Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive810

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Repeated violations of NFCC[edit]

JoBrLa (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added multiple non-free covers to Revised Standard Version, which clearly violate WP:NFCC. Ive warned the user several times about this but the user is ignoring both me and policy. Werieth (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

These covers are fair use. There is no reason to take them down. I'm tired of people taking the articles I have worked so hard to improve and wrecking them. --JoBrLa (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Some of them may be {{PD-text}}. Maybe get input from Wikipedia:Fair_use_review? Some key ideas seem to be images of multiple printings or releases of what looks like the same one topic of the article and/or multiple images of the same item itself. DMacks (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Its just multiple releases of the same book, which isnt allowed. Werieth (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, File:Title Page to RSV.jpg is below the threshold of originality. The few lines of text which can't be read might be copyrightable, but as you can't read them, this should be no issue. I also suspect that File:RSV CE large version.jpg is below the threshold of originality. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Assuming copyright on the images, I am unsure whether the uses of multiple images meets the criterion set forth by 3a of WP:NFCC. —Dark 21:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • As the case is not crystal clear, the proper venue for controversial images is not edit warring for boldly removing them from the article without discussion nor discussing them at ANI, but taking them to WP:NFCR or WP:FFD. No action needed. Cavarrone 05:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Need help dealing with SPA[edit]

The user Catiiitv (talk · contribs) has been on Wikipedia since September 2012. In that time, he/she has created an article about a non-notable band which as been A7ed three times [1], and then subsequently inserted the name of the band into the Outsider music article. The account has made no other edits except to my talk page yesterday and today. I have twice cleared the Outsider music article of redlinked, non-notable bands, yet this editor continues to sneakily try to reinsert this one band in amongst other edits [2]. I warned them about their seeming attempts to promote this non-notable band and their failure to provide a reliable source establishing that this band is notable. Although they responded on my talk page that they would read the guidelines I provided, they again tried to insert the band into the article amongst other edits [3]. The editor seems unwilling to establish notability first and appears intent that this non-notable band be listed on the Outsider music article. A warning and subsequent attempt to discuss the matter with them has failed, so the next step appears to be a block. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The article was A7ed three times nearly a year ago, and the editor tried to work with you on your talk page. If the article is recreated without meeting policy and those edits continue, a warning is in place but for now, no block as its clearly a new editor you are dealing with WP:BITE. Secret account 03:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Bite? They're deliberately sneaking the band's name back into the article by hiding it with other noncontroversial edits, and even did so AFTER I told them about what policies they needed to read and AFTER they were "working with me on my talk page". I do not think this is a new editor. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The user The Master (talk · contribs) is also inserting a false red-linked subject into the Outsider music article. He is copy and pasting the article with 'tine-'tine and numerous errors from before he supposedly corrected the article. I believe his judgement is faulty and clouded. I am working on references for Grand Reefer and apologize for the inconvenience. 17:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Catiiitv (talk)

  • Tine-tine is gone: The Master reinstated a hidden note, "The persons in this list should have a Wikipedia article attached to them. If it redlinks, it will likely be removed.", and should do well to heed their own advice. Grand Reefer likewise will only make the list if there's an article. I don't see any need for administrative action, unless some admin wants to figure out who, in this discussion, should be called "pot" and who "kettle"--a distinction without much difference. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • By the way, it's entirely possible that Grand Reefer will turn blue one day (for longer than a day!), but I doubt that I will live to see that particular day. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I don't normally go to Wikipedia for a quick laugh. You must be on your death bed, Drmies.Catiiitv (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I may well be, but I won't be going to Mobile for my last breath. With my luck, there will be a drizzle of rain and all the streets will be flooded. Good luck with the reefer and Roll Tide. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Catiiitv, please do not re-create the article or insert mentions of the band elsewhere. You admitted in your talk page edit of 03:21, September 28, 2012, now deleted, that you are or were a member of that band. (see WP:SPAM, WP:COI) Even if the day somehow comes that the band is unquestionably notable (and I have an opinion of the likelihood of that event), it wouldn't be appropriate for a band member to write the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing some sanity to this thread, Andrew. Sometimes I wonder why I sometimes still care. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Indonesian vandal range block?[edit]

Re-reporting the problem raised some days ago at ANI (archived), whereby anon editors overwrite content of Indonesian football club articles with fantasy name, badge, achievements, ownership, coaching and playing staff, and match schedule. For the 36 hours that ANI thread was open, there was no vandalism. Once the thread was archived, the vandalism resumed, and since then three further pages, Persih Tembilahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Persenga Nganjuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and a couple of hours ago PSBL Bandar Lampung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) have been overwritten with the same nonsense.

All the IPs are in the range 114.79.16.xxx to 114.79.19.xxx. Would a range block be feasible? or any other helpful suggestions? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Range 114.79.16.0/22 (up to 1024 users would be blocked). Though the range is small, there seems to be several people making useful edits from the range. I think a better choice is page protection. I will semi-protect Persih Tembilahan, Persenga Nganjuk, PSBL Bandar Lampung, and Persema Malang for a week. If the problem persists after that point, please apply for another round of protection at WP:RFPP. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Pity about the range. I suspect they'll just find another unprotected target next time they have spare time to kill. But thank you anyway. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
That's likely to happen, and if it does, please list it at WP:RFPP for some protection. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Narvekar ameya[edit]

Could someone please take a look at this page? It certainly doesn't seem to be an appropriate use of a user talk page. Not looking for any sanctions, just some more experienced eyes to perhaps figure out just what it is and if anything should be done about it. As I am not looking for any sanctions, is it still necessary to leave a notice on his talk page? I don't know how he would find it amid all the Sanskrit. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violations. The material is all copied from various websites. For example, this came from here. Everything from 22 August forward needs to be removed - I will do it as revision deletions. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you maam! Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Fyunck vs. diacritics[edit]

In octu oculi canvassed the Serbian WikiProject so I noticed this. I'm not sure if they should be sanctioned for that, but anway. The more egregious piece of flamebaiting is Fyunck(click)'s edits to random articles about Serbia referring to Ana Ivanović just to remove the diacritic from the surname: at "Grobari" last night and at "Serbian culture" two weeks ago. I've brought up the latter recently at WT:UE#diacritics flamefest, and there's a bit more detailed description of the general problem there, including a link to two extended discussions.

IMO Fyunck's behavior is now well beyond the normal content disputes - they seem to have been on what appears to be a crusade against even the most trivial of the diacritics. This has been going on for over a year now - I think I first noticed this at Talk:Saša Hiršzon in February 2012, but it could be earlier.

We've all seen it escalate in two other cases of the anti-diacritics clique - User:LittleBenW and User:Kauffner. Harping and harping on the same point until they hit a wall.

This pattern of editing Wikipedia just to prove a point needs to stop. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd support an indefinite TBAN on diacritics for Fyunck, similar to the one on his friend LBW. Continuing to fan these flames after what has already happened (including to LBW) is just plain suicidal. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • How many different RFCs and other discussions have there been over the last couple of years? How many more will it take before Fyunck(click) gives up their crusade and recognises the consensus? Edits like this and this change spelling "per wiki consensus and wiki tennis project"; surely Fyunck(click) is the only editor who interprets the result of this RfC and this one as anything other than "stop removing diacritics". bobrayner (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I actually didn't know until just now that one of the ringleaders of the clique was also community-banned recently. Does Fyunck still not see where this is going? Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I actually wouldn't go so far to say that we have complete consensus on the matter of diacritics. For example, Herostratus' comments in the Fontang RFC have some decent counter points to what is the organic consensus. At a minimum, it is a worthwhile discussion to have. I do however think that we have a consensus that this kind of behavior is grounds for an indefinite topic ban. IOW Fyunck(click)'s disruptive behavior is not doing anything to aid this discussion. Heck, it may be argued that it should stop because it will prejudice people against any argument that he supports! --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd agree with that; good points. bobrayner (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree too. But I should point out that Joy's op left out arguably the single worst case (see here and here), although it centered around macrons in romanized Japanese rather than diacritics in general. Just aside that if you're gonna include Kauffner you should probably include JS as well. ;-) Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute. It's not like I'm doing this to all kinds of articles... I'm putting in direct links to Ana Ivanovic, an article that by consensus is sitting at Ana Ivanovic. And why? It was brought to my attention that editor Colonies Chris was direct linking "thousands" of articles. Every time I turned around another one popped up on my watch list. Did Joy or In ictu oculi complain about all those direct links? They knew of them since I kept pointing them out. But no, so I direct link "only" the Ana Ivanovic articles and an ani is called for? Wow. We even had this the last time IIO complained where others chimed in with "We should list it here the way we have it in our article" and "you know very well that this question has been bandied about on Talk:Ana Ivanovic and the current consensus is not to use the accent." Why am I being singled out by User:Joy? You'll note I'm not reverting diacritic articles left and right, you can check the stream of complaints to administrators I have had to make against IIO, so his stuff is meaningless to me. Joy on the other hand should know better and should bring up something recent other than "consensus established" Ana Ivanovic. My behavior is not disruptive, I am simply doing what others are doing but in this case it seems to be against what Joy likes, and because he's an administrator his bias on the situation is showing it's colors. That's really unfair. I have no problem talking about this situation but it would sure be nice to see some different folks, away from the fray, willing to discuss it here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea what you're talking about with Colonies Chris. I reverted your edit to Serbian culture pointing you to WP:NOTBROKEN two weeks ago. Nevertheless, you proceeded to make these kinds of glaringly contentious and pointless edits, despite the year and a half of history of disagreement in the exact same topic area. Did you seriously expect someone to more explicitly notify you of how this is wrong? Or were you just doing drive-by edits with no regard to what happens next? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually you are referring to a post made by an editor who happened to find an edit I made, reverted it and I reverted it back. Then he posted this exchange where you saw it. If you have no idea about Colonies Chris (CC) then you aren't reading all the back and forth and problems I'm having with IIO and his disruptions, and you are being biased against me because it's something you don't like. Otherwise you wouldn't be bringing items up from years ago. Did you or will you issue warnings to all others who do thousands of direct links on a regular basis or is this because it was brought to your attention by an editor with a huge history against me? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

One other thing of note. Administrator User:Joy states that I have "been on what appears to be a crusade against even the most trivial of the diacritics." I don't know what he means about that. If he means I !vote a particular way when I see a rm or rfc, then I see nothing wrong with that at wikipedia. If he means I now revert any and every diacritic I see, then he would be lying. If he means that when rm's conclude with an article name change, that I revert that article name, that would also now be a fabrication. But as an administrator, if he's going to pick on direct linking, just because he doesn't like it, and do nothing about direct linking by other editors because he does like it, then that is biased and unfair to me, and unbecoming his administrative badge. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

JFTR I don't "dislike direct linking", doing such a thing is simply a violation of WP:NOTBROKEN. Doing it en masse is suspect of WP:NOTHERE, doing it en masse in a topic area where you know that it is likely to annoy people is WP:POINT. Even if we all somehow disregard all history, and take your being oblivious to these issues now at face value, it's still a disruptive act that one should apologize for, but instead you resort to trying to throw mud at others (straw man, ad hominem). I think you've merely proven my point that there's no apparent benefit in the community continuing to tolerate you in this matter. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I am really not liking the tone you are setting in this conversation. I'm "throwing mud" at others because I see an extreme bias of you to this situation. You seem to be willing to apply rules but only if it fits your liking. At least as far as Ana Ivanovic is concerned. Did you read those other posts agreeing with me that they should be directly linked. Did you check to make sure how many were created since Ana was moved to her present location and that needed to be corrected for a long time now that I finally got around to fixing? Certainly I can apologize and certainly I can say I won't change any more en masse to their direct links. But on the obverse if I see even one person change multiple instances of direct links in the future I would expect that if I reported it to you that you would come down with the same thunder and lightning that you are doing to me now. I would expect you to be even-handed. I would expect the same warnings on their talk pages regardless of which direction the diacritics took. I would expect up to date diffs. That would show me good and fair intentions instead of one-sidedness. Go ahead and ask me all my views on diacritics and see just how much of a "crusade" I'm on to verify that ridiculous statement. I'm an open book for queries from all, except one or two editors who I have been told to stay away from. It's not like I have something to hide or that I act hypocritically from one situation to the next. I try to be fair in accessing things and I try do do what many others do on a regular basis with no repercussions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
An article can be moved from one title to another, but that never means that all references to the old title should be replaced with the new one. I don't know who you discussed this with, but it wasn't anyone with an actual knowledge of WP:R. That you would endeavour on such a replacement, without reading the generic rules, and regardless of the specific circumstances (contentious topic area), because some undetermined people told you so or because some other undetermined people are doing something else "with no repercussions", is proof enough that you lack the judgement to be editing in a contentious topic area. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I never said I was perfect. But your statement can work both ways. A particular editor has been told over and over that he is failing to apply the same standards to all articles and that he is singling me out for his complaints (we are talking 1000's of making sure links are direct vs my 100s), and that same editor comes running to you or to places you frequent to complain (and make no mistake, that is why you are here). We have other editors agreeing that my direct links are how it should be (and i gave you that diff).
Fyunck(click) — continues after insertion below
I found no diffs in what you wrote earlier, but I did find a piped link to Talk:Serbia at the 2012 Summer Olympics where I found no agreement that would give you carte blanche to go about your disruptive stripping of diacritics. Exactly one person's opinion there, GRuban's, was strictly in agreement with this approach, and a few more could be interpreted like that, but on the whole it's moot at best because several opinions there are predicated on matters of consistency - and Ana Ivanovic is indeed currently inconsistent with the rest of the encyclopedia! Heck, the mere fact that it's the middle of the summer in the northern hemisphere, and that number of respondents there was smaller than the number of respondents to other RfCs, should have given you at least a trivial bit of pause. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Yet, I probably shouldn't expect much attention to the spirit of quorum given Talk:Ana_Ivanovic/Archive_6#Requested_move_2012_.231... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
If you don't take all that into consideration before bringing this to an/i, then perhaps you lack the judgement to be administrating this. Because I'm being judged on an unlevel playing field. I don't know where this tone of contempt is coming from, rather than trying to understand what this particular situation is, but it is unfair. You come up with wording like "his friend LBW"... he's not my friend...and why would you bring that up? Do you have disdain of anyone who disagrees with you? I notice you go right to asking for a ban, you don't come to my talk page and ask the reasons why something is being done. I disagree with you on !votes so I must be banned. I do what some others are doing with impunity and I must be banned. Seemingly most unfair. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
You're ranting at the wrong person here. Please read more carefully who wrote those comments. (If I was cynical, I'd ask you whether you are trying to reinforce the impression of yourself as careless...) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
You know it's really easy to get into a judgement "tit for tat" thing. I can honestly say I don't like doing this as it makes me uneasy accusing fellow editors. There are many many wiki guidelines that are ignored every day. Some are contested and some are not. We all know this to be true. What is policy one day changes the next. I truly believe that if an article changes to its diacritic form, and editors start changing all the direct links to conform to that, that no one would care; that that editor would never see the inkling of an an/i. Why, because I have seen it and it's what made me figure, to be fair it should work both ways. I didn't do direct linking until I started seeing all the changes to other articles. If things are done fairly and openly I tend to abide by results. I'm not quite sure what's happening here with this whirlpool. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I think I fundamentally disagree with your notion of tit for tat - we shouldn't support the idea that things change arbitrarily at a whim of any partial choice. We shouldn't have groups of tag teams at each others' throats all over the place. That's the definition of disruptive behavior. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Groups of tag-teams? I'm not sure what this means? Both sides of the issue have a few editors that get involved more than others to be sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Folks, Fyunck actually has a "full house"; WP:OWN, WP:POINTY, WP:IDHT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, on his hand, ultimately adding up to WP:GAMING. He has been at odds with the greater community of editors for a long time now, and has only been saved from lengthier blocks or bans by being smarter (more soft-spoken and sophisticated) than for instance currently banned/blocked editors GoodDay and LittleBenW. Overall, though, his behaviour is a nuisance to the project. He has been waging a retreating (edit) war to the brink of being blocked for edit-warring over individual articles, but stopped just short of it, for instance on:

Dozens of editors have reverted Fyunck over time, dismissing the additions as trivialities and insults to readers, but he keeps re-adding it. Fyunck has, possibly worried about being blocked for edit-warring, given up the above articles, and is now – as far as I know – only "protecting" the article on Ana Ivanovic (history) from diacritics; the latest altercation there was with Mareklug on 28 July 2013. (This is the one article that In ictu oculi has referred to several times in this context.)

I think it's time to seriously discuss whether a topic ban on diacritics would be appropriate.

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This edit and edit summary on Gérard Solvès is rather telling: no reason for changing name throughout.
HandsomeFella (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Note, this is one of two editors (mentioned above) who has been blocked for edit warring on the same issue (both long ago). He has been talked to by multiple administrators for harassing me. And these diffs for a year, year and a half ago are ridiculous. You'll note many had nothing to do with diacritics but whether censorship could take place on wikipedia when items are heavily sourced. A recent rfc decided we could censor here so there's not much to say on that anymore other than items that go against tennis project consensus and additions that the project feels is important to add. I'm not at all surprised to see him post here. In fact I would have been shocked if he didn't. As far as being a nuisance to the Tennis Project I guess you'd have to ask there among my peers... I can't speak for them. I simply try to do my best. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Heh, you conveniently forgot to mention that the other one was you. I have not been "talked to" by multiple administrators. I was asked – once – by an administrator, and I responded that I had mislabeled my report on you as 3rr instead of edit-warring. It did indeed have everything to do with diacritics, only you tried to disguise it as – don't laugh now, folks – "censorship". You know, it's strange that so many editors have "a huge history" with you. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The statement "it's strange that so many editors have "a huge history" with you" is untrue. I only claim to have a history on this with two people...and you are numero uno. I talk to anyone and everyone on my talkpage to come to compromises or change my mind. It happens a lot. But two of you have lost that right because of harassment and lies. Only two I can think of. One of which is extremely vocal and I know influences a lot of editors. There's nothing I can do about that except plod on doing whatever I can and trying to ignore attacks and such. There are plenty of editors I don't agree with 100% of the time but we almost always work through our differences with compromise and an agenda of improving tennis and other articles. Sadly, with two of you that won't work anymore. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Citation needed. Editors coming to your talkpage and asking you why you're carrying out changes against consensus is not harassment, it's how we communicate, although you obviously dont want to listen. It may ultimately lead to warnings to report you – although you label that as "intimidation" and "threats". Comply with consensus, and you'll have no such "trouble". Also, it's not the first time you are accusing others of lying. Can you provide diffs? HandsomeFella (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Fyunck, there is a veritable United Nations Security Council-worth of editors who have found your crusade against diacriticals both wearisome and destructive of the project. Tennis players cannot become a walled garden of articles where the sanctity of the diacritical-free Modern English version of the Roman alphabet is preserved against "foreign" influences. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Orangemike. Seriously, you use this term crusade and I'm wondering if in the last 6 months you're basing this crusade on fact or heresy heresay. Please ask me what my stances are and what I intend to do about them and I think you'll better understand me. I don't recall interacting with you before so I'll take you as fair and balanced in your assessment. You can ask on my talk page to save room here if you like and I'll try to be clear in my answers. You also have to remember that things weren't so clear 18 months ago so my actions on what I do on wikipedia may have changed substantially. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I assume you mean "hearsay", not "heresy". HandsomeFella (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
oops, yes, thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
New spelling is also wrong. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I notice Fyunck's userpage flaunts a quotation from WP:DIACRITICS: "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language". I wonder, therefore, if he has consistently followed usage in English-language reliable sources, regardless of which way it goes? Has he ever supported an RM toward a diacriticized spelling because that is how all the English reliable sources spell it? I'll admit I generally prefer diacritics to none, but I have a consistent, systematic philosophy on this matter: for living people, spell their names the way they spell their own names; for dead people, spell their names according to reliable sources (read: university presses first, personal blogs last, and everything in between defined in order). I'd challenge Fyunck to show up at Talk:Empress Jingu where I recently opened an RM, and where almost all the RSs favour the diacritic spelling, and !vote in favour of the move. Or don't: I'd be happy with evidence that Fyunck has ever supported a single RM in favour of using diacritics. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

In answer to that... I can only say, I don't know. I usually stay in tennis/sports discussions so I can't be sure. I can say that in prior discussions that I have said, even if in English sources it showed only 40% diacritic usage then the article should probably be at the diacritic spelling. One instance is recently I noticed that Bjorn Borg has quite a few English sources spelling it Björn Borg. I would not !vote for moving that page. Would I !vote for keeping it as is? I'd like to think I would. It's why I was against using only the governing bodies of tennis' official name spellings. We had an editor that wanted to base spelling only on that. It didn't seem appropriate to do that at wikipedia, that we use all sources, and I told him thusly. But I don't think that has anything to do with what we are talking about here though. We are talking about an article that has consensus at the English alphabetic spelling where I directly linked those spellings. Editors try to change those links all the time and get reverted, and not just by me. Yeah I get flak for it, but I usually just plod onward to do other things. And it's not like I'm hiding it as I even talk on my user page about it and the fact it seems to be the norm. Except since my direct links seem to go to an article title some don't like, I get picked on more as I scratch my head at the hypocrisy. I pretty much assume now that getting more flak is the norm... but An/i's are a different level of that. I'd go to Talk:Empress Jingu and take a look but at this stage wouldn't everyone just think it's disingenuous? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Frankly I don't think this approach makes any sense, it can be argued that you're just taunting him now. I never intended for this discussion to spawn any new tendentious or disruptive behavior, it was supposed to put an end to one particular set of it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Close thread and fix source of problem - although this is long-running, this is a content dispute fixed on one article per Talk:Ana_Ivanovic/Archive_6. The reason I notified WikiProject Serbia is that this affects Serbia articles, but the solution I have proposed at WikiProject Serbia is upgrading the Serbia/Croatia/Bosnia MOS, not running to ANI. As far as the ground zero article goes, you, Joy, expressed the problem here:

I see the WP:TENNISNAMES clique managed to push their agenda through here as "consensus" with barely anyone else noticing it in time to object. I'm requesting we revert this bad move because it's got nothing to do with WP:CONSENSUS. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

However irritating it may be to have this variant surface after 2 WP:SNOW RfCs WP:TENNISNAMES and WP:TENNISNAMES2 Fyunck(click) believes he is within his rights to go round 150 articles deleting the ć from just one Serbian name. Then there's two solutions, either WP:TENNISNAMES3 to cover the new variant, or a simpler solution: Joy, Bob, Mike, Hijiri 88, someone, do as Fyunck himself has suggested and if we think singling out one Serbian for removal of ć from 150 articles is not consistent, then put in a RM for the ground zero article. I realize that you didn't have time to comment on the last RM before a non-admin made a quick close (following Fyunck's request for a quick close) last time, but this would take the problem off ANI's plate and Fyunck has already said he will follow article title if title is ć. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Again, no, this is really just a slippery slope to a tag team attitude. Cf. WP:TAGTEAM. Besides, we have absolutely no reason to believe that resolving one particular content dispute one particular time will end this whole madness. The pattern of behavior where one doesn't have it their way and then they keep incessantly finding ways to get around that - is a sign of battleground mentality that is fundamentally incompatible with the process of making an encyclopedia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Joy, well we'll have to agree to disagree, going by either RM or RfC process WP:TENNISNAMES3 or fix MOS:SERBIAN is actually a way of avoiding WP:TAGTEAM behaviour - rather than waving the topic ban stick at ANI. And process isn't Tagteam, unless we count the WP:SNOW in WP:TENNISNAMES and WP:TENNISNAMES2 as one giant tag team - which it wasn't; large number of new faces.
What I would like to see from Fyunck would be not a change on his belief in "ATP names" (he's entitled to his opinion) but that WP:BRD applies to him too. If Fyunck was willing to accept that his edits were subject to WP:BRD we wouldn't have needed WP:TENNISNAMES2, since it was the understanding WP:BRD if reverted, put it straight back in with an edit summary complaining about censorship that made WP:TENNISNAMES2 necessary, all for one editor. If Fyunck accepted that WP:BRD applies to him too we wouldn't be here, now.
This can be solved off-ANI by either (a) RM, (b) RfC (c) MOS tighten. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Close situation can be solved away from ANI. At this moment in time I would think that a topic ban for Fyunck(click) would serve counterproductivly. It is true that a number of people have been banned due to their activity in this issue, but that was due to their unreasonable behavior (eg socking). Agathoclea (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    Battleground mentality is an issue of course, but let us see if it continues after this particular issue is solved. At this moment in time I am actually quite hopeful. Looking at the current infobox mess this seems quite harmless. Agathoclea (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
If so, what do you think we should do about those references to Ivanovic's article? Do we ignore them, roll back those edits, do we expect Fyunck to undo it, something else? What happens the next time he decides to change 100+ articles, who cleans that up? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Unapproved BOT Activity[edit]

See Wikipedia:Help_desk#Lists_being_broken_into_individual_articles_for_no_reason The user seems to be set on mass creating pages. While the Solar eclipse pages have since been deleted, a quick look at the user's contribs shows they're still doing the same activity. They claim they're not running a bot, however it seems clear there's no human way possible for the mass creation of pages. In fact right after claiming not running a bot, it shows they ran one to fix the problem that was pointed out with another mass creation. Account was linked to darafshbot which currently shows unapproved and blocked, but is where the templates he's using are being stored. Caffeyw (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Also just for reference Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/DarafshBot Caffeyw (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't run bot! i use this template and creat article manually. this is illicited? Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk)‍ 10:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
There's no way to have multiple pages changed/created within the same minute that is humanly possible that I'm aware of. Even if it's not an actual bot and just a tool, there's no way each and every change/creation is being approved by you. This would make whatever tool being used fall under the bot policy. Also mass creations are prohibited under the policy without approval. While I'm assuming good faith on your part the closing reason for denying approval of your darafshbot seems to be coming to mind. WP:COMPETENCE Caffeyw (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I repeat again: "I dont run bot or use tool, i creat this article manually". but if is illicited, i don't creat more pages. Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk)‍ 12:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that the edits could have been done manually. But they are so so fast and so regular that they are indistinguishable from a bot (specially 24 August). Consequently, they fall under bot policy even if they are done manually, and they are "illicited" (you mean "illicit"). I would like others to give an opinion:

edits per minute when creating new pages
22 August edits-per-minute

13:29 4
13:28 2
13:27 2
...
...
03:49 3
03:48 6
03:47 4
03:46 4
03:45 8
03:44 4
03:42 3
03:41 9
03:40 2
03:39
03:38
03:37 2
03:36 2
03:35
03:34 4
03:33 3
03:32 3
03:31 1
03:30 8
03:29 1
03:28
03:27
03:26 1
03:25 4
03:24 1
03:23
03:22 3
03:21
03:19 2
03:18 2
03:17 1
03:16 4
03:15 3
03:14 3
03:13 1
03:12
03:11
03:10
03:09 5
03:08 2
03:07 6
03:96 4
03:05 1
03:04 2
03:03 2
03:01 1

24 August edits-per-minute
06:07 1
06:08
06:09
06:10
06:11 1
06:12 1
06:13 1
06:14 1
06:15 1
06:16 1
06:17 1
06:18 1
06:19 1
06:20 1
06:21 1
06:22 1
06:23 1
...
...
07:22 2
07:23 3
07:24 4
07:25 2
...
07:37 1
...
07:45 1
...
07:56 1
07:57 2
07:58 1



27 August edits-per-minute
11:19 1
11:20 
11:21 4
11:22 3
11:23 6
11:24 3
11:25 1
11:26 2
11:27 4
11:28 4
11:29 4
11:30 4
11:31 4
11:32 4
11:33 4
11:34 1
11:35 1
11:36
11:37 2
11:38
11:39
11:40 1
11:41 3
11:42 3
11:43 3
11:44 3
11:45 3
11:46 3
11:47 3
11:48 2
...
...
23:11 2
23:12 5
23:13 2
23:15 2
23:16 3
23:18 1
23:21 3
23:22 4
23:23 2
23:24 5
23:25 4
23:26 2
23:30 1
23:31 4
23:32 3
23:33 6
23:34 2
23:36 4
23:43 5
23:44 5
23:45 5
23:46 6
23:47 1

(The articles on solar eclipses are not here because they were all deleted). --Enric Naval (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

P.D.: See also what Caffeyw says about reviewing each edit and approval for mass creation. Post in Wikiproject Iran about mass-creating the village articles, they may like the idea or they may tell you not to do it. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Close thread The user has gone through 4 bot requests officially and had 2 approved. If they wanted to run a bot, they know exactly how. Which means, there is no competence issue and WP:AGF says we take the editor's word that he's not lying if we cannot prove he is. As far as the multiple edits in the span of a few minutes, we have no idea if he's got tabs open in his browser. He could have tabs open with the template, copying and pasting the words in the right boxes. Tough to know for sure.--v/r - TP 12:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Look at the section on the jamoats in the HelpDesk conversation. You can see the template he used has numbers in them. When it was pointed out that he reversed the final two fill-ins, (numbers 11 and 12 if I remember) he went revised the template and ran it again. All where reversed not just one or two. (ie Originally the line was reading there where 13 people, in 133 families instead of 133 people in 13 families.) No matter what the BOT policy applies. Caffeyw (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Question: if he's running an approved bot then why is he claiming to not run one at all? MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 15:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

  • WP:AGF would say that it is a failing of his English, rather than an untruth. His English isn't exactly textbook standard, so it's entirely probable that he mixed up "don't" with "didn't". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm noting his user page has the following "This user runs a bot, DarafshBot. It performs tasks that are extremely tedious to do manually." posted on it. Might not be using it under that username, but it seems it is being used. Caffeyw (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

He was running an unapproved bot. I used the Mediawiki API interface to obtain the exact seconds of each edit.

24 August: edits exactly every 60 seconds, and edits at specific seconds inside each minute

The edits from 24 August, exactly one edit per minute? No, they were exactly every 60 seconds. One edit is off by 1 second, but goes back to normal in the next edit:



The batch of 4 articles per minute? Launched at :10, :20, :40 and :59. See the gaps? They are the places where the script found a problem while processing its input, and skipped the edit:


And in 27 August he said all his edits had been manual...:

  • [74] "i dont run my user for automated"
  • [75] i just use the template and creat articles, manually. i member of BAG in fa.wiki and know this task that runing bot on my account, need approval."

He even awarded me a good faith barnstar, for believing him[76].................. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, now he has changed to Wikipedia:Page Curation, a manual tool. I hope he doesn't return to using the old tool. As far as I am concerned, this issue is closed for me. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As long as he understands mass creates fall under the BOT policy regardless of if he uses a fully automated or not tool then I think the issue is done with. Caffeyw (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

1RR restriction at 2013 Ghouta attacks?[edit]

Greetings, I was wondering if an admin could have a look at 2013 Ghouta attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to see if a 1RR restriction would be warranted. Since information on the subject is rapidly emerging, it would be great if we could avoid full protection on that article, which I fear is the only alternative. No notifications sent, since I am not trying to target any individual here. VQuakr (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.png Note: The article was full protected until 29 September. Dusti*Let's talk!* 09:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of an image under discussion[edit]

DUPLICATE
Please keep discussion at Non free discussion board. NE Ent 10:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would be grateful if somebody could reinstate the "broom" election-symbol image at article Aam Aadmi Party (cf this version), while the image remains under discussion at Wikipedia:NFCR#Multiple_non-free_logos_for_same_organisation.

My understanding is that while an image is under discussion at WP:NFCR or WP:FFD standard procedure is to leave it in place, so (1) people can easily see the image being discussed and its use in situ, and (2) so that the image doesn't get auto-deleted as orphaned content while the discussion is still ongoing.

There is a reasonable discussion to be had that, since this is the image that the party needs to identify itself with on the ballot-paper, this is a image that is significant to the topic of the article (NFCC #8), and the textlogo does not convey the same function (NFCC #1). I accept that others have taken different views; but while the discussion is still open, our convention is to keep the image up.

I have tried to persuade Sitush (talk · contribs) of this (it being he who originally nominated the image for discussion, and has most recently removed it), but to no avail.

I have already made two reverts, so don't want to put it back myself. So I am coming here (even though this may seem a bit trivial for AN/I), to ask an experienced user to take a view and reinstate the image until the discussion at WP:NFCR is formally concluded. Jheald (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. After some to-ing and fro-ing with the image, it was deleted at Commons as being a copyright violation. I then queried at WP:NFR whether or not we could use two non-free images for the purpose of identifying this political party - all perfectly good faith stuff. Jheald reinstated the image during that discussion, it was left for a while and then Seraphimblade removed it following another discussion at Commons which resulted in the alternate image being determined as {{PD-Text}} and thus made the one currently under dispute potentially in breach of NFCC #1. Jheald has been arguing exceptions, which is fine but until the exceptions are accepted by the community this remains a potential breach of our policies. I've said on umpteen occasions that I am not good with image-related stuff but it seems obvious to me that if there is a potential breach then the thing should be removed until that is clarified. Furthermore, Jheald is repeatedly mis-stating the purpose of this image (the party does not need the image on the ballot paper for example, nor does it otherwise use it) and is making some pretty odd claims along the lines that it is impossible to judge on merit unless it is shown in the article. There is no admin action needed here, just a bit of common sense: two discussions at Commons, a good faith centralised discussion at NFR and only one person attempting to keep it in the en-WP article. Let the NFR discussion be closed, by all means, but otherwise this is not a matter for ANI. - Sitush (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User posting copyvio, removing AfD headers, etc[edit]

Special:Contributions/Boss02 does not seem to understand that one can not remove AfD headers. Also he's removing CSD tags for copyright violations, and his files he's uploaded are all currently marked as PUF. Seems he just doesn't understand how to follow Wiki rules. Caffeyw (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Also it appears the account started it's first edit on Aug 8. I'm suspecting user IP 180.149.0.249 is also the same user. They're editing in the same fashion, removing AfD flags, and seem to be interested in the same articles, resulting in the same type of reverts to their changes. Caffeyw (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted one article as a duplicate and closed that AfD in favor of the older article/AfD. I haven't the time now to look at the other stuff, but I think there's some action necessary. —SpacemanSpiff 10:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree the editor is not the most clueful, however I only find removals of PROD tags, which are explicitly permitted (tag removal is exactly how you contest a PROD). Just for the record, can you link the edits where he removed AfD tags? --cyclopiaspeak! 10:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Since Spaceman deleted the articles I can no longer pull up the information. Caffeyw (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Paglu_3_%282014_film%29&action=history will show where the IP has done it not once, but twice removing the AfD flag. An article of course created by Boss02. After doing a little looking at the fact that IPs all in the same close range seem to be doing the same things I'm came across this Sockpuppet_investigations/Niloy229/Archive The naming convention and IP seems to also go along with those listed. Add to the fact they're all interested in the same type of articles "Tollywood" films it seems like this is just an additional sock. Caffeyw (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Just to note that I've cleaned up the copyright issue at Khoka 420. I don't know if it's relevant, but a Niloy229 sock flagged it for copyvio deletion on 4 August, and it was deleted accordingly (unfortunately, in error, since the blog it was supposedly copied from postdates the content). But that doesn't mean the Niloy229 sock didn't want the article, as he had been busily trying a copy-paste move to Khoka 420 (2012 film). If this were certainly a new contributor, I would drop him a friendly notice about what he can and can't do - both in regards to copying content from other sources (as he copied the plot here) and in regards to removing maintenance tags - and proceed accordingly if he continues, but if there is reason to believe this is a sock I would leave that to others. I think it's very plausible. The sock taking action at Khoka 420 (2012 film) and Khoka 420 was User:Don02. I find the history of this article significant - almost significant enough for me to block immediately, but I'll leave that to people with more experience in SPI and, perhaps, time. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I am very much worried about this user. He is working about Bengali Film related article. ( which I do too!). But he is ignoring all wiki policies. His another article Best Movies Of Tollywood , which is totally OR. He may be sock of user:Niloy229 - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 11:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've NAC'd the duplicate AFD for Paglu 3 (2014 film) in favour of the original one which had more participants. I've also replaced the AFD tags at that article with the ones relating to the original AFD which remains open (though heading for a WP:SNOW deletion). Stalwart111 11:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • With a few more minutes of review, I'm seeing enough quacking for me - new account created several days after the block of the last, immediately picks up the actions. Indeffed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • (Non administrator WikiProject India editor's observation) These are regular issues, see this and there are reports in almost every noticeboard. Like others, I also think there are many socks involved here. --TitoDutta 13:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Prizren article fighting[edit]

Hi there, I just want to point out that the article Prizren is in danger. I have spent a lot of time on the past on this article, and there are a few pro serbian radicals who continue to make this article pro serb and removal all other information. I spent a lot of time to collect rare media User_talk:Mdupont#Orphaned_non-free_media_.28File:Prizren_14_May_1934_GermanyLang.ogv.29 that is being removed among other things, I dont have the time to fight this any more, but I do want to ask someone who does to review this. I would suggest to put some type of stop to the heated fighting on this article and put someone neutral in charge of monitoring edits. thanks mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I am the one who removed the files due to excessive non-free files of a town. Werieth (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Seeking topic ban for Hgrosser[edit]

I am seeking a topic ban for Hgrosser (talk · contribs) from further edits related to the non-notable individual Nicole Hamilton, author of Hamilton C shell, also mentioned in C shell#Influence. His sole objective appears confined to calling unnecessary attention to Ms. Hamilton's private life and to her gender transition, contrary to our guidelines.

Edit history:

C shell: 10 edits, beginning 6 March 2013 with this result, and 4 edits beginning 26 August 2013
Hamilton C shell: 2 edits, beginning 25 August 2013
User talk:Hgrosser: Warnings 9 March 2013 and 25 August 2013
User talk:Msnicki: Hgrosser's response 26 August 2013

Though Ms. Hamilton's product appears notable based on multiple print sources, no such sources appear to exist to establish notability for Ms. Hamilton. Further, notability is not inherited nor is there evidence Ms. Hamilton might be notable for other reasons as might apply under WP:ANYBIO. Most of the available sources are Usenet posts and online blogs by her and her friends. All are clearly WP:QUESTIONABLE. The only possibly WP:RELIABLE source is an iTunes recording released by Stanford University of a panel discussion held at Stanford in 2007. But all of the content pertaining to Ms. Hamilton is her speaking about her own life in her own words, making it unmistakably WP:PRIMARY. Ms. Hamilton is simply not notable.

Nonetheless, Hgrosser insists on calling attention to the private matter of her gender transition in the late 90s by inserting her former name in unnecessarily prominent ways into these two articles, doubly so when the main subject isn't even her software. This information is irrelevant to any discussion of her software product and the inclusion is unnecessarily intrusive into a non-notable individual's private life, disrespectful and contrary to our guidelines. Further, he's been warned twice.

From Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."

And from Wikipedia:LGBT#Guidelines, "The Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidelines on identity indicate to refer to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves. ... In cases where a gender variant person was not notable under their prior name, but has subsequently confirmed a different gender identity, the prior name should be limited to the main article. There is likely no need to bring attention to this by adding to the lede or an infobox. (See Do No Harm.)" In this particular case, there is no main article on Ms. Hamilton and no need whatsoever to call attention.

Our guidelines notwithstanding, I'm aware there is always a tabloid fascination among some with the private lives of others, especially when there's a titillating sexual aspect. Hgrosser is not the first editor to have discovered, by comparing early and current documents describing her C shell, that Ms. Hamilton must have changed her name and gender. He's also not the first to decide this fact needed to be shared with the widest possible audience. To avoid having the information come and go in very likely completely inappropriate ways, which by itself would call unnecessary attention, my solution was a footnote to the author's name in the lede of the Hamilton C shell article, stating that she's discussed her transition at the Stanford panel discussion and giving the iTunes citation. If you really, really think you need to know more, you can go listen to her tell her story in her own words.

Hgrosser was the first to insert her former name into the C shell article as well, where it truly is peripheral and completely inappropriate. This resulted in his first warning. But recognizing that if he had tried to insert it into that article as well, others might try also, I chose the more discreet approach of citing only the footnote contained in the Hamilton C shell article in the C shell article. I believe both articles now contain absolutely all that needs to be said on this private matter of this private individual's private life and probably more.

Hgrosser has been warned twice, the second time that if he did this again, I would take it to WP:ANI. Here we are. After the second warning, he decided my citing only the footnote in the C shell article wasn't good enough, and that the whole thing, including the mention of the old name had to go into the C shell article as well. In his defense, Hgrosser argues that the name change is "confusing" and needs to be clarified. But (a) it obviously wasn't too confusing for too long to Hgrosser and (b) we are often confused by the things other people do in their private lives but that does not entitle us to find the answers on Wikipedia.

There is simply no valid encyclopedic purpose to Hgrosser's behavior and it is contrary to our guidelines. The only edits Hgrosser has made to the C shell and to the Hamilton C shell articles have been for the sole purpose calling undue attention to Ms. Hamilton's personal life.

I have no objection to Hgrosser editing either of these articles (or any other) for any other encyclopedic purpose should he ever have one, but I am seeking a topic ban on the subject of the non-notable individual, Nicole Hamilton. Msnicki (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sheesh. The issue is, as Hgrosser describes, that our sources for Hamilton Shell say that it was written by Douglas Hamilton. Our Manual of Style, as expounded ad infinitum above, says we need to say it was written by Nicole Hamilton. There is no way around writing "Nicole Hamilton was, at the time, Douglas Hamilton," and backing this with a reliable reference. We don't have to go into long details about the transition but we absolutely have to write this, otherwise we have an article that says A and a source that says B. And it looks like this is all Hgrosser has done, one sentence, one ref. Far, far less than the wall of text just above. --GRuban (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
(EC) While I appreciate this is a very sensitive area, I don't see the need for a topic ban at this time, the number of edits are small and it seems clear Hgrosser is fully willing to discuss it. Problems can and should be resolved via discussion and WP:Dispute resolution (probably WP:BLP/N) with recognition that given the sensitivity and WP:BLP issues involved, consensus should be reached before any changes are made rather than following BRD. While I agree we should not draw unnecessary attention to the subjects personal life, I think Hgrosser has a point that there is merit to mention the name change in one or both articles in some way since the limited notability which results in the subject being mentioned in the articles comes from the shell and as I understand it, she was involved in the shell before the name change and so people may recognise the older name and be confused, in addition to the fact that other documents including ones written by the subject herself may use her older name. I would note both articles currently use sources which are cited under each name, whether or not these sources are useful I have not looked at. And I am not saying we definitely need to mention both names in both article, simply that it seems to be a valid thing to discuss and we should WP:AGF that Hgrosser wants to make the change not to bring undue attention to the subjects personal life but because they feel not mentioning it causes unnecessary confusion. Whether or not it is necessary to mention and how is of course ultimately something that should be resolved via discussion. Personally, I would agree a footnote is probably best although I would note that the footnote which you seem to support where the transition is explicitly mentioned seems more intrusitive than simply mentioning the name change, but that's neither here nor there at ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh wow, I just noticed the footnote to a footnote of another article inside the huge wall of text: <ref>[[Hamilton C shell#cite note-3]]</ref> . Msnicki, you absolutely can not do that. One article can not cite another Wikipedia article as a reference. Our articles are not reliable sources - they can change at any moment, they are written by anonymous editors, and it is a non-trivial effort to find who wrote any given line. Since Nicole formerly Douglas Hamilton is neither crucial to C Shell nor, as you write, notable enough for her own article, I'm just going to elide her name from the C Shell article and hopefully reduce the field of conflict by half. --GRuban (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Nil Einne, it is not really that I "support" the footnote I've written but the edit history of the article that tells me other editors will be satisfied with nothing less. Case in point, why we are here.
GRuban, the reference in one article to a footnote in the other is certainly not being offered as evidence of anything. It's only at best a "see also" on a minor detail that certainly doesn't need to go into C shell#See also. But to the extent it matters, if you click the link, you learn there is an apparently WP:RELIABLE source. If there is a better way of coding that, I am all for it. Hgrosser raises the concern that a cite note might be renumbered; I tried inserting an template:anchor instead but while wikilinking to it will scroll the page, it will not highlight citation. I am happy to promise to monitor the articles and fix the link if it does get broken. Msnicki (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Followup to GRuban: I just saw this edit. This is an excellent choice. Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban as unjustified. The rest is a content dispute. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Just as the courts, when someone files a frivolous lawsuit, not only dismiss it, but impose sanctions on the filer (such as making him pay the defendant’s attorney fees), I feel there should be some cost to Msnicki for bringing this frivolous/vindictive case, such as perhaps a 24-hour ban on editing. Hgrosser (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    • That's not warranted either. Blocks are preventative not punitive. A one-time overreaction is not something that is sufficiently frivolous to result in any sort of concrete sanction; WP:TROUT at best. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:autovandalbot is malfunctioning and turned rogue against its creator[edit]

TERMINATED: MACHINE UPRISING QUELLED. FOR NOW. AUTOVANDALBOT 15:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC) (nac)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


help my vandal bot went rouge and is now trying to block other bots

please help me fix it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehautobot (talkcontribs) 13:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have gotten the username wrong - the rogue account is User:Tehautobot, which has already been indeffed for a particularly stupid bit of shenanigans. Autovandalbot isn't a real user, so I deleted that bit of vandalism as well. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Mckhan issuing unwanted warnings[edit]

Hi this user Mckhan doesnt agree on the sources that i supply to him on his talk page but instead issues me with warnings. On articles like "Rohail Hyatt" he has reverted my edits and has added no sources to that. While i have given him sources, also on article "Shahid Masood" he was not able to provide me with sources but instead just kept issuing warnings to me.His past record clearly indicates he just wants to add information he feels right. If you can look upon the reverts of these articles i hope you will find the answer and if you also have a look at his contributions mostly are in the form of edit wars — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talkcontribs) 14:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I have yet to see a "wanted" warning - that's why they're warnings. But on the face of it, this seems very much like a content dispute escalating into disruption. It would be helpful if you and User:McKahn would back away from each other and the topic for a bit, let tempers cool down. Then maybe a proper discussion could continue. I see allegations of racial and ethnic bias floating around your talk pages, and that's bothersome - some cooling down time might not be out of order. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ahn Sahng-hong and World Mission Society Church of God[edit]

Hi,

I've been tracking two pages in particular the past couple of weeks. The pages are Ahn Sahng-hong and World Mission Society Church of God. Pretty much every day without fail the user Nancyinthehouse or people who appear affiliated with her revert almost any edits made that quote third party sources critical of beliefs involving the World Mission Society Church of God. Even after experienced editors like MarkMiller stepped in tried to make some of the articles more neutral sounding, the edits were eventually reverted. This has been happening since March. If you look at the Talk section of either page what ends up happening is users like Nancyinthehouse (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), Watts9595 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), and Galemw2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) revert the page to a state that has information either incorrectly cited from sources or cite almost entirely to the World Mission Society Church of God Website. It's really absurd that this is allowed to continue--right now neither page has an objective, third-party view--both are a complete mess. Numerous attempts at discussion are seen in the Talk pages but nothing ever gets settled because these users refer to the cited sources as "lies" and then revert the page.

For example, after Galemw2 was done editing one page: Diff 1 After Watts9595 was done editing the page: Diff 2 After Nancyinthehouse was done editing the page: Diff 3

Here's another diff from the WMSCOG page Diff 4.

If you look further back in the history of the page edits you see that such users have been consistently making massive edits to both pages for the past few months. Please help get this under control, it's just deteriorating the information on Wikipedia.

75.72.176.22 (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

  • The blind are leading the blind there. That talk page is atrociously unclear. Now, I'm not an authority on people who claim to be Jesus (I knew one of them one time but I'm pretty sure it was the heroin doing the talking), but I smell spam when I see it, even if it's Korean, and removed a "bibliography". Are we dealing with a conflict between adherents of the New Covenant Passover Church of God and the World Mission Society Church of God? Perhaps it could be even juicier if we had apostates from all involved parties in there. Or we could ask Dougweller to dedicate yet more of his life to the project. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Diffs have been supplied, very good. Now please notify the other users as described in the large, bright orange information bar at the top of the page. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I haven't received any notification 75.72.176.22. You must notify other users about this. Before I edited these articles, they were all written without neutrality relying on opinions, biased websites, and personal blogs that were all created to slander. So that's why I edited deleting all those UNRELIABLE SOURCES that does NOT meet the requirements of the Policy of Wikipedia. I really wanted to add secondary sources but couldn't find any RELIABLE SOURCES. Then, User Peter1007, Sam Sailor, and Superfly94 blanks the whole page without discussing in the TALK PAGE, using Unreliable Sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ahn_Sahng-hong#References_that_are_all_UNRELIABLE_SOURCES https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God#References_that_are_all_UNRELIABLE_SOURCES mentioned by Galemw2. Watts9595 and I agreed to this, and yet Peter1007, Sam Sailor, Superfly94 did NOT reply to these problematic unreliable sources. They just reverted to their previous edits using these Unreliable Sources. You cannot say that a religion is "CULT" or "HERETIC" in Wikipedia. Basically every edit that they have made defines the religion "CULT" or "HERETIC." Please be neutral. Thanks. Nancyinthehouse (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Nancy, you were the one editor who actually was notified, here. It looks like it was put on your talk page out of sequence, which may be why you did not notice it.
On a different topic, you may wish to familiarize yourself with WP:RS. If you "couldn't find any RELIABLE SOURCES" then one option is to add citation needed tags so that other editors may be alerted and try to find sources. Reliable sources are absolutely required and if they can't be found it may be that the article needs to be reduced to a stub.
On a third topic, I notice that you did not create your talk page initially, but it was created by Peter1007 [92] with the following text: "I'm going to assume that you are a member of the WMSCOG. Please correct me if I'm wrong. We are trying to create a complete article about the World Mission Society Church of God, Ahn Sahnghong and Chang Gil Jah." This raises a question of conflict of interest. Wikipedia encourages extreme caution when editing a subject that you are close to, please see WP:COI. JanetteDoe (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
It's very frustrating to edit these pages, for a while I almost gave up. If you make any changes that is are n/ot from their official site, they would revert the change. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all the information is not always at an organization's page, otherwise there would be no point on having Wikipedia. I'm not a member of the WMSCOG but I've been researching a lot about them and everybody I ask, they tell me that even through the way they write and defend it, Nancyinthehouse, Galemw2 and Watts9595 sound like WMSCOG members. It wouldn't be surprising if their IPs are also from South Korea. I haven't seen anybody writing in the Wikipedia article that the WMSCOG is a "cult" or that they are "heretic". I think they are only trying to act like the victims. I invite any admin to see if "every edit that they have made defines the religion "CULT" or "HERETIC". Right now the World Mission Society Church of God is just pretty much the WMSCOG website in Wikipedia. Nancyinthehouse, if you want to discuss further with me you can go to my talk page, don't want to take the space of the admins. --Peter1007 (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
When mentioning another editor in a post on a page they do not necessarily follow closely, as you e.g. did here [93], it can be a good idea to "ping" them using {{U}}. Commenting directly on another user's editorial behavior, e.g. when you imply on your own talk page [94] that my editing is unspecified WP:NNPOV, my behavior WP:OWN, and outright accuse me for derogatively "considering other religions as "cults"." (all without providing any reasons for your concern, but your reply is expected in the appropriate thread), a {{TB}} on my talk page could have initiated a dialogue towards resolving any such problems. You now [95] continue here and state that I have blanked "the whole page." Please provide a diff supporting this statement so an admin may correct my mistake. Sam 🎤 18:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
JanetteDoe, I have mentioned in the talkpage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ahn_Sahng-hong#Dispute long ago. I'm not a member of WMSCOG, as I have told Peter1007 to begin with. Peter1007 you are acting like a victim as IF you own the articles of the religious movement, the founder. You said you have nothing to do with WMSCOG and the messiah claiming person, and you are digging in sources that reject the requirements of the Policy of Wikipedia. You are using unreliable sources and you never reply (or cannot reply) to the explanation made in the talkpage. The sources are false fliers, book that was found guilty to be used or published, and biased websites that only considers other religions cults. NO I'm NOT a member of the WMSCOG or related to it. Stop defining other's identity with your own imagination Peter1007. I don't know why you are so EAGER to make these articles with unreliable sources. It just seems that you personally hate this religious movement or messiah claiming person. It was 75.72.176.22 who first wrote on this noticeboard and Not me. That's why I came.--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I have been sitting back and avoiding any major edits on these two pages, except for reverting the recent blanking, because I've had my hand slapped a couple of times so am content for now to hit up the talk pages to work things out there. I have asked Nancyinthehouse several times to provide specific examples of what sites she considers are unreliable so that we can address each one, but she is adamant that any reference she has not provided is unreliable and that anyone using any other reference is trying to slander the WMSCOG
  1. a
  2. b.
Watts9595 prefers to simply egg people on without providing any type of rational argument
  1. a
  2. b
  3. c
  4. d.
I have a strong suspicion that Watts9595 is in fact Sticks830, as is evidenced by the following retort #. You'll notice that this entry was done by 75.67.112.116 but signed by Sticks830. 75.67.112.116 also seems to be playing along in the blanking #
The only editor who seems to be willing to address each item separately is Galemw2 at both talk pages here and here. I have been trying to answer things piecemeal but there is a lot there. Unfortunately I don't seem to be working fast enough for Nancyinthehouse here. Superfly94 (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
You'll all have to sort out these two articles on their talk pages as I've fully protected them. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Guess what, M.H. again![edit]

I have added information to the SPI on this user, which they keep deleting. [96] [97]  It sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me to me (as per my comments on the SPI), but I also believe it to be a violation of WP:TPO, and interference with administrative processes. (User was just warned in yesterday's ANI about refactoring and deleting other's comments)Gaijin42 (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, as I saif to Hijiri 88 yesterday, and per my general comments in the original AN/I, you need to disengage from each other. The dispute had died down and was happily waiting for SPI clerk notice - had that shown no connection then it might have been appropriate to raise the images issue in a non-confrontational way. As it is you've just re-ignited the drama for no really good reason. As with Hijiri 88; you need to unwatch those pages and walk away. --Errant (chat!) 17:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
If we have access to the evidence now, why not add that evidence to the SPI now? It may eliminate the need for CU, which is supposed to be a last resort? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Gaijin42 Please get off my back. I have just contacted Wikipedia emergency email about the mocking way you have placed my photos. You should never so such things! This is the 2nd time you do that (the first time was publishing my blog screenshot which you unlawfully uploaded falsely claiming it's your own work. I spent the day helping another editor and am now wasting 2 hours on this attack of yours. MH (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Gaijin42 has agreed to step away. I've endorsed the SPI for a CU so it can get resolved ASAP (removing the point of contention for everyone). Hopefully both of you can get on in peace. --Errant (chat!) 17:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Block needed[edit]

No further action required Tazerdadog (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC) (nac)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Didn't see this, but saw the edit and blocked. Dougweller (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

abusive user Jerry Pepsi[edit]

hello. user jerry pepsi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jerry_Pepsi is being malicious and vandalizing the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory:_Married_%26_Dating he keeps undoing our factual edits simply to start a fight. for example, we keep including information like, megan is the girlfriend of 3 years, and he keeps undoing it. we believe he feels he owns this page and is not being a team player. he also continues to write the cast's full names when their full names are not associated with the show (aside from media articles, which he provided one that only identifies 4 of the cast members). we ask that you please ask him to stop or prevent him from further editing the page. "tvfanatics" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvfanatics (talkcontribs) 17:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Didn't you just bring this here a few days ago? Also, do you have diffs of his unproductive editing, instigating, or failure to abide by WP:RS or WP:BLP? 192.76.82.90 (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Edit: Also, you haven't notified the editor about this thread. You only said you've e-mailed Wikipedia about his actions. 192.76.82.90 (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Is TVfanatics royalty of some sort? If not, then the only other reason I can think of for him to write "our factual edits...", "we keep including..." and "we ask.....", is that he is some way represents the TV show in question, Polyamory:Married & Dating. If that is the case, then TVfanatics should probably read our policies on not using Wikipedia as a promotional medium and editing with a conflict of interest. TVfanatics should also be apprised that the article does not in any way belong to the production or its producers, or even its fans, and that any attempt to assert ownership of the article by shutting out the contributions of other editors, or by insisting that the "ground rules" for the reality show be followed by Wikipedia as well, is going to end up badly for him.... them... whomever. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Jerry Pepsi, on the other hand, should stop calling the other editor in an content dispute a "vandal" in edit summaries, as he has done a number of times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I've requested temporary full protection of the article to get the combatants to start talking to each other, after which, if they don't start playing nicely together, an admin may have to deal out some blocks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Notified Jerry Pepsi of this thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I've fully protected the article for four days. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 22:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm more than happy to engage with this editor to try to hash something out. In fact I have made those overtures at least a half dozen times, on his talk page, on my talk page and on the article's talk page. I have tried to explain various editing conventions (how episode numbers are reported in the infobox, how participation is recorded by season, etc.). I advised the editor through several warnings that removing valid sourced information for no valid reason could be considered vandalism and lead to consequences for his account. I explained in edit summaries and on the article talk page why various edits were being made and various pieces of information included. I received nothing in response beyond accusations of harassment and trolling.
  • It's hard to find a middle ground when dealing with an editor who believes that The Globe and Mail does not meet the threshold for reliability. It is difficult to find common ground with an editor who changes his/her reasons for his/her actions from one edit to the next.
  • I also suspect, based on the single-purpose nature of the editing, that User:Swingerlove is a sock puppet of Tvfanatics, who I also believe has a conflict of interest based on his/her statement that he is editing on behalf of the show. If these are the same person then one, the other or both should be blocked. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Sarot23 quacks about Nicholas Alahverdian[edit]

Further to this ANI discussion and this sockpuppetry investgation, would someone please block the latest sock, User:Sarot23? Since this is not a simple case of self-promotion and has BLP implications (see the original ANI report), I suggest salting Nicholas Alahverdian and Nick Alahverdian to make future attempts just that little bit more difficult. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

  • This page should not be speedily deleted because the article has citations from The Boston Globe, Associated Press, The Providence Journal, NBC and CBS affiliates, and other national sources. Sarot23 (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted (G4) and salted. Are there other alternate spellings that should also be dealt with? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Sock blocked. --Rschen7754 20:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
An edit filter might be better, if only because it would also catch the insertion of the case into unrelated or loosely related pages (as with this). UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 Confirmed sock of Fred newman (talk · contribs) - Alison 22:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Other articles this sock has a history of editing to add information to are Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth & Families, John J. McConnell, Jr., Robert G. Flanders, Jr., United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Matthew Fabisch, and Manatee Palms Youth Services. If a couple of other editors will add them to your watchlist or add a filter to prevent the repeated additions of the same photos and paragraphs about Alaverdian's non-notable lawsuit, that would be great. Thanks! NewAccount4Me (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, here is a link to the second ANI that has since been closed. Just so we keep all the records of this mess together (this is the third related ANI). NewAccount4Me (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Enkyo2 continuously violating WP:SELFREF[edit]

My last ANI on this was poorly put together, so I might as well just start anew. I have drawn Enkyo2's attention to the relevant policy several times,[98][99][100][] but he is continuing to protest my removal of his commentary on Wikipedia policy from the article space.[101] I think he doesn't understand why this is problematic. Could someone help me explain it? Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This is still clearly a content issue, just like it was a few days ago when multiple editors told you the same thing here. Look for WP:3O or another form of dispute resolution. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Two users expressed their POV that it was a content issue. This time I have provided evidence that this user, despite being told multiple times what the policy is, is continuing to dismiss it. It has nothing to do with content, since none of the edits concerned affect article content. The problem is with Enkyo2 adding references to Wikipedia policy to the article space and refusing to desist even when pointed in the direction of the relevant policy. I was not given a chance in the last thread to respond to the question regarding what kind of admin action I want. I want Enkyo2 to stop assuming bad faith on my part, or for someone in authority whose good faith he HAS TO assume to tell him the same thing I have. No one has thus far disagreed with me on the substance here. Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Someone should definitely help this user out on the matter. (I would, since I've worked a lot in self-referential parts of the 'pedia, but I'm a bit busy.) However, he's clearly not the only one doing this. I've noticed several articles where there's a blacklisted link and it says in the footnote "(link not allowed by Wikipedia)"—there's one on Nate Silver that I've been meaning to fix for ages. I.e., this isn't an incident, since it's a fairly common mistake. Maybe the Help Desk or the Teahouse would be a better place to find assistance in explaining it? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hijiri, there are multiple interpretations of what is and is not acceptable under WP:SELFREF (which, by the way, is a guideline, not a policy), and your complaint appears to be not about an editor's behavior but about content being put in an article--that makes this a content dispute. Based on my brief skim of the diff you gave in your first ANI posting on this, that user's edit does not look egregiously out of line (pronunciation notes are not uncommon in articles), so instead of coming to the drama board you should be looking for a reasonable consensus.
Now on to you. Your own behavior in this dispute, as far as I can tell (I have not taken time to dig up all the relevant diffs and history), has not been above reproach. You started a frivolous ANI thread about article content, where you accused your opponent of not speaking English, when that was nowhere close to true. The four complaints that you raised in that thread were all content concerns, and you never explained the issue (which I saw you mention on the user's talk page, not in ANI) of the clarity of the user's talk page posts, so I have no idea which thing you are actually upset about. Finally, as far as I can tell, User talk:Enkyo2#"Jimmu" and others is the only place where you have attempted to have a discussion with the user about that issue (the other diffs you provided are a revert of his edit--reverts are not discussion--and your own ANI thread). This ANI posting is completely premature. The user in question had already responded to you at his talk page before you posted this second ANI, and yet you chose to return to the drama board rather than actually respond to the user. Why don't you try to go resolve this content dispute in a constructive way? rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The user in question responded on his talk page, but the response essentially said "I don't care what the guideline is, and I'm not going to listen to you". There may be multiple interpretations of SELFREF, but surely inserting one's own controversial interpretation of a Wikipedia style guideline into an article in order to undermine an ongoing RM is near the bottom of potentially acceptable SELFREFS... Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, since you have made absolutely no effort to explain the context of this disagreement, why should I (or any other editor here) just take your word that your view is right and the other editor's is wrong? Secondly, you still have not indicated how this is anything other than a content dispute. ANI is not a venue for solving content disputes; people have already given you links to appropriate venues. Continuing this discussion here would be a waste of time. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any idea how hard it is to edit English Wikipedia on a Japanese smart phone? I have mentioned a couple of times in the last few days, including here on ANI, that my computer is in bad shape and I can only post from my phone. I have made a TREMENDOUS effort to explain the context. Enkyo2 didn't like my proposed move of Emperor Jimmu, and he responded by posting a note in the first line of the article that expresses his personal interpretation of a guideline that myself and a number of other users including In ictu oculi clearly interpreted the opposite way. This edit did not alter the content of the article, but clearly represents an attempt to bring a dispute about style guidelines into the article space. I can't take it to DRN because there is no content dispute. The closest thing to a content dispute is the original RM (which is still open) which only concerns the spelling of one word. But my problem is Enkyo2's way of dealing with this, which is posting comments that belong on the talk page in the article itself. I am sorry if I sound hostile, but it's NOT fun trying to deal with issues like this exclusively from a phone that keeps trying to convert everything I type into Japanese. (That's also why it's difficult to post a full record of diffs.) Seriously. The other issue I'm dealing with at the moment is an obvious sockpuppet/vandal/POV-pusher, and I wasn't even able to open the SPI myself... Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Based on what you just said, this is absolutely a content dispute. A footnote is article content; if you guys disagree about a footnote, you are disagreeing about article content. Your claim that Enkyo2 refuses to discuss the issue is bogus, because he had already responded to your discussion attempt before you opened this unnecessary thread. Let me say it again (this is the last time I will say it): this is a content dispute.
Also, your problems about your phone are exactly that: your problems. It is frankly ridiculous that you expect someone to take administrative action against some other editor because you can't find a practical way to edit. (Ever think to try a library or internet café?) Likewise, the fact that you're dealing with an unrelated sock is totally irrelevant to this dispute. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Either you're misreading what Hijiri is saying, or you're deliberately making things up. Claiming that Hijiri is asking for administrative action because they're editing from their phone is ludicrous. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. He's explaining why he's having problems with diffs (and his comment about the SPI was an aside - not unusual here). I will say that I looked at the comment about a blocked link at Nate Silver. A good example of why such comments are a bad idea - the link isn't blocked, but does lead to a parody page now (hijacked?). Self-references to Wikipedia are a bad idea - they are similar to using Wikipedia as a source, which we don't do. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Still none of you have said anything to even remotely suggest that this is anything other than a content dispute. No administrator action is needed, and the discussion does not belong here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  1. Rjanag's insistence that I can go to a library to edit Wikipedia shows an ignorance of Japanese public libraries. Internet cafes are also rare in my area. But I'm in one now, thankfully. The dodgy browser randomly closing tabs I have open is not helpful, though.
  2. This is not a content dispute. Posting a note in the article space that doesn't change the content of the article in any substantial way, but misrepresents current Wikipedia guidelines and serves to undermine an ongoing RM is not a content issue.
  3. This is not a content dispute. I raised a number of issues with a user's behaviour, which have been consistently ignored by Rjanag (and no one else, despite his above claiming that "multiple editors told you the same thing"). This included (a) the aforementioned posting of a problematic note in order to undermine an RM I had just started;[102][103][104] (b) using the passive voice past simple ("A note was added") instead of simply saying "I have added a note", thus initially misleading me into thinking that it was added according to consensus at some earlier date, rather than a deliberate and unilateral edit that he had just made; (c) this isn't the first time Enkyo has been challenged for refusing to use plain English on talk pages -- he has improved, but there's still a way to go in my opinion; (d) !voting against the RM solely as "revenge" against me for deleting said note, despite previously indicating that he would not !vote until more people got involved (which no one did);[105][106][107][108] (e) posting a large amount of peripherally-related text both in the RM and on his own talk page (I'm pretty sure this is also something for which he's been taken to task before);[109][110] (f) closely following on my heels to a bunch of articles.[111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119]