John#Gage and EEng and User talk:EEng#Query.

Long-term problem: As I see it, EEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has taken ownership of our article on Phineas Gage, an interesting and fairly well known case of 19th-century neurological injury. EEng is affiliated with one of the sources he insists on promoting at the article (hence last year's COIN discussion, after which my understanding was that EEng agreed to back off). EEng has certain very specific ideas about what does and does not belong in the article, and on how it should be written and formatted. Those of us who have tried to improve the article have been sent away with a telling off. I long ago gave up trying to help on the article. User:ChrisGualtieri has persisted (against my advice) and his reward has been to be on the receiving end of this diatribe. I think using language like Again, as seen above you are either a hopeless incompetent or a troll. I won't respond to your posts in the future, except as necessary to prevent their misleading editors who may not understand the nature of you activities here. (and forgive me for reproducing the formatting) is beyond the pale. I tried to discuss this with EEng at his user talk but he does not wish to. I know that User:Tryptofish has been trying to mediate at article talk, but I think this is beyond the power of one admin to solve, hence my bringing it here. I urge you to read the whole section to get a picture of what has been going on for months. It has to stop.

Requested actions: Short-term I think a short block is in order for EEng. Long-term I do not see this issue being solved without a topic ban; previous exhortations have not been successful. My own perception is that Chris would be fine if EEng was not misbehaving, but it may be that his behaviour also merits attention. Interested to see what others think. --John (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just read that god-awful long COIN thread and I don't see where EEng says he will back off. Can you quote something specific?--v/r - TP 18:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one of the problems in understanding this matter is the extreme verbosity involved. I admit I can't find it either. Maybe this is what I was thinking of? Certainly I was aware of a period when EEng stepped back from the article and allowed others to edit it without belittling them. But going by Chris's comments on my talk we seem to be back where we were. --John (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, thanks for the !promotion, but I'm actually not "one administrator". While I make no claims about my abilities to single-handedly take care of the dispute, I want to advise strongly against blocking anyone. Yet. It's sufficiently complicated that a block would not prevent anything, maybe just postpone it. Really, this is not a block type of situation. There needs to be more discussion, and then evaluation of who does or does not play nice with what comes out of that discussion. If problems continue after that, then we will be in topic ban territory. What I would welcome now would be more eyes on Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh , sorry Tryptofish, I honestly thought you were an admin. FWIW your commentary in trying to resolve this was more than worthy of adminship. If not a block then I think we would need a topic ban. I still think the prolonged nastiness from EEng is blockworthy. Obviously I agree about the more eyes suggestion. --John (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, have you looked at whether EEng is right? I havent been following the situation for the last two weeks, and wont have time to catch up until tomorrow, but from what I have seen it is User:ChrisGualtieri who is regularly misusing sources, making a mess of both article and the discussion page in the process of the Tendentious editing. While labeling someone a troll is not OK, neither is Chris' misuse of sources, and Chris' bull-in-china-shop approach to 'fixing' this article, which has been going on for months. I agree with Tryptofish that the situation calls for more eyes rather than blocks at this stage, but it is more eyes from people who can (and will) read sources that is needed. I saw that this topic went to WP:DRN very recently...? How did that go? I dont see it mentioned in this ANI. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The DRN was closed with the discussion being handed over to me for the time being, and with a recommendation to hand it over to the Mediation Committee if I cannot help. When I look at the comments of the two "John"s here, it seems to me that John places too much of the blame on EEng, and John Vandenberg places too much of the blame on Chris. That's all the more reason not to move too hastily to blocking anyone here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A block of EEng would do no good, but the problems are in part because EEng works for/with Macmillan and Macmillan's text is the issue. EEng has self-disclosed his identity on his user page as: ".. the second author of Reference #20, and first author mentioned in Note Z, of this version of the article on Phineas Gage." Which self-discloses EEng as Lena, Macmillan's co-author and co-researcher. This was a major part of the COIN discussion. Though the issue is not me "mis-reading" the source, but the source itself being actually wrong. I want this error to be noted because it is often repeated and it is in the "only scholarly book on Phineas Gage".Macmillan quite confidently gave May 20 as the date of death. If Macmillan went to such pains to personally examine the documents, specifically indicating May 20th as the date of death, by all means I expected it to be accurate. This as EEng pointed out was completely false, and I guess the cited source never existed in the first place! Macmillan may make errors, contradict himself, Harlow and other sources, but EEng (as a partner) should not be resorting to abusive claims that I am "mentally impaired", "hopelessly incompetent" or "a troll". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"works with/for Macmillan" - wtf. Once more you sound like you dont understand academic publishing at all. My guess is you do know, but you keep digging an ever increasing hole for yourself, with user:John occasionally helping you dig. EEng has a COI with the new material that appeared in one paper. That is all. He does not have a COI with every piece of scholarship by any person he may have copublished a paper with. Tryptofish, you imply that user:John has seriously looked at this issue/topic - I have seen no evidence of that - I have seen evidence to the contrary[Im on a phone atm so cant put together the diffs, but the last COIN discussion is an example of John demonstrating this.] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear then since it seems you did not read the initial post here. 1) User:EEng has a conflict of interest in editing this article. (See the COIN report for details.) This is not ok. 2) User:EEng has become increasingly abusive over the last months. (See the two diffs I supplied.) This is not ok either. 3) There may or may not be a problem with User:ChrisGualtieri; I don't know. 4) Other than that I do not hold any strong opinions about anything related to this matter. It would be great if people commenting here could focus on these problems and how we should solve them. Again, if not a block, I think a topic ban is required but I am certainly open to other suggestions. --John (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever John Vandenberg believes I did or did not imply, let me say one thing very explicitly: there is no basis for administrative action here, and this thread should be closed. Maybe there will be a topic ban down the road, but not yet. There is nothing to be gained by further parsing of COI or anything else here, and I suggest that the focus should turn toward improving the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather a strange comment. Whatever the problems there have been I am fairly sure that everybody here in their own way is (or thinks they are) focused on improving the page. My perception is that there are OWN, COI and NPA violations going on here. Whatever other problems people may think there are I have yet to see these perceptions refuted. It has been brushed under the carpet for months and I don't think continuing to deal with it in that way is going to solve the problem. Constructive suggestions please. --John (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess our differing perceptions are reflected in my opinion that your finding my comment strange is, itself, strange. But I maintain very strongly my opposition to any blocks at this time. And WP:There is no deadline, so the situation is not yet an urgent one. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me rephrase it this way: Since even Chris does not see value in a block (above), I just don't think that any uninvolved administrator would see a valid reason for a block. My constructive suggestion, and I offer it very sincerely, is for you, John, or for anyone else to please come to User talk:Tryptofish and/or Talk:Phineas Gage, and try to help me mediate the disagreement. It's very do-able, and it's premature to conclude that it is doomed to fail. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 90.224.246.99 (talk · contribs)
• 195.67.67.130 (talk · contribs)
• 95.192.43.205 (talk · contribs)
• Peter-No-Tail (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Peter-No-Tail in Americat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Charlie Strap, Froggy Ball and Their Friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Charlie Strap and Froggy Ball (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Charlie Strap and Froggy Ball Flying High (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Thomas Funck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On the above articles and more: same IP range that was active last year, edit warring at a series of articles about Swedish films. Account is again adding unsourced content and removing appropriate templates. Never engages in discussion, never uses edit summaries, never adds sources. In the past one or more of these accounts was blocked, and several articles were protected. Will request renewed protection if that's advised. JNW (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article created by Rpo.castro has been sent to AfD here, where I agreed with the nomination. There has been a bit of discussion between the Rpo.castro and myself about whether the sources he provided are routine, but nothing that I would consider uncivil or out of hand. However, I checked my watchlist to find that all of a sudden he had PRODed over 50 articles I had created in about 20 minutes, as can be seen here - though I note, not one edit summary to explain what had happened. This seems to me to be a complete over-reaction, and a blatant and repeated contravention of the first part of WP:POINT. Furthermore, though I am not discussing the specific merits of the nominations which I do not see as relevant at the moment, the quantity of nominations in such a short period of time is not only extremely POINTY-y, but tantamount to harrassment, particularly because:

• None of the PRODs were nominated properly, so I only saw them on my watchlist,
• I did not receive any comment about his concerns prior to PRODDING on my talk page, something I would expect to see if he had widespread concerns.
• None of the PRODs were added to the WP:FOOTY list, which is common practice.

If this is not harrassment, then at best it is the disruptive actions of someone who does not know how to nominate articles properly, nor how to engage in constructive discussion when they have major issues. I would propose a ban for a period of time on Rpo.castro nominating articles for deletion.

It may be complete coincidence, but at almost the same time, I noticed 144.64.1.99 reverted a number of random edits I had made across both football and non-football articles, with no clear rhyme or reason, nor any indication as to why they had done this, as can be seen here. Not sure whether this is the same editor, but seems weird that both things should happen in the same day. Fenix down (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I did a Geolocate on the IP 144.64.1.99 and it seems to be Portuguese. I believe it's the same IP used by Rpo.castro (talk · contribs) who is creating/updating the Atlantic Cup articles, which is held in Algarve, Portugal. Too much of a coincidence. JMHamo (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't doubt that the IP is that editor--note the times. All the IP edits were made in a gap in Rpo.castro's edits, and at some point maybe they realized that PRODding is much easier when you're logged in and can use a gadget. Now, all this took place a little while ago and blocking now would be punitive. However, I agree that this editor should a. not do anything in the realm of deletion for a while (perhaps a ban can be proposed, don't know if that's necessary) and b. stay away from Fenix down's edits. If they do any of this again they should be blocked on the spot to keep it in check. (Next time, Fenix, find someone with mass rollback, like me--it's easy and good for my edit count.)

  Rpo.castro, we're still waiting on an explanation. Next disruptive edit, you are likely to be blocked, and maybe for a long time, for harassment. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Drmies:, thanks for the offer of help if this happens again, I'll be sure to take you up on it. Not sure I understand your comment about this all taking place a little while ago, it took place yeasterday evening (11/02/14), both RPO.castro's and the IP edits, though I am not here looking for a total block, just for him to understand that that behaviour is not acceptable and to stay away from PRODdin / AfDing util they can prove they know how to do it properly and appropriately. Fenix down (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Fenix down, I understand if you want action taken; perhaps TParis might do that for you. When I say "a little while ago" I meant something like "not happening right now". Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, so blocking someone for something they're not doing now isn't really right. TParis reads this differently: he would argue, I think, that the issue here is not a temporary disruptive spree but rather a kind of WP:HOUNDING. He might argue that even if the editor is not currently PRODding your stuff, they are still harassing you with their very presence. (My block would be for disruption, TParis's for harassment, I think.) If TParis and I disagree, it's only slightly, in the meaning of that disruptive spree--for TParis it's evidence of a character trait, for me it's a temporary, and hopefully one-time, complete loss of good manners. If it happens again TParis was clearly right; if it doesn't the editor may have learned a lesson. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree @Drmies:, I hope it was just a one-off, and no damage was done. He is aware that it has been raised here and that there will be further repurcussions if anything like that happens again. Would like to wait a day or two before closing in case he comes back or wishes to add a comment himself, but am happy to have it recorded as a one-off event if nothing further happens in the next couple of days. Thanks for your attention on this. Fenix down (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm of a different opinion than Drmies. I think we don't need editors on Wikipedia who will mass PROD 50+ pages just for revenge. It would be protective of Wikipedia to remove this editor which is exactly what the block button is for.--v/r - TP 02:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • TParis, for all the abusive admin commentary I hear about me, I may well be too soft. I'm not likely to block someone for one angry outburst, as antisocial and disruptive as this one was, but you are, as always, free to disagree with me, and I couldn't fault you for it. Mind you, I have not looked at the user's other edits (all this FOOTY stuff bores me), so I can't really tell if they're a net positive in the first place. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. The main cause of the problems with this user is my contribution in the article Black people in Nazi Germany - I developed it in hyperlinks and added a few important notes inclung changes in the head of the article. I stated that Black people during the Nazi rule in Germany were persecuted in a similar way to Gypsies and Poles. True? Yes, this is true indeed.

However, "Windows66" reverted my contribution and instantly wrote me a message on my [Talk page suggesting that he fixed some information]. What he actually did is leaving my contribution unchanged, hyperlinks and other stuff untouched, but he removed the word "ethnic Poles", insinuating that Poles were pure Aryans and were not persecuted for their racial origin as Slavs. He denied the fact that Poles, Serbs and other Slavs were also classified as "Untermenschen" (subhuman) which in the Polish law is classified as the par of Holocaust denial. He said there is no evidence for that and suggested that it is impossible to prove it. So... I started reverting his reverts. He subsequently flooded my talk-page with tons of useless information which I was unable to read and analyse within a quarter of an hour, while [he tells other users not to put even short messages on his talk page]

He perfectly knows the Wikipedia rules and manupulates them in order to shut people's mouths and scare them by numerous accusations, persuaded some administrator to give me a warning for multiple reverts. Then I asked him if he doesn't like Poles or maybe has some prejudice while I found out that he is searching for and editing all the information about the struggles of Polish nation during the World War II in terms of Racial policy of Nazi Germany. And so I received another warning, this time he convinced another administrator (who eventually turned out to be friendly and helpful), Windows66 he did it behind my back without notifying me, so I receiuved a next warning, this time he accused me for accusing him... mainly for antipolonism, racism and Holocaust denial, as I asked does he hate Poles and why so. Well, my bad. I got mad for his stubborn denial of the historical truth.

Then again he accused me of having some "sock-puppets", talking to him from several different IP addresses or even being some other user who is in fact anyhow connected to me. Since the time "Windows66" is constantly stalking me by tracing my contribs in order to eventually revert them if he wishes to, writing messages to me despite i opted for making peace with him.

Meanwhile, sometime ago he clearly stated: "I do not agree that Slavic people as a group were the main victims after Jews and Gypsies". That means, what he denied the groundbreaking and historically proven statistics which are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#Victims_and_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims

And so here I am.... pictured as an aggressor, the worst enemy you could ever imagine, only for trying to defend the historical truth and keeping it on Wikipedia. I omit the fact that I am the victim here and i feel helpless while "Windows66" knows how to juggle the Wikipedia rules so good, that he knows when he can use irony or flood someone's talk-page; I just want you all to know, that I am a defender of historical truth, I safrificed a considerable amount of time for this guy to explain things to him, and finally, I wanted to make peace with him as first - he rejected. (see: User talk:Yatzhek). PS - I come from Poland so forgive me for my mistakes in English. Yatzhek (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you summerize your complaint for us? or atleast add some whitespace? CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This user Yatzhek is still attempting the pathetic sympathy card, this user thinks its acceptable to label me racist, anti-Polish, white supremacist and a Holocaust denier. The user got warned for accusing me of Holocaust denial and is STILL continuing this nonsense. You do not have any problems with English so quit the dumb act you are not fooling anyone now, see further up when I reported this user, cheers admins. See this for my previous reporting of this user and the evidence against the user.

Lets look at how this started here, I then proceeded in making a discussion via the talk page of the user here (the even original title of the new section was changed by the user), I then failed to get any cooperation with the user, see here (although the user has removed some information). I then asked Diannaa about the situation, see here which you can see Yatzhek accuse me here of being racist, anti-Polish, a Holocaust denier and a white supremacist (this can be found elsewhere), see here, see here for the failed cooperation with this user me asking for a response with sources and proof and the response is the rant from Yatzhek.

In regards to denying "groundbreaking statistics" is not the case, the user asked me if I believe they were the most persecuted after Jews and Gypsies in which I replied no, this is personal opinion and is not denying anything, see here and my reply here.

I find it hilarious that the user only under an hour ago said he/she will leave me alone and has now created this, see this yet now this has cropped up. Petty little tedious mind games.--Windows66 (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've seen the case having wandered to have a look due to the RFPP request, and I don't think Yatzhek has a leg to stand on. Claiming that Poles were on the same level as Gypsies at the time of the Nuremberg Laws is simply inaccurate; if Yatzhek had read what he was referencing, he would see that the Nuremburg Laws were enacted in 1935, whilst it was another four or five years before the proclamation that Gypsies and Poles were comparably "undesirable" was made (as is evidenced by the fact that it is "German soldiers" that are the issue). Anyone trying to search for "Polish" or "Pole" will find nothing in the Nuremberg Laws article. I'm fairly sure that Serbs were not, by default, put at the same level of the scale as black people or Jews were. I'm also fairly sure that the IPs are indeed Yatzhek whilst logged out; the coincidences are just too great. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have put you on the noticeboard mainly because you did it to me earlier while I feel innocent, and I think you totally deserve being checked by the administrators because your contributions are highly questionable. Your behaviour is a hidden-irony connected with personal attacks under the cover of presenting the sources. you won't let noone edit the articles you watch, even if the person would add some sources. By saying "HAHAHAHA" you simply prove your arrogance and ironic attitude towards everyone who tries to open a debate with you.

Why did you present the Nuremberg Laws as your main source and stick to it all the time? It's simply - you want others to see the racial policy of the Nazis only from one source and omit other existing sources and decretes.

PS - you say about your personal opinion, and as far as I see, you are trying to force your personal opinions in the Wikipedia articles by your contributions.

Yatzhek (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yatzhek, whilst I am inclined to agree with you on the fact Windows66 was being inappropriate in their comment, the fact remains that your edits were factually inaccurate. If you read my post above yours, you will see why. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I admit I was a bit awkward and rightly so Yatzhek is refusing to accept he is wrong and is now asking my personal opinion on things which I have on more than one time told is not what talk pages are for and when I have presented evidence it has been deleted. The IP's are obviously Yatzhek's and it is quite clear this is sock puppets because its three different IP's. Why can't you not just let it go Yatzhek? It doesn't matter if you feel whatever, I have not broken any rules and you are wasting your time trying to report me here simply because I reported you, I reported you for accusing me of Holocaust denial, racism, being anti-Polish and also a white supremacist, see WP:PA. Now kindly stop sending me absolute nonsense on my talk pages and try to contribute towards articles not have a go at another user and then play the sympathy cry card when you have been warned and reported, and yet after this you STILL continue. When will you stop?--Windows66 (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask someone to have a word with FergusM1970 (talk · contribs) regarding his behavior on our biography of Stanton Glantz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? FergusM1970 apparently has contempt for Glantz, whom he refers to as "Stan the Glans", and is edit-warring to insert contentious material based solely on a personal blog, in clear violation of WP:BLP ([50], [51]). On the talkpage, FergusM1970 denigrates Glantz (a member of the Institute of Medicine and a professor of cardiology at UCSF) as lacking "any sort of medical qualification". He's also accused Glantz on the talkpage of being "a single-issue hack" who's committing research fraud in service of a political agenda. Presumably WP:BLP imposes some limits on the amount of unsourced defamation we permit on talkpages, as well as the sources we use in articles. As I've already commented on the talkpage, I would like external input from uninvolved admins. MastCell ^Talk 20:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made one revert, checked the rules on RS and left it at that. As for Stan Glantz, I didn't "accuse" him of not having any sort of medical qualification. He DOESN'T have any sort of medical qualification and my source for that is his UCSF profile page. Nor is it me who accused him of research fraud; that was Dr Michael Siegel, who DOES have some medical qualifications.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we were serious about enforcing our policies in relation to content, BLP and MEDRS as we are about "civility", we would issue an indefinite block. If no one else is willing to and no one gives me a good reason not to, I'll do it. NW (Talk) 20:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where MEDRS comes in and frankly, given how quickly MastCell accused me of edit-warring, I think I was reasonably civil. As for Glantz it is a fact that he doesn't have a medical degree and it is a fact that a professor from Boston University has accused him of misrepresenting research in pursuit of the (single) issue which has occupied his entire career.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Glantz has a Ph.D. rather than an M.D., which is fairly common in public-health research. Many of the world's leading experts on epidemiology and public health are Ph.D.'s, not M.D.'s. But you misleadingly presented this distinction as a means of discrediting Glantz, and claimed that he was completely unqualified in his professional field. That's an obvious falsehood. As for the accusations of research fraud, I hope you now understand that a personal blog is not a suitable source for such material. Your own commentary went far beyond even that personal blog in terms of malice and abusiveness toward the biography subject, and you need to appreciate that you cannot use this project as a platform to express your contempt for article subjects, even if you believe some guy's blog supports your viewpoint. MastCell ^Talk 21:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He does indeed have a PhD, but it's not in medicine - it's in Applied Mechanics and Engineering Economic Systems. He has no medical qualifications and his postdoc work, while in cardiology, was in purely mechanical aspects. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Ergo not a falsehood.[reply]

You should really take that up with the world-renowned medical school where Glantz holds a professorship, and with the Institute of Medicine, where he was elected a member. I'm sure they'll be interested to hear that they've got an impostor in their midst. In the meantime, I take it we're in agreement about the need to knock off this sort of nonsense on Wikipedia, at least? MastCell ^Talk 21:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In general I have great respect for UCSF's medical school - my girlfriend works there, for someone who has an actual medical degree (and a Nobel prize) - but they seem to have a blind spot when it comes to tobacco control. One of Glantz's colleagues, Prue Talbot, recently wrote a paper on nicotine inhalation based on a few YouTube videos she'd watched, which to my humble brain seems less than scientifically rigorous. Of course none of that changes the fact that Glantz has no medical qualifications and is a single-issue activist, but yes, I should have been less intemperate. A couple of his fellow activists got my blood boiling earlier and I should have cracked a beer and calmed down before editing.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I forgot that after the UCSF Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, the Dean of the Medical School, the Provost, Chancellor and Board of Trustees of the UC System, the American Public Health Association, and the Institute of Medicine, I that we have one final layer of review to determine whether someone can truly be qualified as a real expert in their field. No, it's plainly obvious what's going on here—you either dislike the guy's work or you dislike him personally. That is unacceptable and you step away immediately. NW (Talk) 21:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say he's not an expert; I said he doesn't have any medical qualifications, which he doesn't (as is clear from his UCSF profile page). Yes, I dislike his work. So what? Lots of people, including medically qualified tobacco control experts, dislike his work. That's because he makes claims that the data don't support. Scientists don't like that.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that you are using Wikipedia servers to defame a living person. Wikipedia has the ability and the responsibility to stop you from doing that. — goethean 00:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a comment has to be false before it can be defamatory.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is false to say that Glantz lacks any medical qualifications (an M.D. degree is not the only kind of medical qualification, as any nurse, pharmacist, or public-health researcher could tell you). You've repeated this falsehood several times despite being informed that it's untrue, suggesting a disregard for the truth. You obviously bear substantial malice toward the subject of this falsehood (cf. "Stan the Glans"). I'm not a lawyer, but what you're doing is wrong on ethical if not legal grounds. That's the essence of WP:BLP. MastCell ^Talk 01:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what medical qualifications does he have, then? --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop this discussion: it's not for here. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but it does seem like I'm being accused of lying and I'd rather like to defend myself, so where should I carry it on?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's OK to ask the editors who insist that Glantz has a medical qualification to back up their claims with some kind of source? I mean, I am being accused of lying about this.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really--MastCell is citing your word choice in reference to the subject, and you changed the subject. Doesn't matter: it's not for here. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did acknowledge that I'd been OOB with some of the things I said about Glantz, but he's also accusing me of lying by saying that Glantz has no medical qualifications, even though my source for that is Glantz's UCSF profile.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a single thing that FergusM has said here pertains. Unless NW issues an indefinite block already, here's what I suggest: if Fergus makes one false move ("edit that violates the letter and spirit of our BLP policy one way or another, broadly construed") on that Glantz page or its talk page, or anywhere else on Wikipedia (our BLP policy applies to all spaces), they are blocked indefinitely (though not infinitely). Fergus, if you don't realize how wildly inappropriate your comments are, and how far off the mark your responses here in this thread, then maybe you should be blocked on the spot. Save your commentary on this person for your blog, or for dinner conversation. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Is it fine to add facts if I can RS them?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you make sure you know which moves are false and which ones aren't. Be careful with your words and your interpretations. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair one. I've only started editing medical-related articles quite recently and MEDRS is a minefield (and, I suspect, easily abused). I'll double check my sources.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seven previous blocks listed at User talk:140.200.208.2, most recently for one year, and now again being used for blatant vandalism. Re-block? 82.132.222.244 (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No. The last edit was vandalism, but the ones before, to Glenn Colquhoun and Michael Brecker, were not. Next time please report at WP:AIV. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to provide a good bit of background because I think it’s necessary to understand the situation. There exist within Wikipedia a group of POV-pushers who take issue with the word American being applied to the citizens of the United States of America. Their POV-pushing has mainly focused on Names for United States citizens and Americans, but also has extended into other articles. I have undone some of their actions, and I have also (successfully) sought administrator assistance in opposing them.

The POV-pushers in question are a group of bigots who wish to inflict Spanish linguistic norms upon the English language. They contend that North America and South America are one continent called America, and that the word American should not be used to refer to the people of the United States of America, but rather to all the peoples of the new world. In talk page discussions they tend to make up novel expressions to refer to the people of the United States.

On the 7th of February an IP editor with no other editing history inserted a completely un-sourced paragraph into Names for United States citizens which contained the claim that the new world came to be known as America. The paragraph gives no additional context. For example: It doesn’t say that it came to be known as America in Spanish, nor does it say that it came to be known as America until it came to be called North America and South America. Because the labeling of the entire new world as America is one of the core tenants of the POV-pushers I described earlier I became immediately suspicious. However, because I assume good faith (when appropriate) I didn’t accuse the IP editor of POV-pushing. Instead I reverted their edit for being un-sourced. I figured that when they provided a source I could use that source to give their claim the necessary context.

Instead a small edit war ensued with User:Coquidragon, User:BilCat, and User:The Bushranger trying to war the paragraph in without a source while I attempted to refer them to WP:BURDEN and WP:V. It ultimately culminated in User:The Bushranger inserting a source.

Now that you know the background I would like to explain that I am not here because of a content dispute, and I am not here to complain about User:Coquidragon and User:BilCat being a couple of Randies. I am here because of a particular comment that User:The Bushranger posted on my talk page.

He said: “Please remember that according to WP:V, "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article."”

This is the first time I have ever seem an administrator engage in Wikilawyering. Bushranger is well aware that the text he quoted is from the portion of WP:V that addresses original research. He is well aware of the way that WP:V is routinely applied to remove un-sourced statements from Wikipedia. He is well aware of the fact that the removal of un-sourced statements is an essential part of maintaining Wikipedia’s integrity. He is well aware of the fact that using the wording of a rule to subvert the meaning of a rule is prohibited. And he is well aware of the fact that the way I interpreted WP:V is the way that WP:V is meant to be interpreted and is interpreted by the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors.

I am here to ask that User:The Bushranger be sanctioned for willfully misrepresenting Wikipedia policy. An administrator should not be permitted to take the attitude that “the rules say whatever I want them to say right now”. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[[52]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.171.90 (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• My statement is, in fact, the way WP:V is interpreted; the section of the WP:V page it was on is irrelevant. The policy is simply that a source does not have to be in an article, unless the article is a BLP, it need only exist, and while it's unfortunate that 76* was previously unaware of this, it doesn't change that that is accepted consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm. Well, on the face of it, The Bushranger is right: statements that aren't supported directly by an inline citation don't have to be removed simply because they don't have an inline citation (other than BLP issues, of course). They can be removed, but they don't have to be; that is indeed what {{cn}} is for (not to mention that you don't need to cite that the sky is blue). Things that are self-evident or clearly and easily verifiable without an explicit source don't actually need an explicit source. Basically, what Bushranger is saying is that, though all facts on Wikipedia need to be verifiable somehow, they don't all need to be backed by an inline citation, which is true. His quote of policy was perhaps not the best one to support his statement, but the statement itself is true.

  However, if it has in fact been removed (i.e. challenged), it needs a reliable source before it should be inserted back in, which is what WP:BURDEN (a subsection of verifiability) says: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source, so IP76 was right, too. I think it was a bit silly for IP76 to remove such a seemingly common-knowledge paragraph (and perhaps that's why the other editors didn't immediately provide a source); a citation needed template would've been better imo, but maybe that's just me: they were well within their rights to remove it. There's nothing that obligates them to go through the intermediate steps. In an ideal world, what would've happened after either the tag or the removal is: instead of edit-warring over the paragraph without a source, Coquidragon and/or BilCat would've raised a discussion on the talk page, presumably something to the effect of "Hey, this paragraph seems like it's pretty much common-knowledge to me, I don't think we need to directly source it." IP76: "I don't know about that, I'd like to see a source for it, per WP:PROVEIT." The rest: "[grudgingly:] *sigh* Okay, fine, let's dig up a source." Source is found, paragraph reinstated with the source cited inline, everyone's happy. Here, instead, an edit war happens, which is distinctly not ideal, but it ends when The Bushranger steps in and reinstates the paragraph, and more importantly adds a source for it unprompted five minutes later.

  So, really, I'm not sure what your case against Bushranger is; they didn't really do much edit-warring and in fact complied with your request, and their statement about verifiability wasn't wrong (though perhaps not apropos or quoted particularly well). I'd say trouts to BilCat and Coquidragon for edit-warring, a trout for the IP for making mountains out of molehills (you really should've discussed it with The Bushranger before coming here), and The Bushranger gets maybe a minnow for not including the inline citation in their initial edit. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Minnowing is accepted, as that is, indeed, what I should have done there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • I guess I've learned what to do (or not to do) for the future. "Strout" is received as a learning opportunity. Nevertheless, I read the accusation from the IP, the explanation given, his comment on my talkpage which starts with "What the hell are you doing?," and I see that there is much baggage behind its edit, baggage which was not know to me at the time of the edit. I only saw an anonymous IP delete content which is common knowledge (there was no POV-pushing intended), and I restored the info, adding the "Citation needed" tag, and explaining the "not-necesarily" needed mid-step of adding a tag before deleting content, step that I assume would be received in good faith. Thanks to the editors for the explanations here given.--Coquidragon (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems the simple way to resolve this is to find a source and craft a line or two that reflects it. Best one I know of is...

The Fourth Part of the World: The Race to the Ends of the Earth, and the Epic Story of the Map That Gave America Its Name by Toby Lester (Simon and Schuster, 2009)

That source's Preface gives a good overview of what was called what and when, especially with regard to the name "America" and what that was used to describe at the time. The e-book is available (free) at the above link so everyone involved can read the source for themselves. There are other sources but that one is a particularly good book - well written, well researched and professionally published. Everything subsequent is a content dispute. Stalwart111 02:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing issue is already done, actually. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then I have nothing further to contribute! LOL. It's actually a very good book - well worth a read. Stalwart111 02:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And my impression was that everything else was a content dispute. Am I wrong? Stalwart111 03:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a review of a block on user User:NinaGreen. This editor was indeffed by User:Jehochman for "spam". There is a discussion at Jehochman's talk page. I don't see a policy basis for this block, or where there was any warning given. —Neotarf (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spam isn't the right term. Disruption is though and that's a policy reason to block. I wouldn't have done it indef, myself. But the user needs to back off. They are too invested in the discussion and are disrupting progress.--v/r - TP 03:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not spam in the Spam (electronic) sense: it's spam in the Spam (gaming) sense. Jehochman is saying that stuff like this, repeated on lots of users' talk pages, is disruptive and reasonably close to chat spamming. Note that the block message says Your account is blocked until you...Please take a break, regain perspective, then make a request to be unblocked Clearly Jehochman's not assuming that this will be an interminable block; he's saying "You're blocked until things improve, and then you should ask to be unblocked". Spam (electronic) should be reverted/removed from pages because advertisements for offwiki things are never appropriate, but Spam (gaming), when done like this, is basically a kind of improper canvassing. We don't remove messages just because they were left in a canvassed manner. Finally, everything I'm saying assumes that Jehochman is correct/justified in this decision. Not having investigated, I'm not convinced either way; I'm just trying to ensure that Jehochman's words aren't misinterpreted or misapplied. Nyttend (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The action of NinaGreen is unacceptable and I was going to leave her a message myself until I saw that they had not only been blocked, but this ANI case had been opened. However, IMO the block is impetuous and punitive. The user should have been engaged in discussion first and accorded an opportunity to respond. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The block is justified for disruptive conduct. Looking at the contributions of NinaGreen, it is clear that they are filling pages after pages with their idiosyncratic views about the arbitration process, thereby disrupting and preventing discussion of these issues by others, including after arbitrators asked them to stop. This is an adequate warning, which in any case is not necessary for ordinary blocks. I assume that Jehochman will lift the block as soon as NinaGreen confirms convincingly that they will no longer disrupt discussions.  Sandstein  08:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link Sandstein, providing additional background. Perhaps the block is justified after all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• To be honest I was at the point of making this same call (indef block for pointy and disruptive edits after warning) myself. Frankly I have grave problems with editors using that page (or this one) to rehash their personal dislike of ArbCom, its decisions, or AE actions. It is unacceptable and the fact that single purpose throw-away troll accounts[53] are now being used to disrupt that page does not help Nina's case one bit--Cailil ^talk 10:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I find it rather worrying that Neotarf, who was also told to back away from this review for the same sort of problematic contributions, has raised this review. In any case, I agree with the comments above that this block is well-founded (and probably overdue). AGK [•] 11:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Incredibly obviously a valid, reasonable block ES&L 12:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user Mikemikev is edit-warring at the race and genetics article using multiple Korean IPs, all static IPs. The Korean IPs and behavior, especially some of the edit summaries, make these WP:DUCK blocks. The IPs used up to this point are: 125.141.105.62 (talk · contribs), 218.232.82.76 (talk · contribs), and 118.219.86.87 (talk · contribs). Page should be semi-protected as well for a longer period, previous was for three days.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two-day old account from Santiago, 200.120.73.176, stumbled upon the Holocaust in Poland with absolutely no interest in the subject.[54] Began by removing names of historians and citations,[55][56] almost from the get-go using abusive edit summaries (please look around, he writes abusive summaries with virtually every other edit he makes: "laughable", "horror show", "subjective waffle", "pointless", "preaching", "puffery", "completely absurd" and so on). Now, when reverted,[57] becomes hysterical, starts screaming,[58] and removes even the {{cite journal}} formatting, blanket-reverts quotations from reputable historians etc. I can clearly see an agenda, but would not go as far as to suspect a sockpuppet of an established user. However, if you look closely at the nature of his edits, they are borderline disruptive almost all the way through, and very standoffish.[59] Poeticbent talk 06:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking some of these edits, I get the impression that this person is trying to slim down the article by getting rid of chaff. For example, the Bryan Gaensler edit ("laughable") makes a good point, and it is rather ridiculous to make the claim that he's removing; this isn't abusive. Regarding Yad Vashem (this edit, he has a good point about this being opinion (unless I'm missing something, "Righteous Among the Nations" isn't something with strict criteria), and the later edit makes a sensible comment about not everyone getting recognised. Here he removes something that, in all fairness, really doesn't belong — good encyclopedia articles just say that something's the fact, or they say that it's disputed, but when they can use footnotes like ours, they don't mention specific authors in the text unless they're focusing on the authors themselves, which isn't the case here. Nyttend (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries are abusive, not the edits. Poeticbent talk 06:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out errors in articles is not abusive. Correcting mistakes is not disruptive. What is the agenda that you clearly perceive? 200.120.73.176 (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are the summaries abusive? I've put "rmv puffery" in an edit summary quite often. ES&L 12:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, Nyttend, am I missing something here? You refer to a comment the IP supposedly made about Yad Vashem, but then link to an article about Bryan Gaensler (what's he got to do with this request here?). ?. And *there are* actually pretty strict criteria for "Righteous Among the Nations", although I guess one could say that "there are no strict criteria for winning a Nobel Prize" just as well. It is not up to Wikipedians to judge what is "opinion" and what is "fact", but rather to report what reliable sources say. If there's some issue with WP:UNDUE or something that's one thing, but this does not appear to be the case here. It's more just that the IP doesn't understand/doesn't like standard Wikipedia policies (personally I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the edit summaries, but letting them know what the policies are would be a good thing). Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two mistakes by me. (1) I meant to link this diff, which is definitely about Yad Vashem. (2) I always thought it was a general term for non-Jews who opposed the Holocaust, and the intro to righteous Among the Nations, "an honorific used by the State of Israel to describe non-Jews who risked their lives during the Holocaust to save Jews from extermination by the Nazis", seemed to confirm what I was thinking. I didn't scroll down, so I failed to understand that it's a title that's officially awarded to specific people. Just please note that the Bryan Gaensler edit is somewhat relevant, since it was one of the diffs that Poeticbent raised, and I still agree with my original statement about "laughable" not being abusive in this context. Nyttend (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for Poeticbent, but as far as I'm concerned, I don't care about the edit summaries. It's the edit warring and the refusal to engage in meaningful discussion that's irking me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite an urgent request to refrain from from personal attacks, 81.106.127.14 has again directed a personal attacks at me. His latest is here:

"English is your second language and having tidied up many of your edits it is clear that you struggle with grammar, idiom and syntax." This is an ad hominim attack, instead of constructive discussion.

Previously he attacked me here, for which he was reported and blocked.

I suspect 81~14 to have used various accounts previously:

• 81.106.127.14 (10 nov 2011 - present)
  • One block
• 81.107.150.246 (11 nov 2010 - 2 oct 2011)
• Langdell (4 april 2010 (one edit))
• 81.106.115.153 (25 nov 2009 - 6 july 2010)
• 81.109.10.218 (4 feb 2009 - 23 nov 2009)
• 81.109.11.33 (2 july 2008 user-account Langdell and IP - 1 jan 2009)
• Langdell (7 aug 2005 - 21 oct 2008 / 4 april 2010 (one edit))
  • Two blocks

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You "warned" someone for personal attacks for calling you "Mr Jonathan"?? Whuh? Your primary diff at the top of this report most certainly does not show a personal attack. A slight sprinkling of 3 year old diffs certainly is not proving anything that you're claiming ES&L 12:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a longer history preceding this; my tolerance of his behaviour has become quite limited. See:

• User talk:Joshua Jonathan: diff warning
• User talk:History2007: diff (including hint of long-term editing)
• User talk:Tao2911: diff

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Summary

@Zero0000, has reverted[60] my edit[61] on the specious pretext that it is "editing against consensus".

The article is part of an arbitration case. The content of this edit has been "discussed" extensively on talk page (most recently here), On numerous occasions I have requested that WP:RS would be provided to support the assertion that providing specific details of this tangentially related subject, are WP:DUE in the context of THIS article\subsection. No WP:RS have been provided to support it, only claims that it is and Synth through WP:RS showing that it is relevant to the the tangentially related subject, the Peel Plan, which is obvious and where it is covered.(additionally, introduction of cherry picked details here introduce issues of WP:NPOV)

Since no policy based arguments were provided, productive discussion didn't took place and the editors supporting those details has very long editing history within the scope of this arbitration case, I have requested DRN[62] for un-involved supervision. Again no WP:RS and no participation.

User:Zero0000, revert under the pretext of "consensus" of involved editors, is misleading (there is no consensus), and is nothing but POV pushing and coatrack decoration, ignoring long process of attempt to resolve this, that resulted in no policy based argument i support of inclusion or any compromise. This process of "jerking off"(sorry for the bluntness, but it is, its more than 50K of the same thing) is not conductive toward normal editorial process and only promote editing warring.

I request that either Zero0000 be warned or the issue of policy vs "consensus" be addressed, thanks. --PLNR (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Zero0000

This is a content dispute that does not belong on this board. However, now that it is here, I'll describe the situation.

A committee in 1937 proposed a partition of Palestine. The earlier text (for quite a while) said there were "provisions for the relocation of both Arab and Jewish populations to areas outside the borders of the new states". This was a severe violation of NPOV, since the proposed population movement was almost entirely (over 99.4%) in one direction. However, PLNR has single-mindedly refused to allow this distortion to be corrected. The discussion starts at Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine#1937 Peel Commission transfer and keeps coming back in later sections due to PLNR's obsession. First he claimed the primary source doesn't have the numbers (it does), then that there were no secondary sources (two were provided and one added to the article), then that the detail wasn't important (who can imagine). It can be seen that although a few people thought the population movement should be completely removed, nobody supported PLNR's desire to present it in a grossly misleading fashion. I have no time for this sort of wilful misleading of readers. Zero^talk 10:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response by PLNR.

This not a content dispute, this about policy and POV pushing. Unless Zero can produce WP:RS that will show that those details are WP:DUE in the context of the UN Plan.(not Peel Plan)

I already covered the context and notability of the issue at hand in the DRN summary [63]. As for what Zero linked, it is the prelude or the beginning of the game of sources. First he added[64] cherry picked sentence from a primary source to "clarify" the plan, with something that in his words "Quite a lot of authors don't even mention"(which is correct, i never seen those details mention in the context of UN plan, however, they are covered in the Peel plan analysis) my argument that question of "balance" should be addressed in the context of the full Peel report, and not implied through a direct quote, from primary source, of a select clause, of one of the recommendations and without proper context(which introduce POV issue), while going into the Peel plan details is undue. It was ignored by claiming the holly grail of WP:RS.

I tried to compromise [65] by providing a more concise overview of all the Peel Plan recommendations, without undue details which had no impact on the UN plan and introduce POV issues. However, the specific numbers were reintroduced, this time claiming the disproportion of the plan has to be mentioned( I requested WP:RS that sate that conclusion about the plan to avoid WP:SYN), claiming that "exchange" in "it proposed that land and population "exchanges" should be carried out ..." implies 'roughly equal exchange' and thus must be explained(I suggested replacing it with a synonymous term like "transfer") and because he preferred "more precise" account(I argued WP:UNDUE, requesting anything to support that inclusion of Peel Plan details is in the context of the UN plan), no they wanted the full quote per WP:RS.

Finally, after I moved to remove due lack of WP:RS supporting the SYN, a WP:RS was dug up which provided the conclusion that was thought out from the start, to present why the Arab rejected the plan. Which is fine, however, instead of simply concise version of it, they insisted to include a full quote and exposition presenting the Arab POV in full details (which is exactly what happened before with another paragraph, in which WP:RS was dug up of undue event to push a point of view inside direct quotes.

I tried to reach a comprise, I tried DRN, and I am tired of this charade and tendentious editing. I wish a simple policy based issue be addressed here. The validity of the inclusion of those details Zero added, without WP:RS which would show that they are DUE in the context of the UN plan\background section.--PLNR (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• I have edited the posts above to remove excessive HTML, formatting, and section headers. AGK [•] 11:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems like this would be best raised at WP:AE as a request for enforcement of WP:ARBPIA. AGK [•] 11:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the Html, I wrote the post in the edit warring noticeboard, but then I noticed it was narrowly defined as WP:1RR or WP:3RR. Also I didn't use WP:AE because I had no idea what clause I need to cite there.--PLNR (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you haven't, because there has been absolutely no breach (by Zero, at least) of any ARBPIA clauses. This is a simple content dispute, requiring no admin involvement and certainly no AE action. RolandR (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Creative factor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Corporate cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Nutshell: I'm looking at what seems transparently a major COI issue from what is either a pair of meatpuppets or a sock group. I need help determining the best steps forward.

User:Creative factor is a new account pursuing an old agenda - removing negative content from JS Group (stuff like this). (We've dealt for years with either a series of obvious corporate employees or one persistent one.) When that failed, he narrowed his focus to a specific section on the company's CEO (see Talk:JS_Group#Deletion). Accordingly, with reasonable concerns, the content on the controversy was moved to a new article on said CEO. Immediately, User:Corporate cat appeared to try to have it removed - first through requesting deletion and then through targeted excision, removing not only the controversy but also reference to the subject's sister, whom he says the subject has disowned. He also immediately began working on articles related to a JS Group rival (seriously), copy-pasting content from the company's own publications to shoehorn in allegations about its CEO (the same issue which Creative factor had objected to at JS Group). Today, Creative factor visited the article Jahangir Siddiqui which Corporate cat has been whitewashing and pulled the same content - not only the material related to the lawsuit, but reference to Siddiqui's sister. He also uploaded a (now deleted) copyvio image for the article Aqeel Karim Dhedhi, which Creative factor has been working and recreated today after its deletion earlier. (History has now been restored.) He used the picture Creative factor uploaded.

Given the timing of edits, this may be more meat puppetry than sockpuppetry, but I am not as experienced in evaluating SPIs as I am copyright issues. Regardless of SPI, I note, the COI is massive and transparent. There is a tandem goal to clean up after one company and slur its rival - the goal is not "to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia" but to advance the interests of his/their employer - perhaps in retaliation for the alleged behavior I linked above? (link again)

I've just blocked User:Creative factor temporarily for persisting in blanking content, but I think a more workable solution needs to be reached. I'm not sure what that would be - perhaps block the newer account (Corporate cat) and impose a topic ban on Creative factor limiting him to the talk pages of articles related to JS Group and its rival? Whatever we do, it is entirely reasonable to expect that new accounts will block up to continue this agenda. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be quite happy to block each and every account that's involved in this, as Moonriddengirl says, they're not here to build a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, even if they're managing, just, to skirt around policies that would actually get them blocked quickly. It might be useful for the community to agree to discretionary sanctions for these articles, so that users coming to the project in future can be informed of the sanctions, warned if they engage in such behaviour and then blocked if they continue. Just a bit easier that coming here time and time again, as I've a feeling this is going to run and run no matter what happens here today. Nick (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And do it begins. :/ [66]. The first blatant sock trying to force its way. Nick, I agree with you - this is going to keep happening. Discretionary sanctions might be the best way forward. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ARBCOM has already authorized Discretionary Sanctions for all articles related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and I guess this one also comes under that scope. -- SMS ^Talk 16:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Would someone please review this user's actions in repeatedly adding comments to my talk page when I've said that I don't want them (either there or directly in my archives) and threats to harass me, on- and off-wiki, if I don't stop removing the comments? Diffs:

• My talk page: initial edit I remove the comment it's readded threat of harassment another threat of harassment another post I explain that I am removing the thread per WP:REMOVE and don't take kindly to threats he adds it back Crisco 1492 reverts (and warns him about edit-warring) Hector comes back again Iselilja undoes the edit, saying “please stop this” Cirt warns Hector about harassing me Hector comes back to my talk page with more threats of harassment over the next six months

• editing my talk page archives: Archive 21, I tell him not to, Archive 23 ("we can spend a lifetime arguing about it"), he does it again, The Rambling Man undoes his edit and warns him about badgering me.

HectorMoffet seems to think that I have to keep messages from him on my talk page or in my archives as a matter of public record, no matter who points out to him that I can remove them if I wish (something he has done for messages to him, I note). I don't see why I should have to put up with threats of on- and off-wiki harassment because I won't bow to his demand to have his criticism of me in my user page archives. After all, he's already called me the "TFA fuhrer" and taken his criticisms of me not just to Jimbo's talk page but the talk page of a Signpost editor and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bencherlite, so it's not as though he hasn't made his views widely known already - there is no need, apart from harassment, for him to carry on editing my talk page like this. Bencherlite^Talk 15:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The supposed RFCU is straight up harassment by HectorMoffet. As Crisco notes in it, he seems intent on committing suicide by admin. Resolute 15:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't call it suicide by admin, necessarily, i assume he's just pissed off about something. He's apparently not listening to advice from several other people, so I've blocked him until he agrees to knock it off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Floquenbeam. While I've got everyone's attention, can I just spam ANI to point out that WP:TFAR is open for business 24/7/365 for suggestions for "Today's Featured Article". If nobody makes suggestions, then your friendly neighbourhood TFA coordinator/czar/fuhrer has to choose something anyway, so join in today and share the criticism with me! Bencherlite^Talk 15:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's Bigwig. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Արմեն ՄԱՀ (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account. The only article this user has been editing is Hayazn, where he is constantly making changes without discussion. By the way, I'm also worried that the username is innapropriate. It says "Armen MAH". Mah means "death" in Armenian and as long as I know, one of the leading members of this organization is named Armen Mkrtchyan.[67] There might be a connection here. --Երևանցի ^talk 15:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Yerevantsi: Thanks for addressing. The editor seems to be enforcing. He has got like 4 reverts. Suspicious indeed. OccultZone (Talk) 16:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved: Blocked indef. m.o.p 16:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surface wall (talk · contribs) registered a new account yesterday and today has been adding {{refimprove}} tags indiscriminately at a rate of 4 to 5 per minute. The articles seem to be chosen randomly, but in the vast majority of cases the tag is wildly inappropriate e.g. Borat (a Featured article), Becoming the Villainess, Philip N. Diehl, and where it is appropriate it seems to be purely by chance. He continues after both another editor and I have spoken to him on his talk page (to no response) and another editor has issued a level 4 disruption warning. There are now hundreds of articles tagged. Can someone please talk some sense to him and is there a way these edits can be rolled-back en masse? Voceditenore (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Editor has been reported to AIV, stopped editing for the moment, and his edits have all been reverted. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 16:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. No responses to talk page queries and almost bot-like editing doesn't jive well with me. m.o.p 16:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. This was originally posted at WP:AN, but since this is much more of an incident, I've moved it here. Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User Khabboos has continuously and knowingly violated and attempted to violate Wikipedias stance on neutral point of view and rule on editing originally on four pages (Talk:Karachi, Talk:Sindhi people, Jayapala, and Hindu Kush). He has already been warned by other editors that this is not allowed. Even though knowing this he continued to request to have mine and Inayity edits reverted on the Sindhi people page. Following his recent edits on the Hindu Kush (here and here) with his deliberate disruptive editing of a quote in a attempt to push his "agenda" I had personally come to inform him that he is severely risking being banned.

Despite being clearly informed of this, he completely ignored my message and want on his normal ways on the Sindhi people, Jayapala, and Hindu Kush pages. He would again violate NPOV on Hindu Kush, restoring his edit after being told its not allowed and again even after being told by 3 different editors that his edits are not neutral and unsourced. He also claims that the sources provided say "flee" instead of "migrated" but on the contrary both sources say "migrated".

Other disruptive edits include: