Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive827

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


Noticeboard archives


A charge of wikihounding**[edit]

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't really care whose fault it is. There's consensus for a three-month interaction ban, and interaction bans are two-way streets; there's no particular lion's share of the blame in them. It's clear that these two editors need to be held at arm's length, regardless of whose fault it is or who started it, so let's make it happen. Blame is a secondary concern, if it's indeed a concern at all. Writ Keeper  04:32, 23 January 2014 (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.

Lukeno94 (talk · contribs) feels they're being hounded by Jaggee (talk · contribs). This all started with an ANI thread, now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive824, "URGENT: potential serious copyright policy violation". Jaggee is a new editor who noted a possible problem in an article Luke had been working on; a somewhat lengthy thread with some animosities was closed without action toward either editor. As a result, Jaggee made various comments on their user page (now changed, but see this version). It is noteworthy that they took the supposed copyvio to ANI, claiming that's what WP:DCV suggested they do--but read Jaggee's talk page, "A second welcome to Wikipedia", where I remarked that this is the last thing it suggests, not the first. The only article edits Jaggee has made were to that particular article, Allard J2X-C-- Luke's work, and passed as a GA by Resolute. They they went on to comment on that article's talk page and on a related thread at WP:RSN ("Car racing websites"), pertaining to a DYK nomination by Luke. They made no other edits besides on my talk page and a few others, nothing in article space.

Further unpleasantries are found on my talk page, where you may find Luke being a bit brusque, accusing Jaggee of being a sock (that evidence does not yet need to be hashed out here, in my opinion). But essentially, it seems to me that Jaggee indeed has no other interest as of yet besides Luke's work, and that fits our definition of hounding, a type of harassment:

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Both LadyofShalott and I suggested that each find their separate corners in which to edit, so to speak, advice that Jaggee did not follow given their edits to RSN, for instance, and what I am asking for here is confirmation that this means that Jaggee should find another corner, not one where Luke is already editing. This shouldn't be a difficult thing to do given the large number of corners available. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm perfectly happy to have myself and Jaggee kept separate, as I've said publicly a few times. Maybe that way I'll be able to return to editing in peace (or be able to take a break in peace, equally) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • (ec) I affirm my prior advice, which as Drmies points out has not been heeded. Luke seems to want to stay away from Jaggee, but the reverse is not true. Perhaps a formal interaction ban is what is needed. LadyofShalott 18:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I had previously given Jaggee similar advice, likewise not taken. Perhaps indeed it needs to be set up as an editing restriction. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Luke feels they're the one being hounded?!
Luke on Jaggee at Talk:Allard_J2X-C yesterday: "Wrong, and since you're only here to disrupt this article, you've yet again failed to look into anything. " (and more of the same in the past).
I don't know Jaggee from a hole in the road. But I do know that we have AGF. They're also a new editor. Even if they have acted entirely wrongly and excessively over the very minor off-wiki copyvio issue in this article, they have acted reasonably over that issue. Their actions could be mistaken, over-reactions and mis-placed, but while there is the slightest belief that they are a new editor trying to find their way through the impenetrable forest of WP:ALLCAPS, then we have to give them leeway to get it right or wrong, as best they can. We DO NOT leap on them and accuse them of being bad faith socks, troll and Luke-taunters. Even if they are, we have a strong policy that we act to editors as being genuine, until it's demonstrated beyond doubt that they aren't. Yes, this lets us be exploited by the real trolls from time to time. It's also overall a key means for us to improve access for genuine new editors (which I still do believe Jaggee to be).
Jaggee: please find some motor-racing articles to work on that are some distance from Luke. I'm sure this will improve the editing experience for both of you.
Luke: please lay off Jaggee and act as if they're genuine. I can't ask you to believe this, but please act towards them as you would towards any GF editor. If they're not, lots of other people will spot it as well, so don't worry about it.
Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I refuse to act like I'm blind, deaf and dumb; which is how I would have to act to assume Jaggee was new. Everything they have done screams of a returning editor, and things well beyond your own involvement have furthered that case. Don't forget that other users have expressed their own doubts, or, in the case of User:Beyond My Ken, completely agreeing with my analysis of the situation. If Jaggee is a new editor, then I'm Bill Clinton. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, yes, I am the one being hounded. Everywhere they've visited has been either somewhere I've already contributed in, or something directly related to something I've been involved in. I haven't followed them anywhere. To claim otherwise is ludicrous. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Andy, you are essentially asking for the same thing I'm proposing here. That initial ANI thread, pshaw, not the biggest deal. It's the rest of it, the recent edits, that brought me here. If it hadn't been for those Luke wouldn't have had any reason to say anything but as it is, I think they are right to feel as if someone is breathing down their neck. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a very one-sided account of my, so far, short career as a registered Wikipedia editor.

On my first day, I spotted a potential copyright policy violation in Allard J2X-C. My first edit, a nervous and hesitant attempt, to alert those responsible to what I thought was a serious problem in that article, was totally reverted - as "Unconstructive and unhelpful."! Determined to right the wrong, and after reading through numerous paragraphs of dense policy text, I stumbled across the suggestion that, if the "contributor has been previously clearly warned of copyright infringement but persisted", as was clearly the case here, the contributor should be "reported for administrator attention to the administrators' incidents noticeboard" - which was exactly what I therefore did - with my second edit.

One well informed administrator, ignoring the pleas from those ignorant of copyright principles and without even a working knowledge of the applicable Wikipedia policy, did take the initiative - and swiftly purged the article of the dodgy material, thus vindicating my action. Note that Lukeno94 continued his fight to keep it though.

What followed was an astonishing series of personal attacks against me, including a tirade of irreverent bile peppered with puerile profanities from Lukeno94. I won't quote them here, but here are links to a few of them: [1], [2], [3], [4].

Upon viewing further results of a search of links to, I came across discussions about another articles (Template:Did you know nominations/Lavaggi LS1 and [5]) which also involved Lukeno94. Having seen the comments about the ureliability of the website, I added it to this discussion. That addition was swiftly pounced on and bad-mindely removed by Lukeno94. I added it back the next day, convinced I was right, but was again [6] swiftly reverted by Lukeno94 (note the inflammatory summary). Another editor restored my point, vindicating my action.

Lukeno94 seems to be paranoid that I am "hounding" him. I AM NOT, I don't know (or care to know) him from Adam. What I am doing is highlighting poor use of poor references, nothing more. And I am beginning to regret signing up now. But this storm in a tea cup has aroused suspicions of cover-ups and back-scratching too, and I am not going to be intimidated it. Lukeno94 seems to be here to boost his ego, not to create great, policy compliant, articles, and I think he needs a serious slap on the wrist for reacting so badly when his infallibility is challenged. Jaggee (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If you stay away from each other, and agree to report any issues like the previous copyright issue to an uninvolved administrator, we can put this to bed pretty quickly. Nick (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
My only interest, so far, is the use of the website as a reference, whether Lukeno is involved with it, or not. Jaggee (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Plus, I'll happily contribute via an intermediary - if you can name one or tell me where to find one. Jaggee (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Jaggee, if I have to put together a comprehensive report of how you are clearly a returning user here just to abuse me, then I will do so. Until then, you can drop the lies like the one about how you came across the DYK nomination; you didn't edit for four days, and yet magically cropped up again to appear there. Just like you've lied to several admins; claiming you want no further part in this and would disengage. If you want me to take you apart piece by piece, then I can put together a case that will make it obvious that you are not legitimate. I have an idea of a couple of people who you could be, but that doesn't actually matter. I never claimed to be infallible; in fact, at the very beginning, I stated that had you actually come to talk to me with the issue, then there would've been no problem. Instead, you didn't, and you've made it ever more apparent that your claim to be a new user is a flat-out lie. And I'm not even the one who initially used the term "hounding". "contributor has been previously clearly warned of copyright infringement but persisted" is a flat out lie as well; I received no warning, and in no way can a template in an article count as a warning; but then you know that already. Just one more example of your lies. I've made thousands of good contributions here; you can justifiably claim one, so who is the egotistical one, acting as if they know better than everyone else? Is it myself, who has admitted to mistakes, or is it the "new" user who acts like they know policy inside-out and has only ever edited in things involving me? I wonder.
  • And claiming that to be your only interest is a lie. Claiming that I have some involvement in the website is beyond a joke. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
That is nothing more than additional unnecessary, and to be ignored, intimidation. And no, you can't convince us that I am accusing you of being involved with that website, just of being involved with some of the articles that have used it. Calm down - stand back and look at look at my modest contributions again - then review your (over)reactions. Perhaps you do need a break from this. Jaggee (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I think both of you need to stay away from each other as much as possible. While Luke is obviously frustrated by the fact that Jaggee, currently a single-purpose account, is stalking him (which can be verified by a quick look at the latter's contribs), Luke has also been rough towards Jaggee as evidenced by his comments regarding the latter. Epicgenius (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd be perfectly happy for that to happen (particularly when I'm not dangerously overtired, like I was yesterday). I have no problem with genuine editors bringing up issues in things I've done; but I strongly object to this SPA. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
@Jaggee: - either disengage and edit in other areas, or you will be blocked as a disruptive single purpose account. Your smug, patronising tone towards Luke is not welcome here and is unnecessary. I'd suggest giving you a week to demonstrate you're happy to edit constructively without following Luke around or editing the same content (although I'm going to stop short of a full topic ban since we don't really know your editing interests). If we don't see any evidence you're capable of normal editing, I'd propose we indefinitely block your account.
The issue you raised has been dealt with and resolved, administrators are aware of what has happened and Luke will undoubtedly take more care in future not to link to a potential copyright violating content, so there's no need for further action. If you do have any other issues you wish to report in connection with Luke, I'm happy to handle them as an uninvolved administrator. Nick (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
That sounds like nothing more than gratuitous victim blaming. This is not a "single purpose account", in your sense anyway. This is an account that, after spotting, and reporting, a violation, has been blamed, victimised, vilified and dragged through the streets. And for those reasons alone, I have not had a chance to spread my wings, yet, and now you seem to be seriously suggesting they be clipped, and an artificial restriction applied, because another editor cannot control his own temper and behave civilly towards someone who has criticised his work here.
Btw, thanks for the offer to handle the issues with Lukeno - perhaps you will look at the other unresolved issues that I have already raised. Jaggee (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • We've had plenty of people contribute here saying that Jaggee should disengage from me; can someone wrap this up with some kind of binding solution? I really don't care if the ban is one way or two way; I just want to be able to contribute effectively in peace, or actually take a break. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    • It's probable that Nick's warning above is about the best you're going to get at the moment - but you've now got an uninvolved admin keeping an eye on his editing, which should help. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


Propose interaction ban between Jaggee (talk · contribs) and Lukeno94 (talk · contribs) (listed alphabetically) to expire 30 days three months after imposition.

The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others. Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way. For example, if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to:

  • edit editor Y's user and user talk space;
  • reply to editor Y in discussions;
  • make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly;
  • undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).
  • Support as proposer. As a general rule, I don't think ibans are the best tool in the wiki toolbox -- hence the suggested expiration date -- but I think one might be useful in this situation. NE Ent 21:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC) (amended 14:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC))
  • Support interaction ban, but make it longer (probably three months initially, I wouldn't entirely be adverse to an indefinite one), and obviously clarify that this means Jaggee needs to not snoop around my edits and attempt to create more drama, not that it just means they cannot contact me, or directly edit an article/article's talk page that I have already edited, or have written. Obviously, the same would happen in reverse. Anything to remove potential loopholes that they could use to carry on the abuse that has genuinely been making my life a misery for the last few days, and has taken out all of the enjoyment I had editing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Time period adjusted. Oppose any modification of standard iban terms. NE Ent 22:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • A few more have voted since the 3-fold increase, so "adjusted" time again to the next order of magnitude - as there is very clearly an appetite for revenge here. Jaggee (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as that would be pandering to the wish of the bullies. I found fault, and am being vilified as a direct result. The main aggressor here would, in effect, be protected against further similar, vindicated, scrutiny. Jaggee (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • You found one thing that was a grey area, and have hounded me ever since, trying to make out as if I am the biggest sinner on the planet/project. And that's disregarding anything regarding the true nature of your identity. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
That's bollocks, and you know it. Shame on you for behaving so sanctimoniously and playing to the gallery the way that you are. Jaggee (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, what else have you done? Pointed out that someone else was unsure about the reliability of a source, which was something I was already aware of, and that source is on a list of reliable sources for the Motorsport WikiProject? Those are literally the only two things you have done, that aren't purely hounding me. That's not "playing to the gallery", that's the facts, sunshine. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not what else I have done - it's that I have not done most of what you claim I've done. Yet many here seen prepared to swallow your apparently intentionally misleading account without question. And it is the clear clamour for blood here that you are playing to, with your ever more deceitful contributions. Jaggee (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Supprt - speaking as someone who a few days ago told them to find separate corners of this very large website in which to edit. LadyofShalott 22:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - @Luke: I believe the standard interpretation of an interactive ban will cover your concerns. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Jaggee is clearly the aggressor in this case; Luke's frustration and occasional bluntness is understandable. Jaggee's combative refusal to accept any fault at all - his recent changes to his user page make clear that he thinks he is being baited and bullied by the community - are a bit much even for a new user. The community ought to think about penalties should the interaction ban be violated, as a deterrent. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I still see this as just as much about bullying by Luke as I do about any hounding by Jaggee. If such an interaction ban were introduced, then it would first of all exclude Jaggee from motorsport, an area that's obviously of great interest to both of them. That's an excessive restriction on such a flimsy accusation. Secondly, I just don't trust Luke to act with a reasonable collegiate approach to Jaggee under such a restriction. It's all too easy for such a ban to be used as a very one-sided future excuse to drag Jaggee back to ANI on the slightest pretext, blowing that up into "Already banned user disrespected the state of WP by abusing his ban conditions", the crime of lèse majesté that is one of the few things WP ever does act upon. Such an action is unlikely to work against an established editor like Luke, but it's a very common way for new editors to be driven off the project. Just look at Spmdr (talk · contribs) who was hounded off for disagreeing with Luke over the Sunbeam Tiger article. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Yawn, change the record. No-one was hounded off at the Sunbeam Tiger article, and I wasn't the only one being highly sceptical of the claims made by this user. In fact, I wasn't even doing any hounding at all, so you can cut that bullshit claim out right now; most of my comments were made to you, and I reverted a grand total of once. Thanks for reminding me exactly why you're holding a grudge against me, though! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • And I am so guilty of hounding Spmdr that my name appears a grand total of 0 times on their talk page, whilst the other editor disputing their sources, and who was rather more active in reverting their edits, has 10 mentions (including one comment by Eric). So you're as bad as telling the truth as Jaggee is... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It would not exclude Jaggee from any topic area. As there seems to be a misunderstanding of the terms of a iban, I've copy-pasted the applicable text from the policy to the top of the thread. NE Ent 14:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem is, as the wording stands, it would still allow Jaggee to come and manipulate articles I have written, and I would then be unable to remove the changes if they were detrimental (like adding in maintenance tags that have been resolved - I couldn't remove those, and would have to get a third-party involved), and this would worsen the existing situation, in some ways. This is why the user should be restricted from editing any article (but be free to edit the talk page) which I've had a heavy involvement in, and the reverse would be true as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • As is often the case, the "letter of the law" hasn't quite caught up to actual practice. There have been several instances where an editor has followed another editor's contributions to various articles where the first editor had never worked before, and, without actually deleting or changing the second editor's contributions, has edited the article. This behavior has then been found to be a violation of the IBAN, as an indirect form of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. It's like having a 150-foot order of protection, and the person shows up and stands exactly 151 feet away over and over again. It's not a violation of the order, and it may not be something that the law can deal with easily, but we're not a legal system and we can make - and have made - the determination that such behavior is a violation of the purpose of the ban. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I guess that'll do then. I would also like Andy to stop spreading lies, but that's his prerogative for now - at least I've stated the truth in public about that situation (it's a long-term grudge that he seems to hold). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Luke, please back off. I don't think your continued comments are helping any of this either. LadyofShalott 22:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
He has reverted to type. Anyone who takes the trouble to look-up the history to this case against me will see that his belligerent response to my naive first edit was the root cause of all this. He came over all indignant since, but it was all a front I'm sure. He is not able to handle criticism civilly and is thus not cut-out for this type of work where close cooperation is necessary. Jaggee (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Jaggee. Seriously, you thought that was an invitation to get in another dig? Both. Of. You. Need. To. Stop. Acting. Like. Children. LadyofShalott 22:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This is less than I proposed, I guess, but I will support this at a minimum. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks like there's consensus for this, can we have this wrapped up please? (at the very least, this post will stop it from archiving) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I absolutely disagree. The vote for a 30-day/3-month penalty might have achieved majority support, but there is no consensus at all that the offence itself had actually been committed. I explained the course of events that led to me visiting the pages in question, and haven't seen any evidence or argument, let alone consensus to support the alternative (paranoid) interpretation of Wikihounding. Without an offence having been committed it is absurd to suggest that any penalty, even if it have 100% support, should be applied. Jaggee (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • ^^ A response like that is a fairly good sign of why these sanctions are called for. A textbook example of WP:NOTGETTINGIT if I ever did see one. I second the motion for a swift close and imposition of the community sanctions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • So where is all this "hounding"? Rather than "not getting it", this still looks more like paranoia by Luke. We should not go this far, on this little evidence, for so new an editor. All I've seen so far is some clumsy handling of what was actually a valid IP rights issue, and not even one directed particularly at Luke. That's square in the middle of AGF.
The worst I've seen from Jaggee so far was his comment just above, as noted by LadyofShalott (and I agree completely with her comment). However even that is still a long way short of iBan-worthy hounding. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Which is why you !voted against the proposal. However, the clear consensus among the entirety of the !voters was to put the IBAN into effect. Jaggee (and you) can certainly argue that that consensus is not justified, but what Jaggee did was to deny there was a consensus at all, and that is simply patently false. There is a clear consensus, and an uninvolved admin should really close the thread and put the IBAN into effect, since there's been no additional !voting for a while now, just repeat commentary from the same people. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I see a majority call for the iBan, but I still don't see consensus that Jaggee committed substantial hounding to justify it. Where is it? His edit history is still tiny overall. Overall, this looks unedifying like a bandwagon of "Just block 'em all, let Jimbo sort 'em out" and we're supposed to be better than this. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The only "consensus" to be found is about whether to impose on IBAN or not. That clearly exists. I'm not sure why you're looking for a consensus about underlying issues when the discussion (in this section) wasn't focused on that. This is not an ArbCom case, where every action needs to have a finding behind it, this is a community discussion, a much less rigid process, on whether an IBAN will benefit the project. Clearly they found that. The reasons for people !voting the way they did may well be varied (Bill may think it's because Jaggee has misbehaved, Hattie because Luke has misbehaved, and Xander because both have misbehaved), but there is no requirement that there be a consensus on the reason for the IBAN, just consensus that the IBAN would be helpful. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • A vote for a ban for a ban's sake - despite there being no evidence of any wrongdoing - is that what you mean? Jaggee (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I should note that Jaggee is once again trying to stir up controversy where there is none, by deliberately misrepresenting things and not doing any proper checking, on the Lavaggi LS1 talk page. Yet more evidence for why this user needs to be prohibited from interfering with me; this time there wasn't any case. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't recognise your description of my contributions as all I have done recently is ask for clarification of unsourced engine information on the talkpage of a racing car article - here. I think you are misrepresenting me - again, and I wish I knew why. Jaggee (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • You did not ask for clarification; you claimed that sources were "conflicting" with information on the article. One bit was already sourced elsewhere, which you completely ignored, and the other bit was easily verifiable had you done a Google search; policy is that something must be verifiable, not necessarily verified, and this was EASILY verifiable. A constructive user, if they were that upset about one missing reference, would've done research to see if what was in the article was accurate, and added in a reference. You did not do that, and you made a false claim or two in the process. Yey for you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • There you go again - I made NO false claims. I suppose you are banking on some of the huge quantities of mud you are throwing sticking. Why are you acting like this - do you behave this way with all new users? It's like a trial by fire. Jaggee (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "There seems to be conflicting information in the article and sources about the engines used." Verbatim quote of what you wrote, which is clearly incorrect. One of the engines was already directly cited in the infobox, the other was cited to a ref that was a little vaguer, but was not "conflicting"; the only LMP1 engine AER built at this time was the P32 (although I have found that some of our articles are giving the wrong versions of that engine). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • And there is still not a single edit from this user that hasn't been directly linked to the "dispute" involving me either... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, support, as the bulk of Jaggee's edits are related to Lukeno94's edits. The WikiStalk report shows six unique pages where these users' edits overlap. Interestingly, Jaggee only has edited eight unique pages since registration. The only non-overlaps where Jaggee has edited are at User:Jaggee and Talk:Lavaggi LS1. Epicgenius (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
@Epicgenius, perhaps there's something wrong with the WikiStalk tool because it shows similar results for me in relation to you too. I think it shows stronger evidence that Lukeno is stalking me anyway, because on 4 of the 6 pages you mention, his edits followed mine, rather than mine his. Or perhaps it's the interpretation of the results that is faulty. Jaggee (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
@Jaggee: It isn't a one-way interaction ban. It will prevent Luke from commenting about you or talking/interacting with you, as well. Anyway, now that I see the WikiStalk report between you and me, I also see that you've made some edits to other pages recently. Epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Jaggee, how can you remotely claim that I am stalking you? You've edited Allard J2X-C, Talk:Allard J2X-C, Talk:Lavaggi LS1 - all pages I wrote, or the talk page of pages I wrote, and are therefore on my watchlist, you've edited ANI/RSN threads where I've already been involved one way or another (I posted before you in the RSN thread), and I first edited User:Drmies' talkpage on the 5th of May, 2013, as you can see from [7]; a page I have edited 32 times, so I guess we can clearly see your bullshit lies for exactly what they are, and as further proof that you are WP:NOTHERE to do anything other than hound me, troll me, and misrepresent/flat out lie about anything I'm involved in. Absolutely ludicrous claims from you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • And beyond that, you've edited User:Yngvadottir's talk page, directly in regards to this "issue", you've edited User:Beyond My Ken's talk page with regards to comments he made about this issue, and you've edited your own User and talk page; using the User page either as a platform for your lies, or as trolling - and that's been pointed out by various editors in this thread alone, so hardly evidence of me doing any "stalking". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I would encourage those interested to take a look at recent edits around Talk:Lavaggi LS1. I see Luke's attitude there as far from the ideal, yet it's being reported here as if Jaggee was the one entirely at fault.
I'd also note that we're talking about a new editor with edits to only two articles: maybe they're both created by Luke, but then someone had to create them. All I see here is two editors with a common interest in motorsport, not evidence of stalking or hounding. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • We're not talking about a new editor, we're talking about a new account, and that is obvious to most people other than you, it seems. My attitude may be "far from the ideal", but you try having a brand-new account following you around and flat-out lying about multiple things. I cannot fathom how you are still able to defend an account whose entire purpose so far has been to shit-stir on things I have been involved in; there are literally no edits from this user that are not directly attributable to either the Allard J2X-C "debate", or the Lavaggi LS1 "debate", and that is not paranoia, that is an unavoidable truth based solely on their editing history. Unless this user is you, I strongly encourage you to actually look properly, and not let your dislike of me blind you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "how you are still able to defend an account" - AGF.
This blew up out of nothing. An editor/account appeared and made a reasonable series of edits (maybe not correct, but reasonable) that you objected to. Much ink was wasted on various talk pages. When they moved to another article and raised similar issues (again, maybe not correct, but reasonable), you objected to them again. I think you're being paranoid, and seeing socks under the bed.
I agree, the shit-stirring since is concerning. Whether this is an editor who's actually interested in the project, or who just likes farming the old drama llamas, isn't clear. Best thing Jaggee could do right now would be to do some valuable expansion work on a motor racing article that is a long way from you. I'd still prefer to see a voluntary distancing rather than a formal iBan. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:Assume good faith is not a suicide pact - and any AGF that could potentially have been there at the start should be well out of the window now, in the face of incontrovertible evidence. I would happily keep my distance voluntarily, but that is impossible when Jaggee comes after me, which is what it has been consistently. Note how that for the four days that I didn't edit, Jaggee didn't either, and yet they returned the same day I did. In line with their general actions, that isn't coincidence; those were four days in which they could've easily destroyed any of my claims of them being an SPA by editing something that I hadn't. They did not do that, and still haven't done so... (and by now, it is probably too late to make the "look, I can edit elsewhere, I was legit all along" claim) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Luke does have somewhat of an attitude problem, but in his defence, he is young. Once he enters his twenties and gains some more maturity, he will likely become less brash and arrogant. As for Jaggee, he is new here, and AGF should come into play. A community enforced interaction ban is hardly fair to a new user whole really only needs some guidance and a little more seasoning. They should be asked to voluntarily avoid each other. Failing that, a strong suggestion that Jaggee read, or re-read the policies here would seem in order, along with a warning to Luke to cool it. - theWOLFchild 06:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Jaggee has been asked to voluntarily avoid me by several admins, as evidenced by the discussion above. They have failed to do so, by constantly wandering back into articles I've written, and therefore I am forced to respond. AGF might seem viable, until you look at the timing of the account's appearance, where and what it appeared in, and the fact that when I took a four-day break, they stopped editing altogether, only to return on the same day I did. Assume good faith is not a suicide pact, and there is simply no explanation for the account's actions than that it belongs to someone with a grudge, who created the account to hound me - as I said, the timing of its creation, the fact it hasn't edited anything that isn't to do with me, and the fact that it didn't edit for the same period that I didn't. As someone who has never had any sanctions of any kind, I didn't take the request to sort out an interaction ban lightly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This is in danger of being archived, and still no action, despite the consensus being clear. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
If anything, the fact that Jaggee has continued Wikistalking Luke, literally logging in only after Luke logged in and then editing the same articles, only adds more evidence to the pile. Wearing kiddie gloves with a new user who refuses to get the point can only go so far. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
User:MezzoMezzo, I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, or where the "pile" is - perhaps you could reveal that to us because there was no stalking. I only edited one article (Allard J2X-C) that Lukeno94 was recently involved with, and the first of the two (yes, just 2) edits I made to that article was my first edit ever, and I was not aware of Lukeno94 then. The second was the next day. I did not edit any of Lukeno94's articles after that, and was absent for a few days for personal reasons unconnected with Wikipedia. Jaggee (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Support interaction ban and strong admin warning - Wikihounding cannot be tolerated. Any violation of the ban should result in an indef block. I see community concern and consensus here, and call on an admin to step up. Jusdafax 06:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you User:Jusdafax, point us to any evidence that unequivocally shows hounding? In the time between my first edit and the accusations being thrown here, Lukeno94 had edited umpteen articles whilst I had edited just one of them. Please explain and justify your implication. Jaggee (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Why has nothing been done about Luke's continual failure to AGF and personal attacks on a new editor - accusation of lying, socking, et al? It's not surprising that, in these circumstances, the newcomer feels attacked, doesn't respond optimally and finds it difficult to disengage. It is not the way to treat newbies. If we want to retain new editors, we need to do something when established users treat them badly. Luke should have been warned and, if he continued with his failure to AGF and personal attacks, blocked. Neljack (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • So you've not looked at the situation at all then? It doesn't take long for clear evidence of deliberate misrepresentation and flat-out lies to be found. In fact, I've directly quoted some in this very section. A newcomer does not wander into an article that is at GA on the day the review is undertaken, on a topic that is notable but relatively obscure. The chances of this legitimately are so microscopic that they are unreal. They do not then somehow magically find their way to another article that is in the middle of a DYK review - particularly when again, the subject is notable but relatively obscure. They do not stop editing altogether in a four-day period where I did, only to magically start up again on the same day that I returned from my brief break. AGF is not a suicide pact, and your comment shows a clear lack of any inspection of this case whatsoever. If we want to retain experienced editors, we need to actually have input from people who are not so lazy that they're just going to spout obviously false rubbish. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, accusations of socking are not a personal attack. Accusations of lying are not a personal attack when there is evidence to be found that lying has indeed taken place. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for closure[edit]

Fully understanding that a community ban discussion is not a matter of simply counting !votes, at this time there are 8 support !votes and 2 oppose !votes, and the discussion regarding a mutual IBAN between Jaggee and Lukeno94 has been ongoing for 9 days. Many community ban discussions have been closed with fewer overall votes, and less time of discussion, so I believe that this one qualifies for a close. Can we please have an uninvolved admin take a look and close the discussion? Thanks. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2014 (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.

Name calling[edit]

Mrm7171 called me a troll four separate times over two days on the health psychology talk when disputing my edits. He also lodged that epithet at me when commenting on his additions to the health psychology page. I want him to stop. Iss246 (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Below are quotes from the health psychology talk page.

You have REVERTED 6 timers now within a 24 hour period. Stop edit warring. I am going to report you. Provide rock solid reiable sources next time and stop personalizing. You seem to me to be a troll, who pretendes to be a professor of everything. I doubt you actually have qualifications in any field of p-sychology based on your poor editing. Leave professional articles that you obviously have little knowledge of alone and concentrate on your OHP club instead! Or provide RELIABLE SOURCES please. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
All iss246 does on Wikipedia is try to insert falsely this unregulated small club called OHP and try to align witgh proper regulated professions in psychology. You are nothing but a 'troll' iss246.
Unwarranted accusation. I am bringing you up on charges. Iss246 (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Iss246 I doubt if you are actually an academic iss246. hat we know about you is that you are an internet troll. You post 'OHP' wherever you can in any legitimate area of the psychology profession you can. I do hold a Doctorate in psychology for your information. But that is irrelevant. Who cares! Its irrelevant. If you were a scholar of any sort you would realise that topics in science like the 2 areas you claim are only ohp research are actually researched and applied by many different fields and published in many different journals. No, I think iss246, you are an untrained 'OHP practitioner" who wanted a career change and did not want to train in the many years it would take to train to be a professional Health Psychologist or professional Occupational Psychologist.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
It is pretty clear iss246. If you were a scholar of any sort you would realise that topics in science like the 2 areas you claim are only ohp research are actually researched and applied by many different fields and published in many different journals. Stop trolling. Lifecoaching may be more your cup of tea. That, like an 'OHP practitioner' also allows any career changer like yourself to become, without any actual training.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC) [end of Iss246's opening statement, ed.]
I have not reviewed the edits in article-space but did review the Talk page. iss246 appears to show appropriate conduct, while Mrm's behavior is essentially harassment and personal attacks. Saying that iss refuses to discuss the issue, then pouncing on him with personal attacks when he does, is a sign of baiting. Mrm shows a strong habit of focusing on the editor, rather than the article, in a generally disparaging manner.
In my view, we should have a zero tolerance policy for this kind of behavior, which is not only disruptive to Wikipedia, but negatively effects retention. If Mrm's accusation of stalking is true however, he should provide examples of other articles where iss246 has allegedly followed him.
BTW - whether an editor is an expert in a topic does not effect their credibility as a contributor, though it sometimes helps, and sometimes inhibits, good editing. CorporateM (Talk) 15:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • With all due respect the history between iss246 and myself goes back almost a year. You looked at a tiny, final snippet where iss246 had just reported this, and then tailored his responses for a moment. I have been subjected to masses of verbal abuse by iss246 over many months and can provide 100,200 examples. Instead I hope we can refrain from personal abuse, and focus solely on editing from here on. Stop personalizing and just focus on making Wikipedia's articles better for the general community, that is readers. Please don't judge me on a tiny fragment. I for one think we can all move on, and cease completely any further childish name calling, rather than me go back over almost a years worth of records and provide over 100 hard core examples of iss246's personal abuse toward me. Apologies to administrator for the placement of my replies on this page.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I agree with CorporateM. Mrm7171 seems to think s/he knows more about psychology than anyone else and thus behaves as though no one else is qualified to make changes to psychology-related articles (check out some of his/her earliest edit all caps, mind you). S/he also shows egregious ownership issues of psychology articles, and s/he has even been blocked for this kind of behavior before. Maybe a topic ban is in order?
BTW, Iss246, you never informed Mrm7171 of this discussion (as is required), so I did just that. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 18:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about not informing Mrm7171. I should have asked a third party. I don't like going on his talk page. And I don't like him going on mine. Iss246 (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
My responses to iss246 yesterday were after months and months of long term abuse by iss246. I can collect at least 100 examples. For months iss246 has posted on his tall page, filthy, baseless lies and defamation, calling me a troll, thinking he knows best about everything, he is a professor. Therefore his opinion was all that mattered. I had enough. I am human. No-one can tolerate that type of long term abuse. Below is the section of filth still boldly pasted on his talk page, and left there for months.

On iss246's talk page he has this filth still posted. Nice guy!Mrm7171 (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"Here is what we know about you Mrm7171. You are an internet troll. You have a bachelor's degree. If you earned a degree, I don't think the degree came with much distinction. You don't have a Ph.D. You didn't complete a post-doc in anything. You like i/o psychology perhaps because you took a course in it. You think you are smart but you lack understanding. I write that you lack understanding because you selectively ignore what I write. For example, I write that Tom earned a Ph.D. in behavioral pharma yet you ignore that fact although the fact is in Tom's page on LinkedIn. Or you assert I don't like Tom because I objected to your using a reference found in a blog. That does not translate to dislike. But you did the translating (better to call it mistranslating; intentional mistranslating). Good thing you don't work as a translate or at the U.N., then you would really ball things up. You are not that smart." courtesy of iss246

Wow, thank you so much iss246, for your kind words. For the record. No, I am not a troll. I also do hold a Doctorate in Psychology and almost 30 years experience. But really, who cares! Seriously I don't care. Nor is that relevant. In fact, unlike many others I have known I don't even use my Dr title anytime. The only reason I mention this now, on my own talk page, is that iss246 refuses to delete his defamatory, baseless, childish comments about me above still posted on your talk page. So, self defence I guess.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171 did not put my angry response into context. My response came after he placed on my talk page walls and walls of unnecessary text that included needling recommendations to act "calmly." Mrm7171 did not mention what I wrote at the end of my angry response, which was to I ask him to never write on my talk page again. Iss246 (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

In response, I know no more, or no less, than other editors. I have made excellent edits on Wikipedia. In many articles. I have been subjected to masses of abuse from iss246 over months and can provide literally 100 examples of abuse toward me such as the section posted on his talk page. Countless times iss246 talks on and on and on about how he is a professor, he knows best, etc etc etc...I can provide 100 examples. I had enough. I also hold a Doctorate in psychology but who cares!. Holding Doctorate or being an expert is irrelevant on Wikipedia. Mrm7171 (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I could not care less about my doctorate. Never have. Never will. Who care's! It is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Everyone's opinion is equal. Don't use it in my title, where most others do. I know no more, no less than anyone else on the psychology topics. No individual's opinion matters any more or any less.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not true. I was blocked because when I first joined Wikipedia, I broke the 3 revert rule, once. I then learnt from that block. Being blocked once should not be brought up again and again to abuse an editor? Surely?

On the Occupational health psychology page here is what was written in October 2013 and only recently revisited the article. Admittedly, after re-reading iss246's posting of his filthy, abusive defamation which remained on his talk page, my reaction to him personally came out a couple of days ago, and called him some names too. I realised straight away and apologised for my childish replies in self defence to iss246's long term abuse! We are all human. We all have a limit. No-oner stepped in and stopped iss246 from his abuse. Everyone saw his abuse. It has remained on his talk page for months.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Note to any administrator. I have stepped right back here. I have not reverted anyone's edits today and would not 'blindly revert' anyway, without discussing first. Iss246 is a very experienced editor, who clearly knows what three-revert rule (3RR) violations are. In fact, I posted a clear warning directly above, so there was absolutely no doubt. Further no experienced editors like Bilby have a thing to say about it, despite me asking for advice where to post this. Today, within a 12 hour period iss246 has engaged in continual blatant edit warring. Iss246 has reverted at least 7 of my good faith edits without a care for Wikipedia's strict policy applying to all editors not to cross the (3RR) line. I will not engage in edit warring, or be dragged into a continual edit war. I realize my own editing will also be assessed by an administrator. So be it. I accept whatever an administrator of Wikipedia decides to do here.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Why in the world did you post all this in the middle of my comment? That really confuses things. And if you can really "provide literally 100 examples of abuse toward [you]", well, let's see some examples. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 01:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, what a mess. I can certainly provide a lot of references. Just added one from today at the base of the page. If administrator wants examples give a day or two and I will collate them in a coherent manner. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not quite sure what to do. Frankly, after looking over various talk pages I'm inclined to throw a block in the direction of MRM if only out of irritation over the caps, the bold, the odd insertions of comments, the aggressiveness, and that there's supposed to be a Ph.D. attached to all that yelling in somewhat sub-par language. Would an IBAN be helpful? I'd warn MRM for personal attacks and all that, but Iss has also called the other party a troll. I can't judge whether MRM's edit history warrants such an appellation, but the comments pertaining to Iss are certainly trollish. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for bolding. And using capitals the other day. Won't do that again. Just read this message.Did not know the policy on bolding either. Sincere apologies.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I am at my wits end after being abused and attacked and accused by iss246 of everything under the sun. As a human, after a year of abuse, I got angry the other day. I am only human. An example just today is iss246 accusing me of not reading an article, that isi am lying. It has been endless. Here is his comments from only today.....
""Mrm7171 claimed to have read the article but never used the quote until I introduced the quote. This makes me suspect what he knows about the Everly article comes strictly from my writing about it.".... courtesy of iss246 only today!

I did not lie. I read the article. Why does iss246 have to accuse and insinuate and attack constantly. Then one day, I snap. And give hime some back, I'm going to be slapped with a barring or whatever? That would seem grossly unfairMrm7171 (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Off iss246 goes again on the base of the Talk:Health psychology all day. I cannot stop him attacking me, accusing me of bad faith. Twice today. I remain silent as I very often have. Cannot an administrator look iss246 personalizing, attacking, accusing constantly. Can he not just focus on editing? Can no-one stop him from doing this. Here is another example. I remain silent. As I mostly do, under his relentless attacks and personalizing instead of focusing on editing only. Please refer to today's accusations and personalizing, by iss246. Again apologies for 'cracking under this relentless personalization' and accusations of bad faith by iss246. I normally try and ignore his attacks and remain silent as Wikipedia recommends but this is ridiculous. We are all human. That is the only reason why I cracked the other day. Iss246 also avoids answering direct questions regarding actual editing. Talk:Health psychologyMrm7171 (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Given this is on the administrator's page here, can an administrator please go to the Talk:Health psychology and read all of the last day's rants by iss246. I just re-readit and feel like I need to respond to his false, baseless accusations. I refrain. I keep silent. What do you recommend? All day, iss246 has personalized, accused, attacked. Not focused on editing. I stay silent. What do you recommend. Can you warn him please. Can you ask him at the very least to stop this relentless, personalization and focus only on editing. Please!Mrm7171 (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, sure, gladly. I did. And what I see is a rebuttal on their part of accusations made by you. You say "I stay silent"--no, you don't, you're here again, doing a passive-aggressive dance in which you play the victim. I urge other admins to look into this matter to see if more drastic measures are necessary: I am going to block for the latest talk page disruptions.

    I note, for instance, that Mrm is the one playing the personal card on that article talk page--quite inappropriate, with headings such as "Fake references cited by iss246". They started the latest section, "Please stop accusing me of lying or not reading a journal article iss246!". One can't fault Iss for responding. The clincher, perhaps, is this edit here--the old "there you go again", with "Stop the abuse and personalizing please" as an edit summary. I've had enough of this: blocked temporarily for personal attacks, article talk page abuse, and general disruption. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been an issue for about 8 months. Iss246 hasn't always responded well, but Mrm7171 was confrontational from the start, and often seems to be goading Iss246 and other editors. I had hoped that things would calm down, but they seem to have fired up again after a break. Hopefully something short of an indef block will help, but intervention is needed. - Bilby (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
In addition to personal attacks Mrm7171 keeps starting long and unending debates over minor points on talk pages that continue even after several editors disagree. Points that seem to be settled will be brought up again weeks or months later. I hope the intervention will help. Psyc12 (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Like Bilby, I've spent several months at Talk:Occupational health psychology (and now Talk:Health psychology) trying to resolve this dispute, basically since Mrm7171's appearance there. Speaking in my capacity as a volunteer editor who has been dealing with him since around the time of his first block, Mrm7171 appears to have a WP:COMPETENCE problem. This problem is IMO not likely to be solved. I believe that Mrm7171 would sincerely like to be more effective, but he comes across as an intransigent POV pusher with odd beliefs. For example, he makes comments about professional psychology associations being "clubs" with a "hidden agenda". He keeps starting, and then dropping, these weird discussions about whether "OHP" is the same thing as "occupational health psychology". He complains frequently that it is possible to be a practitioner of occupational health psychology without first being a licensed clinical psychologist (this is not unique to OHP; for example, professors of psychology are legally called "psychologists" even if they are not licensed, and all sorts of nurses, allied health workers, and even medical doctors are professionally involved in psychology without being licensed psychologists).
Like Bilby, I'd prefer that this was handled without an indef, although with each encounter, I'm less confident that this is possible, and I would not be surprised if other people deemed it necessary. An WP:IBAN would need to involve more than Iss246, as Mrm7171 has significantly directed his anti-OHP comments towards at least one other editor. I think that at topic ban from anything related to psychology might work. A TBAN for anything smaller than psych (e.g., health-related psych) might be too difficult to understand the boundaries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing has been remarkably patient through months of difficult interaction with Mrm7171. I'm sorry to say that Mrm7171's contributions have been (with rare exceptions) nonconstructive and disruptive. Not only that, his ideas and his style of discussion are so odd that I feel that he will probably not be able to change sufficiently to become a useful editor, at least within the areas of his distinctively strange ideas. I would support a indefinite ban, preventing him from editing all psychology subjects. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone (myself included) noticed that Drmies blocked Mrm7171 three days ago. (NAC) Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 07:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I did. The block is for two weeks. I think it would be more efficient to talk about what should happen when the block expires than to come back and go through this all again in eleven days. we need a long-term solution, not a two-week break followed by a return to disruption. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Never do today what you can put off indefinitely. Two weeks of real life is a great antidote to wikistress, and AGF is that when Mrm7171 returns with a fresh perspective they'll be able to contribute effectively. Support reclosing the thread. NE Ent 22:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you may be overly optimistic there - this isn't an issue that has flared suddenly, so much as a long-term pattern that is going to need to be addressed. But I'm uncomfortable with trying to tackle this while Mrm7171 is not able to take part. Thus I'm not opposed to letting things sit and see if we need to come back later, with the hope that we won't have to. - Bilby (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason why this was reopened? Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 06:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The issue hadn't been resolved. Or at least, we need to confirm that it has been. - Bilby (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The issue, which is a long-term inability to function in this environment, has not really been resolved. It's only been postponed. I do agree with Bilby that it feels a bit unfair to have these kinds of discussion when the affected person is only able to post to his user talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure, it's just been postponed--but the continued personal attacks warranted administrative action, in my opinion. One way forward, a typically ANI way, is WP:ROPE--see how they act upon return (and NE Ent is perfectly correct in being optimistic). Drmies (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support indef block: Per others, behavior seems unlikely to change at this point. CorporateM (Talk) 14:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I note that Mrm7171 continues to speak to us via his talk page. Judging from what he wrote on his talk page, he shows little insight. I support CorporateM. Not wanting to write on Mrm's talk page, I made my judgment plain on the health psychology talk page today. Iss246 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
@Iss246: an article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for diff-less rebutting of a blocked user's diff-less accusations posted on an entirely different page. Please {{cot}}/{{cob}} that particular section (Talk:Health psychology#Comment on the January 21.2C 2014 claims Mrm7171 wrote on his talk page).
In the future, please ignore such posts as the new text Mrm7171 has made, until/unless it is posted to a behavioural noticeboard such as here or an uninvolved editor asks you what is actually going on. Even then, get it off any article talk pages and use {{diff}}s to direct attention to any behaviour or edits you are discussing. @Psyc12: that goes for you, also. Mrm7171 has twice now deleted the posts you have left on their talk page. They are blocked and angry at the both of you; let them cool off. (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Mrm is indeed still venting on their talk page, but there is longstanding consensus that users are allowed to vent in that way while blocked. What matters is whether they continue to do so and/or continue their disruptive behavior once the block has expired. I'm certainly not willing to be more punitive (OK, preventive) than I've already been. Having said that, I hasten to add that they are clearly listening; I have again pointed at my explanation for the block which, for the record, is not for bolding or whatever. See above, my post of 19:32, 16 January 2014, and see WP:ROPE for a prediction of what the future might hold--let's hope I'm proven wrong. And again I endorse NE Ent's comment and thoughts; let someone please come by and close this. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

User:CensoredScribe overcategorizing[edit]

I've come across CensoredScribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who has been creating all sorts of silly, unnecessary categories, largely centered around fiction. For example, they created Category:Alternative reproduction in fiction, Category:Fictional racists, Category:Brain transplant in fiction, and so on. They've been warned about this before, but they've created quite a few categories since then. Just thought I'd bring this up here to see if anyone had any thoughts. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

There were some comments about this editor here, including comments from me. Georgewilliamherbert said he was going to follow up with that editor but it doesn't appear George did. I have my general concerns about the compatibility between what that editor does and what we're supposed to be doing as Wikipedia editors, the aims just don't quite seem to meet often enough. Zad68 03:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I was cleaning up after this editor earlier today when he added a bunch of articles to strange and ill-defined categories, or to categories that are just plain wrong. I was thinking about perhaps proposing a topic ban for category-related edits, but I would certainly like to hear from CensoredScribe before suggesting this. The exchange here about the subject does not inspire me with confidence however.--Atlan (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Right... I'm not sure preventing only category-related edits will really fix the problem I am suspecting here. Can anybody review this editor's history and point to a clear area of net-positive contributions? Zad68 04:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I was thinking of a topic ban over a block because CensoredScribe is obviously well-meaning. But going by their talk page, there are definitely more problems than just the category one. Perhaps a case of WP:CIR.--Atlan (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that link is what I was thinking of when I was writing my previous comment. Zad68 04:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Was the warning justified? No. Move on. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

CensoredScribe over the last month has had their edits to add categories reverted by over a dozen editors for the zealous overcategorization. However it's not just overcategorization, it's placing original research categories into the articles as well. Some are of dubious thought diff, some original reseach diff2, and some just plain left field diff3. They have created multiple categories, gone on a large categorization spree then after other editors have removed some of the categories from articles subsequently blanked the categories and had them deleted. Some have also gone to deletion review. See deleted contribs. The users edits are not malicious and are certainly not vandalism they're being conducted in good faith. However they are causing a lot of work for other editors to clean up and a minor bit of disruption. Not all their edits are bad either, some are useful and reasonable such as the category Body swapping in fiction, which is a good one to have (not sure we have something similar so it's useful.) Canterbury Tail talk 12:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add that I also found this editor's contributions troublesome. It is all unsourced and WP:OR at best. Categories need to be supported in the articles at the very least. I question the utility of many of them. His work is sloppy enough that many of us have had to jump in and clean up after him. That is not constructive editing. It should be collegial, in that he learns from his mistakes and cooperates to improve articles. How many warnings and speedy deletions does he need here before action is taken? Elizium23 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

My edits to non medical science articles are statistically largely acceptable; such as on the environmental effects section of plastic and the bioremediation of assorted heavy metals; hydrocarbons and black carbon. Before I added categories my edits to mythological subjects were also rarely reverted; like the relics section on Gautama Buddha. With the exception of this recent categorization issue; my only other problems were with not using secondary source medical articles; which I did end up using correctly; making lasting contributions to HIV AIDS explaining the experience of aids patients in China and noted that Bonobos are immune to SIV.

Most of my categorizations are correct; excepting Blade Runner and Starwars (mostly the prequels). I suppose the idea replicants are alive enough to be considered slaves is not explicity shown nor that replicants not being allowed on earth would be akin to immigrtation in fiction. For Starwars I accurately listed Bobba Fett as an aviator like Luke and all the other characters; and listed Darth Vader as a racing driver similar to Captain Falcon do to the Podracing scene; I also listed him as a child soldier because he fought in a military action destroying the droid control ship in the battle of Naboo. He didn’t invent anything though; because he didn’t have a laboratory or machine new parts like Iron Man or use the force to mold the materials with his mind or anything; he just put pod racer junk parts together as a mechanic. Jedi and Sith are now just a category of swordsmen because there are so many of them. I think all the force users count as super soldiers and soldiers depending on their power, they seem to possess at least a few force powers with super reflexes and jumping as a standard even for a barely force trained Jedi like Luke.

Flying cars in fiction, aliens zoos in fiction, martial arts tournament anime and manga and tournament anime and manga are all easily definable and have numerous examples. I forgot to add the Jetsons as having flying cars; those cars being able to collapse into briefcases makes them fall under the same category as the Transformers. I did not add flying cars to Starwars because I stopped editing Starwars pages in protest of the EUs imminent demise and the prequels being rightfully hated. Fictional telekenetics is a good category I’ve added including many Jedi and Sith but also others like Jean Grey.

Speaking of the Matrix. I still think Neo has telekenesis because he is listed as having super speed and strength which he does not have outside of the virtual world of the Matrix. The abilities possessed in the Matrix should count as the characters spend most of their lives and the film inside of the Matrix. This would also apply to movies where most of the film is a dream or where a lot of super powers are shown in the afterlife.

I realized alternative reproduction was far too vague; as is artificial person. Artificial uterus in fiction is a well defined and commonly occurring category however; though in retrospect ecto womb would be a better name for the category as the wombs in brave new world are harvested from cows. The other examples included in artificial reproduction in fiction would have better categorized as Homunculus in fiction; and Synthetic biology in fiction.

Mythological rapists and rape victims are valid categories and the discussion is ongoing. The xenomorph from alien has been stated by Dan O'Bannon to be a rapist. There are legend of coyote having a penis long enough to go across a river. [1] There is also a raven legend like this. [2] My edits to various articles in the mythology project have been constructive. Mostly it is adding references from lives of the necromancers; however I also added a section to Inanna from the page for dominatrix.

The amount of female sword fighters in video games anime manga and fantasy horror and science fiction is enough the category should be renamed. I supported that the category be renamed in the discussion like with the gender neutral firefighter and police officer articles. I listed Picard and Word as being swordsmen because they spend a significant amount of screen time practicing those skills and do use them. I also added the page mythological swordfighters. For goddesses and gods depicted wielding a sword or who have legends of them wielding swords.

Fictional multidimensional will be a small category; however it has a narrow definition which excludes simply being from another dimension and walking through a portal as it is limited only to characters who posses shapes impossible in three dimensions. The Cheshire caat being non Euclidian is mentioned on the cats section on the page for alice in wonderland so at the very least a reference needed tag should be added to that paragraph.

The fictional characters with nuclear abilities and fictional characters with gravity abilities are going to be small categories; unlike characters with electrical abilities. Really the biggest mistake I think I’ve made recently in terms of original research was listing the Kryptonians as having gravity abilities; which is only ever briefly suggested by Lex Luthor. I could provide a reference to Hulk being a living nuclear weapon that absorbs universal atomic energy. Godzilla is referred to as having a nuclear reactor for a heart in Godzilla vs Destoroyah, and Godzilla going through nuclear meltdown is treated as a serious threat. Being a living nuclear reactor should count as having nuclear abilities. Also Kaiser Ghidorah has gravity beams which is a gravity power; and as other TARDIS models have functioning chameleon circuits; should be considered a shape shifter. The TARDIS can also control a black hole which would make it count as well. Captain Atom has nuclear abilities; just as Gravity and Graviton have gravity abilities. I believe the TARDIS is also telepathic so that should be noted.

I am surprised however that fictional characters with radiation absorption or resistance isn’t a category. This category would include the Kryptonians and the Hulks; as well as Starfire and the super mutants and ghouls in Fallout. Most but not all of the Godzilla Kaiju show this ability on screen. The mainstream continuity Spiderman exhibits radiation resistance during his fight with Morlun; I’m less sure of the fantastic four; in the future I would ask others on the fantastic four talk page whether their gaining their powers would count as this; or if there are later storylines where they survive large amounts of radiation.

I categorized several characters incorrectly as invisible more than any other category; the issue was whether invisibility through technology counted. I removed the Predator and Terry Mcginnis from this category, however Motoko Kusanagi from Ghost in the shell is still listed despite her invisibility being technology based; most of her being a technological prosthesis.

Fictional Yogis is a valid category which currently includes only Dhalsim from street fighter.

I added wookies as a race as slaves; however if this is correct most non human races in Starwars should be listed as slaves. The only other fictional slave I added was Jessie Pinkman; which no one is debating. It would also be appropriate to have mythological slaves and slave owners.

Brain transplant in fiction and body swapping in fiction are being discussed; they are both good ideas and it’s important to distinguish brain transplant from mind swapping. Body hopping seems to be the best way to describe Quantum leap; though that show in particular is difficult to define correctly as it’s inconsistent as to whether Sam has the abilities of his own body or of the person he leapt into. My other positive contributions which have remained for several weeks are fairly miscellaneous. It’s specifically characters not episodes or storylines that most of the reversions are occurring.

I have however made several valid contributions to fictional characters. I’ve made positive contributions in the past and in the future in other subjects; if allowed to edit again will bring more things up for discussion on the talk pages. It’s been a lack of references not poor references which has been the problem.

Please note you are not blocked from editing. The Censoredscribe account is not blocked, and your editing of the project is not prohibited. People just wish you to get involved in some discussion and abide by community consensus where appropriate. Feel free to edit under your account rather than this IP. Canterbury Tail talk 00:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there a way to limit categories to ones where there is a meaningful article behind it? Some of the examples being listed here are heading towards WP:OC#TRIVIAL (e.g. bald people could be fictional bald people, people who use a sword or a gun) and the other aspects in WP:OC. If there's to be a category like flying cars in fiction, there should be a decent article about flying cars to back it up. -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is no permission that controls category creation. There is a long stand problem in that any editor can create a category, populate it with one article and we have a valid populated category in 50 seconds. Now to delete that category someone has to find it, tag it and start a CfD discussion that will take a week and fall into the 2 month long open backlog to be closed and processed. So the work to cleanup takes more time and more effort. Not sure how we fix that. BTW, some of this class of categories, created by an editor that we think is not trying to follow the rules, that do survive CfD. I'm making this as a general comment to answer this question. I have not intentionally looked at the categories involved in this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
@CensoredScribe: You may want to have a look at WP:TLDR. -- œ 13:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe after his keyboard is back from the repair shop. EEng (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Uncivil conduct of User:LazLong Sr[edit]

NAC'ing this. LazLong Sr and WhisperToMe have shaken hands, figuratively speaking, and agree to let bygones be bygones. If only more ANI's were resolved this way. Blackmane (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2014 (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 contacted User talk:LazLong Sr about an editing issue regarding Greater Houston and while I have been able to help correct one issue that LazLong has had with the article and edits removing content related to universities in Galveston, I think that his attitude has been increasingly uncivil even though I feel that I have been helping him. Can anyone please give some assistance here? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've warned him about personal attacks. Minor incivility was once dealt with at WP:WQA but brilliant minds dismantled it. The best choice when faced with obstinence is other words, back away, go back to discussing on the article talkpage to obtain consensus, and use WP:DR where needed. Not everyone is a wiki-expert, and not everyone is able to see 2 sides ES&L 10:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a content dispute that's resulted in frayed nerves. I don't see a pattern of incivility that requires administrative intervention, or anything like that. ESL is right in suggesting the DR process, as well as giving yourself a break from the dispute. Sometimes just giving yourself 24 hours to think about something else can be beneficial, even when the dispute has run for weeks or months on end. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
That's fine. I asked about it on IRC and somebody suggested ANI but I'm fine with another venue. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Sounds great to me. As long as he doesn't come to my talk page and attack me, I fine with it. Didn't know this process was here or I'd used it earlier. I'm not a "professional Wikier" and honestly don't care to be. I am a professional member of the media and I do seek honesty and balance in the few Wiki articles with which I am concerned. Thanks for your time. LazLong Sr (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Speaking as a professional member of the media, no self-respecting member of any media organization would call someone names like that ... it's wholly unprofessional ES&L 18:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Please, exactly what names did I call him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LazLong Sr (talkcontribs) 19:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC) Sorry, for not signing. I'm not used to wikiways LazLong Sr (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
User:WhisperToMe should have provided some differences showing the incivility but I suspect that remarks like this and this are what they are referring to. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I should provide diffs next time. Since much of it was on the same page and was left up I thought it would be apparent. The one that prompted this discussion was this one. This was the one before it, and this one before it said "At this point in the process, it really doesn't matter to me what you think. You've clearly shown your "true colors" as it were." WhisperToMe (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

ATTENTION - ES&L and . —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's

Please notice he has continued his attacks on me just a few hours after you suggested he lay off for at least 24 hours. This is how the entire disagreement started in the first place - Instead of a civil discussion on the article's Talk Page, he came to MY house, my Talk page, being intrusive, rude, and berating. When he should have stopped, he repeatedly returned to my Talk page with his boorish attitude.
I see he's now done the same on your page - twisting my tail here. So much for "backing off." He really has a great way of showing respect for your suggestions on how to curtailment the ill will he's fostered. LazLong Sr (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and ES&L I still respectfully ask you to point out these "names" you accuse me of calling him. Thanks for your attention. LazLong Sr (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
You really don't recollect calling WTM a fool and a pompous ass? It was only yesterday. Bishonen | talk 16:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC).
Those are not names. Those are proper descriptions, in my opinion, of MTM's words and actions on my Talk page. LazLong Sr (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Darn, I'm sorry. I didn't sign in properly. I really do apologize, I'm not a real wikier and not comfortable with all the logins and tildes so I have to go back and correct. I'm not doing it intentionally. LazLong Sr (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
ES&L and . —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's --- I'm sorry to make multiple entries without allowing adequate time for your response. Please believe me, I am not attempting to bully you by stacking things up with repeated entries. That was done to me, and it is not right to do that to someone. All that said, I'd like to remind you, I DID NOT seek out this post war. I started no attack on anyone. Someone took a civil discussion away from the article in question, aggressively brought it to MY house, to my personal Talk page, and commenced to attack and talk down to me. I responded to this affront as I would any such attack "in my house." I defended myself and yes, retaliated. I DID not seek out this fight, but I won't be bullied in my house. LazLong Sr (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I have read the exchange on your talkpage - and the purpose of that talkpage is, indeed, to talk to YOU, and it belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation as is provided for that purpose. There is only ONE party who is uncivil on that page: you. You're the one who begins with accusations of some form of racist agenda. When the person apologizes for an error of theirs, you attack them, and continue your subtle but obvious accusations of racism. You eventually refer to them as a fool. Sincere attempts by another editor to advise you of Wikipedia policies and norms CANNOT be considered an attack. Let me repeat in case you missed it: you were never attacked on the talkpage - you were asked to follow set policies that you agreed to when you signed up to this private website, and they pointed out a few areas where you have been failing to keep up to your end of the bargain. ES&L 10:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinions. I disagree with them, but I'm then not a professional wikier, just a professional member of the working media. LazLong Sr (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, there are no "professional wikiers", and your status as a "professional member of the working media" is not relevant to your status on Wikipedia, one way or the other. Secondly, if you disagree with those "opinions", then you need not to edit on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, and when you edit Wikipedia you must follow these policies and guidelines, or you will - if you ignore or flaunt them - be blocked from editing until you agree to. Thirdly, I see that you comment on your talk page that you are here "attempting to keep the FACTUAL TRUTH posted in a very few Wiki articles" - "Truth" is not what Wikipedia is here for. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth; it is a sad but true fact that professing an agenda to promote "The Truth" is almost invariably a sign of a bad editor. I'd suggest you step back, take a deep breath, Read up on some relevant policies, and then either resume editing while following them - or, if you can't follow them, not to resume editing at all. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Beginning to feel like a hindquarter in a shark feeding frenzy. Thanks for that Bushranger, especially the links. I completely understand "verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material" and was pleased to see it's been amended to consider sources balanced relative to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight. Some semantics - I believe "FACTUAL TRUTH" is defined as verifiable, irrefutable facts, and a step more stringent than verifiable alone. I do need to do much more reading on the "wiki way" and think a lot of this event stems from multiple misunderstandings - almost exclusively mine. Much of the animosity stemmed from what I perceived as someone taking a discussion from the article's Talk page and lecturing/attacking me in what I perceived as my personal space, my Talk page. I read others Talk pages and did not see such taking place there. More over, I felt what was brought there missed the core of the problem, that being why was everything about a major, world-renown city removed from an article where it clearly belonged. I was already distressed about the article's "serialization" of anything to do with the City of Galveston as if it were a virus, coupled with what I wrongly perceived as a personal attack in my personal space, and basically I blew a gasket. Things then quickly escalated in a back and forth that needed to stop or at lease slow down. I should not have wrote the things I wrote, especially in the hateful manner in which I wrote them. But at the time I felt I was defending myself, and my "home" - as mistaken as I now realize that feeling to be it none the less was what I was experiencing. Honestly, I wasn't aware how truly visceral some of what I wrote was as I only recently went back and read it. I apologize to all for this, especially WhisperToMe. I have learned much from this event and hope to continue learning.
I do have a question of "correct wiki action" at this point. Should I leave up or clear the page of the argument - not ES&L's admonitions which of course should remain?
And one more - Who is in charge or top rank or whatever? How does one know?
LazLong Sr (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you :) - There is not any one editor who is in charge. User:Jimbo Wales is one of the founders and he has some status from that, but he is not in charge either. The Wikimedia Foundation board oversees all of the projects but they are not involved in day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
My bad WhisperToMe . I took things you did wrong, incorrectly made assumptions about Talk pages, was ticked, got bent, and bowed up. I think you're from Texas and understand my idioms. Again, sorry. All that said, is there a list of suggested reading concerning the general wiki-world and how to navigate it? Is there a mentoring program to aid people, keeping them from stumbling into a wiki septic tank? Am I even asking these questions (and making apologizes) in the right place or should I go to "your" talk page ? back to "mine"? punt? ---- Crap, messed up again. Thought I was logged in. Corrected LazLong Sr (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── At the very top of your talk page there is a welcome template under which there are a number of blue links that are very useful for new editors to read. There is indeed a mentorship program, you can read a little about what is involved at WP:MENTOR and seek out an adopter at WP:AAU. Some mentors have multiple adoptees and may be unable to mentor you but they often can direct you to another user. The WP:TEAHOUSE is another very good place for new editors to ask questions and get help from other experienced editors. It's much more informal than a mentorship arrangement and if the editors there don't know the answer they usually know someone with the requisite knowledge. Blackmane (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all who provided information and constructive criticism. LazLong Sr (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2014 (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.

Cad and the Dandy - edits by Josephgallos[edit]

Much to my disapointment, I must request aministrator intervention re Cad and the Dandy and the edits of Josephgallos. Since getting involved with the article Savile Row some 2+ years ago, and getting that down to a less spam-like form, I have taken an interest in related articles. One such is Cad and the Dandy, created by user Josephgallos. I don't question WP:NOTAB, but persistent revision by Josephgallos - and nearly breaking the three revert rule - have recently brought to my attention the (now admitted) fact that Josephgallos is in fact commerically paid SEO consultant to the subject of this article. I have advised Josephgallos of our rules re WP:BIAS, and asked for a discussion of the issues, but am continually faced with non-engagement. Given that in the last 24hrs I have placed a vandal3 tag on his talk page, and a WP:BIAS notice on the article - the latter of which was reveresed - I am disapointingly now forced to request adinistrator intervention. The core problem here is that Josephgallos appears not to understand the difference between bias/avertorial and encyclopedic. Your quick intervention and input would be most appreciated - Thank You! Rgds,--Trident13 (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Trident13, I noticed that you twice removed the Good Article tag on Cad and the Dandy without the article being delisted. I also don't think the vandal tag was appropriate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input! My mistake on the GA, but in light of the admitted bias/lack of engagement plus revert of my addition of the BIAS tag, I hope that you can understand the choice. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Trident13, you need to file a Wikipedia:Good article reassessment if you want the page to be delisted from GA. Epicgenius (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I am appealing to the administrators to review this matter seriously. User:Trident13 has been trying to delete important verifiable content referenced with reliable published sources without valid reasons. User:Trident13 also engaged in a questionable practice to edit the content in question so it looks like they are inconsistent before deleting them altogether thus appearing in the history section like he deleted an inconsistent content. This is a deliberate manipulation attempt suggesting bias on his side. He is accusing me of vandalism citing content which I answered with supporting published sources. When he cannot provide valid reasons for deletion, he proceeded to attacking me and using WP:BIAS as an excuse to his Wikipedia:Blanking Vandalism. For the record, I did not create the Cad and the Dandy article. But information that is true, verifiable, and facts deserved to be included in the encyclopedia, thus I reverted back the content deleted by User:Trident13.
I have reasons to believe that User:Trident13 is biased for a few reasons:
1) User:Trident13 is the author of Chester Barrie article. Chester Barrie is a direct competitor of Cad & the Dandy
2) Just prior to accusations of vandalism by Trident13, I undid a revision from an unlogged user (
3) User:Trident13 on several occasions has been replacing the "good article" tag of the Cad & the Dandy article with advert tag since 2012 without any reason at all. example is:
I have made it clear on the articles talkpage, I have no commercial association with the clothing industry, and was/have never been paid or asked to create an article for Chester Barrie. Yes I created it, but that was because it was mentioned on the Savile Row article which I had heavily editted, and I found it worthy of inclusion passing WP:NOTAB (I have also never bought suits from either establishment, or Savile Row). I also don't at present want to add to the current hot-pot which is the edits of Josephgallos by asking for review of GA status for the Cad and the Dandy. Simply put (again) I just want text to reflect encyclopedic content, not the SEO advertorial which Josephgallos has admitted on both the articles talkpage and his own user page (see edit record) been paid to insert. Rgds --Trident13 (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) You don't want to go through GAR but you want to come to ANI? That seems odd (I know ANI is a shorter process, but...). Anyway, I think this is another boomerang situation. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 20:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It should probably be reviewed anyway, as its GA quality is questionable. Epicgenius (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
You may be right, but if so that's largely due to Trident13 decimating the article in a single edit [8] with the single explanation of 'removing advert-text'.--KorruskiTalk 15:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Just how clear an indication of paid editing by a commercial "SEO consultant" do we need here? Whatever editors might think of how Trident13 has acted in some ways, there is a very obvious promotional COI issue that deserves examination. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


And now indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:08, 24 January 2014 (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.

Holdek blocked another month for disruptive editing, WP:GAME and WP:TE. Strongly recommend that next block for similar behavior be indefinite. Toddst1 (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2014 (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.

Holdek (talk · contribs) found a new entertainment. This time they start to add stub templates to a start-class article and edit-war over my removal of these templates [9]. Last time they were blocked for a month for destructive editing. I am afraid time has come for an indefinite block, given that their contribution to Wikipedia is net negative.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It would seem that this editor is disruptive. Whether it is for entertainment or lack of competence is uncertain. This speedy deletion nomination is cause for concern. Some sort of block seems necessary, at least until this user can be reined in.- MrX 16:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Re. the SD, it's probably a rival company. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I do think the editor is disruptive and net negative, but I do not think they are a COI editor or smth. Most of their activity is to delete paragraphs from random articles which have {{cn}} templates. I never noticed any specific interest to companies.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia: Assume good faith. Holdek (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Good faith can only be assumed when the facts are not clear. here, the facts are available for all and sundry to see. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Holdek (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) To be fair, concerning the speedy deletion nom that MrX pointed out, that article does deserve to be deleted, as explained here. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 20:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Scratch that; the article has greatly improved since the AfD began. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 07:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Holdek, when I said the facts are there for all to see, I was referring to your semi disruptive behaviour. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I think he actually knew that, and was being ironic Teeth.png Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Holdek (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Note:The following thread got split from this and misplaced under the edit warring discussion below. Since it's clear that several editors want to continue this thread, I'm moving it back here to let it continue and allow the edit warring thread to continue separately. Toddst1 (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

May we please return to Holdek? Concerning this accident, they believe that it was ok for them to edit-war.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, Holdek's edits were reverted, with a message that the content was in fact sourced. He was invited to bring his concerns to the talk page, but instead you chose to serially revert. If there are BLP concerns over the sourced data, those should be discussed on the talk page. Edit warring over sourced material, while claiming it is unsourced is disruptive. aprock (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
This is a very typical Holdek behavior. In the article which started this thread, Zvenigora, initially they merged it into the article on the film producer, Alexander Dovzhenko, with the comment that it was unsourced and therefore not notable. I had no particular interest in that article, but I knew that the film is considered notable and is prominently featured in the books about Dovzhenko. Fine, I spent a day of my time, digged out the sources and has written a start-class perfectly sourced article. Then Holdek added three stub-templates there: Wikiprojects film, Ukraine, and Soviet Union. I explained them that I am in fact an active participant of Wikiprojects Ukraine and Soviet Union, and can rate the article. They shut up for half a year, but yesterday they returned and re-added the templates citing the fact that I am not listed at the pages of those projects as a participant. (As a matter of principle, I am not listed in any of the Wiki-project as a participant; my activity in Wikiproject:Ukraine can be easily checked at the talk page of the project). When I removed those they readded the templates without a comment, thereby starting an edit war. Unfortunately Holdek just do not hear what others say, and they have their own interpretation of the policies which is often different from the policies themselves, and they defend this interpretation until they get blocked for disruptive behavior. Last time they got blocked for a month for adding {{cn}} templates to figure captions and subsequently removing images as unsourced. I am actually surprised that we are still discussing their behavior. Given their block log, their refusal to start editing constructively, their lack of positive contribution, and their lack of clue, they should have been blocked on the spot.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
You are incorrect in your representation of both my Zvenigora edits and the reason for my previous block. Post links your accusations. Holdek (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Sourced every single statement. Concerning your block log, everybody can easily check that.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
It should be noted that Ymblanter's edit summary for his revert was "this is not your business in which projects I list myself." Holdek (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
It is indeed no business of yours. It is absolutely irrelevant in the context of the quality of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
It should also be noted that my edit summary when I replaced the stub templates was "Replacing stub tags pending official quality reassessments; article has been submitted in each category." Holdek (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
So who would do that "official" reassessment? Toddst1 (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Members of the corresponding projects (Wikipedia: WikiProject Soviet Union/Assessment#Frequently ask questions, Wikipedia :WikiProject Ukraine/Assessment#Frequently asked questions. Holdek (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
And here is a link to my merger proposal: [[Talk:Alexander_Dovzhenko#Merger_Proposal|Talk:Alexander Dovzhenko#Merger

Edit warring[edit]

Significant edit warring on List of most-listened-to radio programs since Jan 9 by Holdek (talk · contribs), MrX (talk · contribs), and Aprock (talk · contribs). All warned. Toddst1 (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Holy overreaction Batman! Why in the world did you deem it necessary to warn me on my talk page and add to the drama here because of my one, single revert?!- MrX 15:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
It is extremely significant and an appropriate warning if there is any semblance of tag-teaming ES&L 16:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Your one revert is relatively insignificant in that 7-revert (so far) edit war. However, jumping in the middle of an edit war as an additional partisan is still edit warring. All parties were noticed after I un-protected the page. Toddst1 (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense. Reverting a bad edit one time is never edit warring.- MrX 16:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
It is edit warring when there are 6 other reverts around it. You seriously misunderstand what edit warring is and what it's not. From WP:EW, "it is no defense to say 'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring'." Toddst1 (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
@Toddst1: Your talk page discussion (which you closed) seems like an unreasonable response for my very reasonable request, especially for an admin. You made a false statement about my behavior and I simple asked you to retract it. I also resent your claim that I "misunderstand what edit warring is and what it's not". - MrX 18:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
@EatsShootsAndLeaves: I am astutely aware of the policy. The part of the policy that you quoted has nothing to do with this. Pure and simply, edit warring requires repeated reverts. One revert is never edit warring. If you wish it to be otherwise, propose it at a policy page and gain consensus from the community.- MrX 18:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I believe my reverts fall under exception 7 referenced in the warning since I am removing unsourced contentious BLP content about ratings for shows centered around living persons, and these shows are named after them. Holdek (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely not. That is a pathetic attempt to WP:GAME that rule. I recommend both of you stop digging. Toddst1 (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
While you can clarify whether or not the reverts are appropriate, you shouldn't assume bad faith in my motives. Holdek (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── After what we've see you do in the last few days, Good faith is the last thing I'd expect to be assumed about you. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2014 (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.


Just a note here before this goes into the archives: Holdek is indef blocked now with talk page and email access disabled for repeated personal attacks against multiple admins and for recruiting editors by email to proxy edit for him while he is blocked. Furthermore, it seems Holdek slipped and revealed that he was one and the same editor as User: (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), who apparently harbored a year-long (or longer) grudge against Ymblanter, a connection that probably explains why Holdek targeted certain articles edited by Ymblanter. See this for several old ANI discussions involving the IP. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

  • The removal of e-mail access was based on a misunderstanding, and access has been restored. Holdek hadn't been recruiting editors by email to proxy edit for him.[10] Bishonen | talk 16:45, 22 January 2014 (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.

American Academy of Financial Management[edit]

Admin involvement needed. Cited content are removed under the pretext that I have COI in regard to the AAFM.EconomicTiger (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is this at AN/I? First, this is a content dispute. Second, the editor never came to me to discuss this after I posted a suggestion on their talk page that that might have a COI. Is that the way things work now? A talk page comment leads directly to an AN/I posting, without the benefit of discussion on the article talk page?

In any case, this appears to be another incarnation of the editor connected to the AAFM who periodically comes by to try to whitewash the article in favor of that organization. You might remember that after the last incident, the AAFM issued some sort of bogus legal threat (in a press release) naming certain editors, including myself, and basically telling us we had to cease and desist or face legal action. (Legal threat thread is here, incident previous to that is here)

I don't know if User:EconomicTiger is connected to User:Doctorlaw, the puppet master behind the previous AAFM-whitewashers, but regardless of whether they are connected, ET seems to be doing their best to pump up the organization, and tone down any criticism. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I have posted a neutral pointer to this report on the article's talk page, and likewise on the talk pages of all the editors who participated in the previous discussion about AAFM. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
First of all, you are not professional by putting something on my page and then claiming it is on the article's talk page. That professionalism shows why a naive institution about Wikipedia would be forced to take legal action against Wikipedia. Because of a few editors like you, the entire project is compromised. Removing content cited from WP:RS needs Administrative Action, not the Dispute Resolution Initiative. If an experienced Wikipedia Editor like me could get frustrated, why the concerned institution won't go for a legal action against Wikipedia? AAFM is not the first institution, there are number of individuals and institutions personally told me they want to take legal against Wikipedia since my association with Wikipedia which started in 2007.EconomicTiger (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I launched a sock investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doctorlaw. RJC TalkContribs 22:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
It is good that you launched CU investigation since I can't launch a one for me.EconomicTiger (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
RJC, Can you explain on which basis you added this tag on my Talk Page. Try this next time on a Blog.EconomicTiger (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • You all seem to have matters in hand. I'm unwilling to block the Tiger right now; let's see what CU comes up with. Tiger, if you revert again you will be blocked. You may use the talk page if you like. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Drimies, I am nothing to do with Doctorlaw. And this is not the first time I visited ANI. Once CU is over, I am expecting your Admin intervention on the article since removing cited content is violation.EconomicTiger (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Violation of what? Cited content can easily be removed for a wide variety of reasons. --NeilN talk to me 02:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Then it should be explained with valid reason on the Talk Page. Otherwise it is a Violation. The Wikipedia Project is built based on Content from Sources which meet WP:RS. We can't shake the foundation for a wide variety of reasons.EconomicTiger (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
No, this is simply not correct, since it's too simple. There is talk page conversation right now, and whatever it is that you want is not gaining traction. Let me inform you also that this wikilawyering of yours is disruptive as well--and thus blockable. As a sidenote, it is my opinion that Beyond8 is simply a troll: their statements (especially those in regard to BMK) on the article talk page are unacceptable. Now that is a simple matter. Drmies (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, ho, back at AN/I again. EconomicTiger seems very familiar - in particular, they've had not many edits since they tried much the same whitewash on the same page in 2012, and they are surely coming close to the bone on WP:LEGAL.
Most of their other edits seem to be on puff pieces and removing notability or other improvement tags from articles which have not in fact been improved. NOTHERE? Pinkbeast (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I had a break for different reasons on Wikipedia. I have edited since 2007 and my contributions towards AAFM is less than even 1%. Check my First 500 Contributions. You are following articles which I have edited and coming out with NOTHERE. I have contributed much more than you to enhance this project. I am not part of the legal suit against Wikipedia. But you should remember Wikipedia doesn't have any special US legislation or a UN Charter to cover it under legal immunity. But the AGF of Wikipedia Editors can protect the project over any threats.EconomicTiger (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
In fact about 6-7% of your contribs are related to the AAFM, which is unremarkable when one considers that those are the first 500 of 600 or so, and that last 100-odd are mostly AAFM-related (and the rest are on a series of puff pieces). Pinkbeast (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

─────────────────────────And a brand-new editor pops up, User:Beyond8, and makes a comment on Talk;AAFM as their very first edit.

I'm adding them to the sock report. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I have requested the CU here to check whether User:Beyond My Ken and User:Pinkbeast are sock puppeting; the timing of their edits here and here deems to think so.EconomicTiger (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
BMK makes an edit. BMK reverts it; I revert that, restoring BMK's original edit, because I felt they had made a mistake. Why on earth would anyone use a sock puppet to disagree with themselves?
As to the timing, it's almost as if Wikipedia has a facility that emails you when a page changes, allowing quick responses, isn't it? Pinkbeast (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Could be an incredibly complicated ruse to throw suspicion off our socking by acting as little like socks as possible, kind of a variation on the good hand/bad hand strategy. BMK (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Though I may agree with your explanation on timing; your first explanation, "BMK makes an edit. BMK reverts it; I revert that....", senses me that why it can't be a drama created either without any purpose or with the purpose of justifying the BMK's initial edit. User:SummerPhD's explanation here by showing the Editor Interaction Analyzis is not convincing me why both can't be the same person. I request another editor/administrator to look into and create if possible a sockpuppetry case since I am not much familiar with it.EconomicTiger (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
As I said in the link you provided, if you believe there is sockpuppetry, open a sock case. It's not that it could not be the same editor, it's that there is no reason to believe it is. I think you're wasting your time. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
They only have a handful of edits on the same pages. And they are pages that are usually edited by all active editors: noticeboards, requests to administrators, etc. This evidence would not be accepted as proof of socking. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Enric Naval, since you have accepted that you have edited AAFM and SummerPhD also involved with AAFM, you both should not come for the defense of other editors who too involved with AAFM. Otherwise, it will be considered you all are MeatPuppets. There are enough editors/administrators looking at this thread, let them get involved and come out with their opinion.EconomicTiger (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Much as various socks involved have failed to understand what WP:COI means (as has the AAFM), you don't seem to understand what WP:MEAT means (or WP:COI for that matter). No one invited me to this discussion. If you believe I am a meatpuppet, opening a sockpuppetry case would be appropriate. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Beyond8 indef blocked, EconomicTiger not a sock of Doctorlaw (Globalprofessor), but to be given a warning for disruption. I believe this can be closed now. BMK (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102) and Croatia in the union with Hungary[edit]

Can someone look into these articles and the ensuing charade there created by DIREKTOR. This guy is out of control. He behaves as if he is the owner of these pages, deletes the sourced content and entire paragraphs if they don't suit his own personal views. Edit-warring, personal attacks, refusal to reach a name it.

I've tried to reason with this person on the talk pages (including my own [11] but he always pushes and turns the discussion into a pissing contest and mere squabble without any meaningful purpose other than to impose his own view. This is not the first time I've seen him do it and I am not the first person he did it to.

You can see him edit-warring and removing huge chunks of the article lead and numerous sources for no apparent explanation, discussion or reason: [12], [13], [14]. If you look at his earlier behavior on this article you will see he was involved in numerous revert-wars in which I unfortunately also took part recently as I was stupid enough to be drawn into it as opposed to just immediately report him. Just look at the explanation given on this edit: [15].

Personal attacks on talk page: Directed at User:Tzowu [16] [17], directed at me [18] [19].

The dispute on Croatia in the union with Hungary is mainly a spill off from the other article and you can see him reverting without any explanation there as well: [20], [21], [22], [23].

Now unless I am wrong his behavior is clear example of WP:DE in general. Clear examples of WP:TEND, WP:V, WP:CONS, WP:PA, WP:CIV, WP:OWN and WP:IDHT. And I am sure WP:ARBMAC would have some say in this matter as well. Shokatz (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems that DIREKTOR was blocked several times before for the same fault (edit warring): [24]. User:Shokatz was also blocked once for edit warring. (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Not much to say. The user is relatively new, is strongly in favor of a Croatian national point of view, and will not be dissuaded from his conviction that nobody can revert him simply because he has listed some source or other. His edit is, in fact, not in accordance with the position of scholarship (as has been demonstrated to him repeatedly). In my seven years of experience and 50,000 edits on these obscure Balkans articles, there never was, and is not, a whole lot to do in this sort of situation besides edit-war. That is, if the article is to be somehow wrenched back to a semblance of source-based reality, as opposed to some Croatian/Serbian/Bosnian/Albanian national POV or other. All that said, I do not necessarily aspire to elicit some kind of special treatment, and if sanctions are deemed necessary I understand completely. -- Director (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

After 50,000 edits you should know that edit warring does not ever solve the disputes. (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
To be perfectly frank, it often does.. people wouldn't do it otherwise. Sometimes, in fact, its very effective: just gather with your pals and edit-war into the ground any users who object to your unsourced-nonsense version. If any DR is forced on you, just claim "no consensus".. goodness knows I saw it a million times. And on these sort of obscure, complex issues on unknown abandoned articles there is no recourse but revert-warring in 99 cases out of a hundred. Believe me, I wish there was. I left that article for a few months, and just now when I returned, you had an entirely fictional coat of arms, fictional coronations, fictional Croatian names for the polity, a fictional legislature, legendary events related as historical fact, fake historical dates - just to start you off.
Hope I'm not being forward but, who are you again? -- Director (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
My "friend" it was you who came to that article, made changes without any consensus, discussion and necessary sources for the changes you made, and then you proceeded to claim your version is the consensus when there is clear disagreement to what you are doing by at least one other user beside me. It is what I have seen you do on several other occasions on several different articles. Others have pointed out to your modus operandi before, like here f.e. [25]. The fact you have been seven years on Wikipedia and have over 50,000 edits should have been more than enough for you to learn you cannot impose your views and assertions. You have deliberately deleted entire sections with almost two dozens scholarly sources and imposed a minority view which is in fact clear WP:DE and WP:FRINGE according to Wikipedia policies. Accusing me of being some bigoted nationalist is just another of your scheming methods of discrediting and reverting people from the real issues. I have provided numerous sources, tried to discuss the issue with you on talk pages despite no sign of you accepting and listening anyone but yourself. And BTW, if I am not mistaken, you are not the one who will say what one can or cannot publish on Wikipedia - [26]. Shokatz (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to squabble over a content dispute here, Shokatz. You're the one being rolled back from introducing a disputed edit, not I. -- Director (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Not really, I've actually restored the lead (which you deleted for no valid reason) and slightly improved it (by adding more sources), the lead itself derives from the content which is already in the article. Stick to the facts for once, ok?