Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive837

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

Noticeboard archives


Request topic ban for chronic POV pushing editor on Electronic cigarette[edit]

User in question is user:FergusM1970. User has been repeatedly editing this article towards a Pro - ecig view. I do not believe they are capable of editing the article neutrally because they have strong opinions about the topic and seem to have chronically failed to get the point about sourcing guidelines for medical content, NPOV, OR, edit warring, etc. Every single one of the edits have been in favor of e-cigs, or original research alteration/deletion of content was against e-cigs. I do not believe they are here to write an encyclopedia but rather twist the article into their own designs. Lesion 18:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Please point to an example of OR or an unsourced edit that I have made to that article.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 18:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say unsourced content. The sources you are using are not MEDRS. I have already pointed out on the talk page where the OR from today was. Lesion 19:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll also point out that there are numerous examples of POV in the article that you don't seem to be complaining about. For example an interview with the head of the CDC can apparently be cited, but an article published in the journal of the Royal College of Physicians apparently isn't an RS. A statement by the WHO that the efficacy of e-cigs for smoking cessation has not been demonstrated is more prominent than a study showing that they're AT LEAST as effective as the nicotine patches the WHO say we should use instead. Claims that e-cigs could lead to tobacco use are highlighted despite all the evidence, including the CDC's own research, showing exactly the opposite. Stuffing an article with hysterical scaremongering is not NPOV.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 18:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
As already raised months ago on the talk page, Sources like the CDC and WHO are not wrong simply because you disagree with them. You cannot take primary sources and other unreliable sources and oppose such sources. This was clearly pointed out to you by several editors on the talk page at the time. Lesion 19:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
As is clearly stated in WP:MEDRS a position statement from the CDC or WHO claiming, for example, that e-cigs are a gateway to smoking is less authoritative than actual medical evidence showing that they're not.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 19:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
You cannot use a chain of primary sources and unreliable sources to overrule mainstream sources like WHO and CDC. Lesion 19:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
That would only be an issue if either CDC or WHO had released a secondary source showing that e-cigs are leading to a reduced rate of smoking cessation. They haven't, so what's your problem?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 20:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This appears to be a routine content dispute between two editors, and the 'POV pushing' as OP called has a relevant talk page discussion (which hasn't been utilized it appears). There hasn't been any personal attacks as of yet, only a single editor disagreeing with another single editor. I'm not seeing the original research, as the claims are cited with a reliable source. Also, OP see WP:BOOMERANG OP, you've been editwarring as well. Tutelary (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I have not been edit warring. First please look up what edit warring is defined as, and then please redact that statement. Lesion 19:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I will not. See the WP:3RR. You are not automatically entitled to three reverts, it's only at the third that you get a temp block. You can edit war with only two. Tutelary (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
It is not edit warring to revert a controversial change. I was not the only editor to revert said change either. You do not understand the term. Lesion 20:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
And I was not the only editor to restore it. The other editor who reverted it did so for an invalid reason, i.e. the file format of the source.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 20:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Admins, please review the version history of the article. User is only making one-sided edits to this article, using unreliable sources. Against consensus, check how many editors oppose this behavior in the history of the talk page. Regards, Lesion 19:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's easy. Two editors oppose my edits on the talk page; one supports them. That makes two and two, so I'm hardly editing against consensus. You, on the other hand, don't seem to like talk page discussions much. You don't even have a talk page. Now, please explain why Smoking in England - an NHS-funded tobacco control group - is an "unreliable source" when the subject is, erm, smoking in England.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 19:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The history of the talk page. There is clear consensus against your editing. Lesion 19:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
There is clear consensus against some of my edits, which are no longer in the article. That doesn't mean there's a consensus against all my edits. The history shows that I'm quite happy to seek a consensus and have been involved in building several; I don't just revert things with misleading (or absent) edit summaries and avoid talk page discussions. The edit that seems to have sparked you off is in the section entitled "Smoking cessation" and it's sourced from a review into smoking cessation carried out by a government-funded smoking cessation group. To call that OR or POV is simply wrong. Nor is it being used to debunk a secondary source, which would be against WP:MEDRS, because there aren't any secondary sources that contradict it. Frankly I don't see what your problem with it is.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 20:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
You have not made a single neutral edit to the article in months of history. The only reason you have got away with it is because you are aggressive at edit warring when editors revert your POV edits, shouting down anyone who disagrees with you. Your arguments are circular and most editors have simply lost interest. You do not get to dictate to others that an article should be twisted away from the mainstream view simply because you shout louder than everyone else. Lesion 20:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
You seem to think citing any paper that doesn't say e-cigs kill babies is a POV edit. In fact there are no actual research papers showing that e-cigs damage health, cause addiction or lead to smoking, and plenty that contradict those claims. So what's the mainstream view? Position statements and FAQs do not, as made very clear by WP:MEDRS, negate actual evidence. You seem to be arguing that just because a FAQ (it is not a secondary source) released by the WHO say e-cigs haven't been proven to help smoking cessation, its POV to mention any of the quite extensive research showing that they do. That isn't what NPOV means. Anyway, I did link a study claiming that e-cigs make smokers less likely to quit. Someone deleted it.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 20:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Tutelary. FergusM1970 does not seem to have engaged in abusive editing deserving a ban. The case has not been made. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This thread was closed without any comment from the administrator community by User:NE Ent with the summary "This isn't an issue for this board. Concerns about whether a particular source is valid belong at WP:RSN. If ya'll can't come to consensus formal content assistance may be requested at WP:DRN, alternatively you can ask for comments from the broader the community at WP:RFC. Continuing to edit war and going back and forth on the talk page is not productive." NE Ent seems to have misunderstood the situation. The complaint was about tendentious editing and possible sock puppetry. A serious complaint, brought by one of our best, most productive, and most credible medical editors. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If an editor feels I misjudged the situation based on the content of the discussion then reverting the closure is entirely appropriate. NE Ent 14:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Has consistently used primary sources and attempted to remove the position of major international organizations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Those who continually claim that the World Health Organization is not a reliable source should not be editing. [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
The link provided does not supports the assertion. Following that link shows that they don't feel a source [2] which includes the disclaimers The safety of ENDS has not been scientifically demonstrated. The potential risks they pose for the health of users remain undetermined. may not a good basis on which to base a Wikipedia article. NE Ent 17:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per go look at the talk page. Talk:Electronic_cigarette#PPT NE Ent 15:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)gus h
  • Support topic ban per Lesion. Fergus has a history of misuse of sources, mischaracterization of source, original research where he believes his arguments trump those of the reliable sources, and an inability or unwillingness to accept Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. He's already been blocked for edit-warring by Mark Arsten, was subsequently warned again for edit-warring by EdJohnston, and then was most recently blocked for a week by NuclearWarfare for tendentious editing. After the block was over he went right back to the article to continue the same tendentious editing. That's enough. Zad68 00:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the heads up about this thread Zad. I support the topic ban, but I am also blocking for a month. Literally nothing has gotten better since I instituted a block at the beginning of the month. NW (Talk) 00:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible tag team on Electronic cigarette[edit]

Moved from bottom of page NE Ent 14:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC) Yesterday I added a mention of a study on smoking prevalence to the Electronic cigarette article. It has now been removed by three different editors, User:Jmh649, User:Lesion and User:CFCF, after being restored by another editor and myself. None of the three who removed it gave a satisfactory explanation for doing so. I can't say that this is definitely an attempt to game 3RR and keep the information out of the article, but it certainly could be. Reasons given for removing the edit are "It's a PowerPoint presentation" (which I believe is irrelevant) and "It's unreliable" (which, as the source is the UK DoH and Cancer Research UK, among others, seems dubious).--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You came here over [3] showing that you did not want to use "smoking" with regard to electronic "cigarettes"? And [4] which shows you seeking to add material that they may actually reduce use of cigarettes? Looks like a routine content issue and one for which an RfC is far better than a drama board incident report, alas. Start an RfC which you quite likely would prevail on, rather than coming here. Or try WP:DRN. If I had the power, I likely would shut this board down as having exceeded any reasonable drama to usefulness ratio. Collect (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
The issue is that you were using a primary source published in the form of a ppt as per [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
It's already been pointed out to Jmh649 at Talk:Electronic_cigarette#PPT by another editor (e.g. Kim D. Petersen) that a.) the PowerPoint format is an irrelevant red-herring, and b.) the linked article is clearly a secondary source. Whether its a reliable secondary source is, of course, subject to consensus discussion on the article talk page. NE Ent 15:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent it might do well to review what is and isn't a secondary source with respect to medicine. I have provided a link on the talk page you mention. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you please tell us where WP:MEDRS rules this out as a secondary source? This source does not match the primary source definition in WP:MEDRS and does match the secondary source definition in the same, and as far as i can see, it refers us to Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources for further material, and here secondary sources are defined as (paraphrased): built from primary sources (here several statistics and surveys), significantly seperated (the statistics/surveys are not collected by the authors), provides analysis/interpretation/commentary on primary sources (that is what the text we quote does).
I think you make the mistake of thinking that this section in WP:MEDRS only accepts peer-reviewed (marked as)"review" articles as being secondary sources. While this interpretation can be made by consensus in specific areas, it is not one that is supported by the generic primary/secondary/tertiary source definition. --Kim D. Petersen 16:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

In general, secondary sources are self-described as review articles or meta-analysis.[6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

That is very nice, and this is indeed self-described as such[7] (summary and analysis of statistical material and surveys relevant to the topic area). --Kim D. Petersen 17:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Editor removing entire, well-sourced section from article Christopher Monckton without adequate justification[edit]

Editor User:Viriditas has claimed that a section on Christopher Monckton's political view pertaining to climate change are "promotional", Undue, Coattrack, etc - whatever seems to spring to mind. The section is very well sourced, and the majority of it is quite certainly the opposite of promotional. Monckton - within the limited realm of his influence - is fairly well known for his views on climate science. The article is a BLP, and the material discusses Monckton and his views. Editor Viriditas is simply removing the entire section by fiat. The only discussion that has taken place - over a matter of hours - has been with me. No opportunity for other editors to participate has been provided. I've reverted his blanket removal twice, but he/she persists. This is not acceptable - Editor Viriditas has not provided *specific* examples to back up his claims - only blanket statements that - because Monckton is not an expert on climate science, the material should not be in the article - ignoring that the article isn't claiming that he's an expert, it is presenting information relevant to Monckton. A casual scan of the net clearly shows that Monckton is controversial, and fairly widely known for being contrarian on climate change. Anastrophe (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The user keeps adding an unbelievable and unprecedented 769 words about Monckton's fringe climate change denial views into his biography.[8] I've said on the talk page that this enormous weight is undue and is tantamount to coatrackery and promotion. I then brought the 769 words down to a manageable 163.[9] Instead of receiving thanks and admiration for helping to improve Wikipedia, I've been dragged here instead. Anastrophe has been asked several times why he thinks this material is important but he refuses to answer. When he's told that he has the burden to justify adding this material, he responds with "I didn't write it", but that doesn't stop him from adding it back in again. Wash, rinse, repeat. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
"The user keeps adding an unbelievable and unprecedented 769 words". False on so many levels. First, the material has been in the article for quite some time, I don't know exactly how long, but at least a year or more. I didn't add any of this material to the article. Instead, editor Viriditas is removing this material by fiat - with vague claims of policy violations, but without a single specific. Furthermore, a claim that 769 words is "unprecedented" requires proof - otherwise, it's just noises made to sound important. Monckton's views on climate science are relevant and notable to Christopher Monckton - the article is not about climate science, it is about Monckton, but editor Viriditas insists that this material about Monckton cannot be included in an article about Monckton. "Anastrophe has been asked several times why he thinks this material is important but he refuses to answer.". Another complete, total falsehood. Editor Viriditas has not asked a single question in the discussion thus far. I have not 'refused' to answer anything - I have explained why I believe that editor Viriditas has not appropriately provided a valid justification for removal of this material. Generic, vague claims of policy violations are certainly any editor's prerogative - removing well-sourced material by fiat based on those generic claims is not acceptable in a collaborative medium. The tone of editor Viriditas's commentary is disturbing - I've explained my rationale, he's explained his, but no other editors have had an opportunity to discuss the matter. I am accused of 'refusing' to answer questions that have never been tendered. The burden is upon editor Viriditas to provide specifics, not generalities, as justifications for removing well-sourced material that is pertinent to this BLP. I'll thank and extend my admiration to editor Viriditas when he/she collaborates on the article, rather than removing material by fiat. Anastrophe (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
First, the length of time anything has been in an article is not a valid argument for keeping it in the article. I often remove vandalism that's been in place for years. According to your argument, we shouldn't remove it because it's been there for a long time. Do you see a problem with your reasoning? Second, I've explained on the talk page why I removed it, but you refuse to explain why you've added it back in. Instead, you keep refusing to take responsibility. The way Wikipedia works is like this: 1) an editor (in this case myself) finds a problem. There is no time limit on the problem, it may be new or old. 2) The editor uses the talk page to explain the problem, citing policies or guidelines if necessary. 3) The editor attempts to leave the problem for others to handle based on their talk page message, or tries to fix the problem themselves. 4) Other editors may come along to agree or disagree, or there will be silence. So what happened? I left a message on the talk page explaining the problem and then I fixed the problem. You showed up and reverted saying "why did you remove the material"? Well, that's been explained to you many times now, but you keep on adding the material back in while avoiding the burden of proof. If you can't defend adding the material back in, then stop adding it. It doesn't matter how long the problem occurred or how long the content was in the article. Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The number of dissembling claims here is astonishing. NO, my argument is not that it shouldn't be removed because it's been there a long time - I have not said that, you have said it, putting words in my mouth in order to attack me for them. Yes, you explained on the talk page your rationale. However, it is utter crap to suggest that I 'refuse' to explain anything - I've provided (perhaps overly voluminously) my rationale for inclusion, but editor Viriditas keeps saying that I'm refusing to explain myself. Utter crap. "refusing to take responsibility". Again, crap. I've stated my rationale for the material to remain, very clearly. I understand how wikipedia works, the dripping condescension is not necessary; while I have not been here quite as long as you, I have been here a very long time, I have plenty of edits under my belt, and I know an effort to scrub material because another editor doesn't like it, when I see it.
You've warped the record again - you stated your rationale for removal, I replied why I felt your rationale was not adequate - then you removed the material by fiat, ignoring the barely started discussion, and not providing any opportunity for other editors to participate. Not even six hours had passed before you removed the material, even though an objection (clearly detailed) had been provided. I did not "show up and revert", nor did i ever ask "why did you remove the material?" - I provided a direct rebuttal to your claims, then you removed the material by fiat anyway. How is such prevarication even tolerable, for chrissakes? I ask admin to review the discussion, and the timing of the discussion against Viriditas's hasty removal of the material before more than just a single editor had had an opportunity to participate. The material in question pertains specifically and directly to Monckton, the subject of the BLP. It does not violate BLP policies, nor is it given undue weight in consideration of Monckton's (minor) notoriety as a climate change skeptic/denialist/contrarian. Anastrophe (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
You must be looking into a mirror, because the "dissembling claims" appear to be emanating from your own keyboard. To recap, you've said that you don't have to justify your actions or explain why you've added the material back into the article because you didn't add it. You obviously meant to say that you didn't write it, because you've now added it into the article twice. When asked to explain yourself again, you say "it's been there all along". When it is explained to you that "I didn't write it" and "it's been there for a long time" are not adequate nor sufficient arguments to justify your reverts and additions, you respond with "you're putting words in my mouth". Again, wash, rinse, repeat. You have the burden to explain why you keep adding the material. I've already explained why I removed it. Responding with "I didn't write it" and "It's been there a long time" are arguments to avoid. Those who add material have to explain why, regardless of who wrote it originally and irrespective of how long its been in the article. Your responses show a pattern of moving the goalposts, avoiding the burden, and deflecting solving the problem. You've been asked repeatedly why you added the material back into the article. You'll need to use the talk page to explain your rationale. I do not have to explain your reasoning, you do. I hope that's clear. And please, stop appealing to editors-from-the-future who haven't yet commented or edited but will be coming to the talk page real soon now. Either defend your additions or if you can't, stop adding them. It's really that simple. Viriditas (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
"And please, stop appealing to editors-from-the-future who haven't yet commented or edited but will be coming to the talk page real soon now." Please show some respect for the fact that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, rather than dismissing their existence, and their contributions, and forging ahead as if this is your encyclopedia. Anastrophe (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I have defended my rationale clearly and in detail on the talk page. The record is available on the talk page, where other editors will see that not a single one of your claims above is true - it's merely a wall of 'you said this' where I said nothing of the sort. I'm reminded of a character on the show 'The Good Wife' - a politician who had the most infuriating ability to spew a string of utter fabrications with the greatest of sincerity. Have a good life, Viriditas, I'll let the record speak for itself, and trust that other editors will see right through these ploys. Anastrophe (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment- the section about Monckton's climate science denial does seem to me to be too long. Reyk YO! 05:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. 'Too long' rather depends on the relevance to the subject of the BLP, wouldn't you say? Monckton is decidedly not well-known. However, he is known, and he is notable in one regard for his positions on climate change. His notoriety in that regard has been recent, and controversial. The claim that has been made is that the section is "promotional" (it is patently not, a significant proportion is damning). Another claim is that it gives undue weight to a fringe theory - the problem is, it's not giving article space to a fringe theory, it is describing a number of incidents/conflicts that the subject of the article has been involved in, pursuant to the subject's notoriety for his controversial views on that very subject. The material makes no claim at all that Monckton is an expert on the subject, nor that he is influential, nor that his views are correct - if it did, then the material would most certainly be inappropriate. I agree that the section could use some appropriate editing and cleanup. I disagree that the majority of it - all of which is cited to reliable sources - should just be excised by fiat, and I emphatically disagree that the material violates the policies that editor Viriditas claims - and my detailed rebuttals are on the article talk page if anyone chooses to review the record. Anastrophe (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes, the section being disagreed about is very long — 30 lines on my good big screen. That certainly looks like undue weight. The proof of the pudding as to how people have behaved is on the talkpage, especially since Anastrophe has claimed that "No opportunity for other editors to participate has been provided". That seems to be wrong, as Viriditas opened a section on talk even before he removed the material. (Per the BRD principle, he could have first removed it, and then discussed when he was reverted, so the indignation about removal "by fiat" isn't appropriate.) I don't know what would stop other interested people from chiming in, unless perhaps that the article isn't widely watched. One way of getting round that might be to open an RfC (though if people don't care, they don't care). As for what has happened on talk so far, I'm quite unimpressed by Anastrophe's negative defense of the section. I.e. they take issue at length with Viriditas' reasons for removal, in some pretty lawyerly ways too, with much talk of "policy violations" ("you have the burden to show, specifically which materials are violations of policy - a blanket 'too many words, it's undue!' is not a valid argument", "None of your claims rise to the level of violations", "Please show me that there are no other articles on wikipedia with more than 769 words about someone who is not an expert", "The onus is on the editor who wishes to remove reliably sourced material", and in bold "I did not add any of this material to this article") But the only specific positive provided by Anastrophe for why this section needs to be so much longer than its sibling sections "Social and economic policy", "Views on AIDS", etc, is that Monckton is mainly known as a climate denialist (I think; I may have missed something, as the posts are pretty long). I don't think that's good enough, even if it's true (=sourced); can you source it? And in this context it doesn't matter who originally added the section; if you restore it, Anastrophe, you take responsibility for it, and you do need to show it's not undue nor the coatrack it looks like at first sight. It's no good claiming that Viriditas has to list particular bits in the section that are violations of particular policies, because no, he really doesn't. Viriditas' shortened version here looks good to me. Bishonen | talk 06:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC).
"very long -- 30 lines" - 30 lines is very long and undue weight? I'm very confused by this statement. "That seems to be wrong, as Viriditas opened a section on talk even before he removed the material." My issue is that very little time passed between Viriditas's statement that he was going to remove the material, and when it was removed. Only two editors, Viriditas and myself, had weighed in. There are quite a few more editors on wikipedia than the two of us, and it's considered reasonable to allow more than a single editor to weigh in as dispositive of consensus. "I think; I may have missed something, as the posts are pretty long". Is it really fair to represent what I've written, when derived from an incomplete reading of it? Anastrophe (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Anastrophe, I see you don't address my mention of WP:BRD and the propriety of making bold changes before discussion. Not interesting? You continue to insist it's "considered resonable" to have a discussion (among several editors, yet) before boldly editing the article. Well, it isn't. We have actual policies to the contrary. Please read WP:BOLD to see what's considered reasonable. Bishonen | talk 22:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC).
  • (Adding.) Also, Anastrophe, do you think you can get away with talking about Viriditas' "infuriating ability to spew a string of utter fabrications with the greatest of sincerity" by wrapping it in a cloak of being reminded of a fictional character who had that ability..? You really can't. Please refrain from personal attacks on this board, they don't help your cause. Bishonen | talk 06:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC).
Yes, my words were intemperate; however, they were in response to editor Viridatis's wholesale distortion of my words, with a string of "you saids" where I clearly did not say the words he/she puts in my mouth - for example, "To recap, you've said that you don't have to justify your actions" - pure, unadulterated fiction, never said it. "When asked to explain yourself again" - pure, unadulterated fiction - editor Viriditas never once actually asked me a single question in the discussion on the talk page, to that point in it. Anastrophe (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
This is, of course, a content dispute and not an admin issue, but the problem with Viriditas' version is that it doesn't make the rather obvious point that despite his popularity on the climate denial talk circuit, Monckton has absolutely no qualifications whatsoever in climate science and his participation in the debate has led to widespread condemnation and even mockery. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I disagree. The version I linked to above does do just that, by removing any semblance of his faux scientific opinion and by simply stating that he went on his own personal climate change tour (indicating a personal, not a professional interest), followed by his invitation by Republicans (who jumped the shark on climate change 20 years ago) followed by his coverage in a documentary (criticized by none other than Delingpole himself) concluding with his impersonation of the state of Burma at the climate conference and his subsequent ejection from the event. If that doesn't show he has no qualifications and his participation has led to condemnation and mockery, then I don't know what does. And it only required 163 words to illustrate it, not 769. Bishonen's link differs in that it leaves in his opinion on the science, an opinion I had removed in the diff above. In any event, even if you still disagree, do you believe another 600 words is required? The picture I painted, of a man being thrown out of the UN climate conference for basically crashing the event speaks more to his lack of qualifications and mockery than any long-winded quote ever could. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • A lot of the drama seems to stem from the aggressive approach which seems to have been adopted. As far as edits/comments on this noticeboard, edit summaries like "The appeal to editors from the future is a nice touch, but it's used by POV pushers from time immemorial" only inflame the situation, as do the responsive comments like "most infuriating ability to spew a string of utter fabrications with the greatest of sincerity". Similarly, the edit warring tends to create a spectacle, though fortunately there was no 3RR vio. Other than for each user to be advised to avoid editing disruptively, I don't see how further administrative intervention will help (or is otherwise necessary) here. If input is being sought on the content issues (which is what most of this thread seems to be about), wouldn't an article RfC be a more appropriate place to discuss and resolve the underlying issue? Or is the difficulty that each editor expects the other to open the RfC? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    While I have been an editor since 2006, I have not been an editor who has resorted to wikipedia's backend machinations to deal with editing I felt was disruptive. This is the first time in those eight years that I've started a formal complaint. Perhaps ANI was not the appropriate venue, sorry. Anastrophe (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    It's quite OK. In light of the issues raised with the editor you are complaining about within the last year, one cannot easily discount the editing (or editing style) as not being disruptive. That said, unless that is preventing the content issue from being determined, it's probably less taxing to focus on having the underlying content issue determined. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Ncmvocalist, it's quite inappropriate to poison the well against Viriditas by linking to JamesBWatson's block of him in August 2013. James' long block notice was admirable in giving an established user the courtesy of personally written comments, and in explaining very clearly how he had to change in order to get off the road to an indefinite block that his edit warring habits were heading for. (I was only one of the people who wrote to James to thank him for going to so much trouble, and for blocking in a respectful way.) Ncmvocalist, have you realized that there is no question of edit warring by Viriditas in this case? He removed a section of long standing (most admins don't call that a "revert"), and then reverted Antistrophe's restoration of it once. Antistrophe reverted twice, and Viriditas then left Antistrophe's restored long section in place, placing an "undue weight" tag on the section. Those seem to me the actions of a user who has learned to change his stripes as far as edit warring is concerned.
While I haven't really followed Viriditas' editing since James' block, I've checked it out a little after reading Nmvocalist's post (which I found quite concerning). These are my results: Viriditas has not been blocked again since JamesBWatson's August—November block. A read of Viriditas' talkpage history doesn't show any warnings concerning edit warring. (I do see a pretty recent ANI complaint mentioned here, unfortunately by a user who doesn't believe in permanent links, and I can't find the ANI thread. I do vaguely remember it, though, and I think it concerned incivility, not edit warring.) Nmvocalist, it's discouraging and retrograde when people insist on reminding those who has moved on of old sins, and wanting those old sins be taken into account. The comment "In light of the issues raised with the editor you are complaining about within the last year, one cannot easily discount the editing (or editing style) as not being disruptive" is extraordinary. It's blurry from all the negatives cancelling each other out, so I have to ask: Did you mean to suggest that this disagreement is about edit warring after all? If not, what exactly are you suggesting? That sanctions are never to be lived down? And when you refer in general to "the" edit warring — "Similarly, the edit warring tends to create a spectacle [what..?], though fortunately there was no 3RR vio" — whose edit warring are you talking about? You probably don't mean to be misleading, but the implication that there nearly was a 3RR violation is just that, misleading. Insofar as Viriditas is concerned, there wasn't even a 1RR vio. Bishonen | talk 22:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC).
  • Note. I've just noticed Collect has removed the long section and replaced it with his own short version, which seems to me much less reader-friendly and informative (or, even, less encyclopedic) than Viriditas' version, especially because of Collect's abrupt in medias res beginning and the absence of any framing of the reception/impact of Monckton's climate change views. I suppose it's a general law of Wikipedia that style and structure are bound to be the victims of content disagreements. :-( All the worse for our readers. Anyway, this is altogether pretty depressing. I'm done. Sorry for the TLDR and good night. Bishonen | talk 22:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC).
Reply to "Note' The section was absolutely unwieldy and crufty. I reduced it to the basic information about Monckton's views, which reasonably belongs in the BLP. I sought, per WP:CONSENSUS to create a compromise position between removal and massive "stuff" of marginal relationship to a proper biography. If his positions are clearly stated in the BLP, I fail to see why we need a sledgehammer to point out how evil the person is, especially since his positions are apparently quite moderate. I would also state the new section is shorter and more easily understood than the long version was. Cheers -- my intent was to reach a compromise while following Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Collect (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I started from scratch using the reliable sources about Monckton's words -- I did not think to use another version when it was easier to make sure my version accurately reflected the sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no wish to get involved in this issue, but since my block in August of last year has been mentioned, I will just say that I agree with Bishonen that that block is irrelevant, and that it was unhelpful to bring it up. Viriditas has not repeated any of the mistakes in the case under discussion here that I mentioned in my block notice, and so bringing them up, as Ncmvocalist has done, is an ad hominem argument that has no bearing on this case. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Bishonen, if I have in fact in some way made an attack or poisoned the well against Viriditas for being blocked last year due to edit-warring or JamesBWatson for framing an appropriately/insufficiently "long block notice" at the time, that was certainly not my intention and I apologise. The underlying concern raised from this thread seemed to me to be a concern about disruptive editing. I wasn't suggesting that any particular user was solely to blame for any of this, be it the inappropriate comments/edit-summaries on this noticeboard, or the series of reverts concerning one part of the article. That said, it seems to me the complaint was sparked by a single area of content being changed multiple times within a short space of time while there is clearly a dispute about changing the content.
  • Yes, it was good that Viriditas started a discussion first about his concerns with the article and there was not a violation, but if a bold edit is not accepted after it was live for 9 minutes, what was the need to reinstate the bold edit in the 5 minutes that followed? Surely the tag could have been placed at that point itself, particularly where just one other user has participated in the discussion about the bold change and the dispute remains. Similarly, if a bold edit citing UNDUE and FRINGE was reinstated, was there a need to revert the edit within the 12 minutes after that? Surely outside input could have been sought at that point, and it might be better to err on the side of caution. The last part of the series was Collect's subsequent edit, but Bishonen, you've now noted that and I suppose he's responded with his reason for making the edit. It's not misleading at all to say there was no vio of 3RR (the bright line of edit warring) and that an otherwise standard content dispute on the article has become a spectacle because of the more aggressive approach taken in this case.
  • The next question: why would an editor since 2006 perceive such a serious level of disruptive editing in relation to Viriditas from the above series of events that he feels a need to use administrative mechanisms which (he says) he has not otherwise resorted to using during his 8 years at Wikipedia? I think it's a stretch to say that the 'old sins', particularly the consequence of the most recent of them, played no part in the decision to come here. As you and JamesBWatson apparently suggest, I could be wrong.
  • To elaborate, when JamesBWatson referred to Viriditas having problems dealing effectively with other editors with whom he had disagreements, or appearing "to be unable to conceive of anyone who opposes [his] position as doing so in good faith: anyone who is against [him] must have ulterior motives", I assumed that would extend to implicit accusations of POV pushing (or a tendentious IDHT editing-approach). I'd leave both of you (JamesBWatson and Bishonen) with the following to consider: do either of you think that the edit summary Viriditas used here was appropriate, particularly where it was directed to the complainant who is otherwise in a good faith content dispute? Or are you seeing clear and immediately obvious evidence of POV pushing tactics by the complainant?
  • My turn to say sorry for the TLDR also in response to all those questions, and if the concern is maintained that I have said something which is still "extraordinarily" inappropriate, please let me know which portions so that I can strike these out accordingly. Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Believe it or not, I'm staying out of this one, on the content issue. However Viriditas's comment on the RfC below is clear indication he his not interested in consensus or the pillars, only in WP:TE#Righting Great Wrongs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Update - options laid out[edit]

See Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#RfC so we can focus on preferred versions. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Overtagging at sustainable development[edit]

Continue discussing the content issues on the talk page, and relax about the rest. Stop worrying about the tags (whether adding them or removing them). No need for admin intevention at this stage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sunray (talk), recently made 3RR and over tagged sustainable development. I've tried to sort the dispute out on the talk page, and suggested to add what he deems missing, but instead he made several tag additions, some of which appear to be wrong. He is the only editor who complains about the article. prokaryotes (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There are a couple of accusations here. First prokaryotes seems to be reporting a violation of 3RR, but I will set that aside, as he has not made a properly documented case at WP:AN3. However, I believe that accusation is a red herring. Prokaryotes and I have been discussing a problem with the Sustainable development article for sometime now. On April 8, I was alerted to some edits to sustainability articles made by prokaryotes that were of concern to another editor. When I took a look, I did see some problems and identified my concerns to prokaryotes on his talk page.
Following discussion, I realized that the problems were not actually initiated by him, he was simply perpetuating them (perhaps innocently). I tagged the article and began to document the problems on the talk page. Prokaryotes removed my tag. This has led to a protracted discussion. He has disputed much of what I've said, so I've tried hard to explain. Finally after documenting the most serious problem—my concern about WP:WEIGHT in the article—I put the "multiple issues" tag back (earlier today). He again removed it. So I put it back with a request that he leave the tag on the article. I explained on the talk page that I would go through the article and tag the various problems. When I began to do that, he again reverted the "multiple issues" tag and also some of the specific tags in the body of the article. Then he made this complaint of "overtagging" (sigh).
I am concerned that prokaryotes doesn't seem to be very familiar with the subject matter of the article and doesn't seem to understand core policies, such as WP:NOR and WP:VER. He is also, apparently, a stranger to the concept of collaborative editing. Sunray (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:TAGGING It is best to provide the fewest number of the most specific possible tags., thus 12 tags are to much. WP:TAGGINGIf you identify a issue with a page, and yet the issue is trivial or has a straightforward solution, it's usually best to fix it yourself! This is more productive than plastering a tag complaining about a trivial or easily fixed issue and leaving it for someone else to tidy up. prokaryotes (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:TAGGING is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Initially I just put one tag on the article. You said it wasn't justified. That was April 9. I have been patiently trying to explain it ever since. You pay no attention to what I say, so I have begun going through the article and flagging the problems. Now you object to that?? Help! Sunray (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, and many essays are reflections of consensus. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
If they reflect consensus, then make them into policies! Easy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunatly the policy-making process can be compared to beating one's head against a brick wall. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Sunray, discussed what he deemed problematic on the talk page with me and one another editor, it evolved around the different approaches (in particular a three or four domain/pillar approach) on that page, based on edits i haven't been involved. However, what he has done now is to add multiple tags to the article without acknowledging them on the talk page first. The one content problem discussed should not be a reason for a notice, because it may be because of missing content, which just should be added, if correct. The editor hasn't clearly communicated or identified errors. The various different tags made the article now very confusing to read. prokaryotes (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Signature Forgery/Impersonation by User:Zackdichens12[edit]

Different colours, different text and unless I'm badly mistaken you don't own the copyright to that font or to arrows. This is a noticeboard for real issues, which this is not--Jac16888 Talk 19:32, 21 April 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.

User:Zackdichens12 has decided he wants a new signature but it's exactly the same as mine (minus the colours/name), I've asked him to change but to no avail, I've also been reverted/warned by Werieth over it
Anyway totally understand everyone will have a similar signature but his is literally identical and I believe it comes under WP:SIG#Forgery which says "Altering the markup code of your signature to make it look substantially like another user's signature may also be considered a form of impersonation" - I honestly do consider it an impersonation, Cheers, -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

If it was literally identical I wouldnt be arguing this, however different text and colors makes this a non-issue. Werieth (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
As can be seen on User talk:Zackdichens12, nobody is going to mistake one signature for the other. It isn't 'literally identical'. It is vaguely similar. As for example is my signature to the multitude of other contributors who use no markup and CamelCase in theirs. I suggest you forget about it, and find something useful to do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
But it is identical tho .... If he even removed the arrows I wouldn't have a problem but it's clear he's just copied mine literally so I do consider it an impersonation, And trust me I want to move on but would rather this be solved, Thanks -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
(ec) I haven't looked, but is this a proxy for some underlying dispute that the two of you have? Or are you two actually getting this bent out of shape about silly signatures? Incidentally, I would also like to report AndyTheGrump for copying my signature. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know nope, Haha you might aswell report everyone :), Joking aside as I said even if he modified it better I wouldn't have a problem to be honest, -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
While the "design" of the signatures is the same, the content is entirely different, so there is not the least possibility that anyone will mistake one for the other. If both of these editors don't drop this ultra-silly squabble immediately, I suggest they both be required to use the standard sig. BMK (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Well you're someone I hugely respect so point taken, Case dropped lol. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:35, 21 April 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.

User User:Til Eulenspiegel – how to react to constant revert?[edit]

Here are a few edits that happened to me: I was making a quite small change in the wording in the lead of the article Ethiopia which was reverted by User:Til Eulenspiegel. Asking him on his user page about this, he proceeded to first give an answer, then delete the discussion. After asking him about this on his user talk page he then reverted my question. How should I proceed in this case? That user is not answering as to why he's reverting me, and he removes any attempt at discussions. Here are the relevant edits:

My initial edit on the article Ethiopia:

Til Eulenspiegel's revert:

My question on that user's page:

His answer:

Then he's simply removing the question and answer:

Me, re-doing my change on the page Ethiopia, at the same time rephrasing the sentence to make it clearer:

Til, promptly reverting my change:

Me, contacting Til, this time on his user talk page, hoping to start a discussion instead of just a revert war:

Til, reverting my discussion:

Me, asking Til about his strange behavior, in the hope of getting an answer:

Til, reverting that change too:

I finally put the discussion on my own user talk page:


In the end, the initial point was just the small question whether the phrase "known to scientists" is appropriate on Wikipedia, and I'm well ready to accept arguments for why this change should or should not be made. Since this is a very small point of discussion, it should not be discussed here. Instead, I'm using the noticeboard because of user Til Eulenspiegel's incessant reverting, making any discussion impossible. Note also that Til Eulenspiegel wrote a few sentences in his revert edits.

Til Eulenspiegel if you read this: I'm not intending to have you blamed in any way; I'm just trying to get you to discuss issues – I think the best way forward is to reply, not to revert.

(BTW, yes I know that for my first comment I should have written on the user talk page, not on the user page – but I would have hoped for the started discussion to be moved to the user talk page, and not deleted.)

In the hope to resolve any possible conflict in a civil manner,

Jérôme (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

What are you doing here, I have not done anything wrong whatsoever yet you keep spamming my home user page, yes, my home user page, and I keep reverting you. Then you drag it all out here blow by blow. What do you really want? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
It appears that the user wishes to instead of reverting, discuss it with you. Instead, you revert all of the discussion attempts and refuse to. I'd do the same thing since I'd have tried multiple times to discuss, only to fall on deaf ears. Tutelary (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
How about he stops spamming my user page then come crying here when I remove it? I have no wish to discuss with him and cannot be forced to like this. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Jérôme, why don't you start the discussion on Talk:Ethiopia instead of on Til Eulenspiegel's user talk. No one will remove your post there (maybe no one will discuss either, but it's worth a try). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There's a generally accepted convention that if someone asks you to stop posting to their talk page, you should (the exceptions being required notices and the like). In this case he has, and he has shown you as much again by removing several of your posts and suggesting you are "spamming" his talk page. You don't have to agree with his assessment and he can't prevent you from posting elsewhere to begin a discussion, as Sluzzelin has suggested. But you should probably leave his talk page alone and posting diffs of you ignoring his requests probably won't help your cause. Stalwart111 06:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems sensible - it's up to him whether he responds there and how. But from the looks of the commentary below, he's got other things to deal with now. Stalwart111 21:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone, thanks for your comments. Me posting on Til's user page was my error – I intended to post on his user talk page. Anyway the reason I started this section here is not to discuss the actual wording of the actual Ethiopia article (which is can now be done on Wikipedia:NPOVN#Attribution_issue_at_Ethiopia_-_do_we_need_to_say_.22known_to_scientists.22.3F, or on Talk:Ethiopia), but to address the lack of discussion and simple reverting by Til. I don't intend to 'escalate' this issue, I was just trying to find a place where I can start a discussion about it that is not promptly deleted. Peace –Jérôme (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I've now blocked User:Til Eulenspiegel as they're clearly edit warring and have broken 3RR to boot. Their attitude to the NPOV post was also extremely unhelpful, pretty much coming down to "wrong place, won't discuss". It's starting to look like they don't want to discuss at all. Anyway hopefully when they come of the block they'll start discussing it somewhere. Dpmuk (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


The user Navajoindian has been making a lot of edits that add unsourced material to various articles and have poor formatting, redlinks, misspellings, and grammar problems. No edit summaries are ever provided for the edits. The user's Talk page has various warnings about this, covering the five weeks since the user began editing, but the user is generally not responding on the Talk page or changing behaviour.The only apparent response is one occasion on which the user removed a warning against POV editing and replaced it with "First i didnt fail!!!!". The user has been rather energetic – e.g., 17 edits yesterday – all exhibiting the same sort of behaviour. Some action appears to be needed. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this pattern of editing is not helpful; every single edit Navajoindian has made has been reverted, by no means exclusively by BarrelProof, and they've removed at least one speedy tag from an article they created. However, BarrelProof, you posted all your warnings about adding unsourced edits, using the templates {{uw-unsourced}} 1, 2, 3 and the scary 4, in rapid succession within the space of a quarter of an hour, 18 hours after the user's currently last edit. That's not how the "stepped" warning templates are meant to be used. A number 2 warning should only be posted if the user has ignored number 1 and continued the kind of editing for which they were warned, and so on up to number 4. The way you've done it, those warnings don't really "count", and therefore there's no basis for administrator action at this time. I'm pinging Seb az86556, an experienced user who seems pretty familiar with Navajoindian's editing, and who may be able to help here. (It was Seb's pertinent comment here that piqued Navajoindian into editing their own talk for the first and only time, in order to remove it.) Bishonen | talk 15:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC).
Yes, you're right about my warnings being issued in too-rapid succession. Sorry about that, although there were quite a few roughly similar comments there already before I came along. The user hasn't edited any further since my complaints, so perhaps this incident report can be closed soon with no further action needed. Thank you for taking a look at the situation. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Let's keep this section open for another day or two. Navajoindian has now created a new article, an unambiguous copyright violation which I have deleted with a warning to the user. Bishonen | talk 00:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC).

IRoNGRoN indef block - more eyes requested[edit]

Can I ask for a few more eyes on IRoNGRoN (talk · contribs) please. They seem to have gone in the space of a day from a good editor, to an angry spat over I know not what, to an indef block. This seems excessive for anything I can see reason for.

Declaration of interest: We've had minor overlaps on some motor racing articles. They seemed well-intentioned and working to improve things. Shame to lose them. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
History: User_talk:JamesBWatson#Fresh_eyes_please Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

IronGron edited articles at length but there was a large amount of cut and pasting done from other websites. Most of the copying was not in quotes and referencing was unclear to properly cite the source. Copy and pasting can create copyright issues and is lazy editing that should be avoided at least to prevent wikipedia from appearing as a pirating website. He jumped on other editors who attempted to improve an article. He cursed and cussed out editors and admins. He has avoided blocks on multiple occassions. It is hard to determine what has caused this irrational behavior pattern. Suggest to check to see if IronGron is a possible sock for another banned account. (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe that changing "mentally unstable" to "unstable" is somehow less of a personal attack?  the panda  ₯’ 13:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems to be a severe case of WP:OWN here. Not going to comment on the validity of his contributions (also allegations of mental instability is inappropriate for this forum), but a block is warranted solely based on his refusal to discuss matters in a productive fashion. If this case is an isolated incident and he is willing to contribute productively in the future (and provided that his contributions are not all copyright violations), I see no reason why we can't reassess his situation in the future. But right now, he's just digging himself into a deeper hole. —Dark 12:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I can see a block – but indef? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I never expected or intended that IRoNGRoN would remain blocked for ever. The initial block (placed by Moriori) was for 48 hours, for personal attacks. IRoNGRoN responded to this with block evasion and a further personal attack, as well as continuing the editing of the article where he/she had been involved in disagreement. I received a request to look at the case, and decided that a longer block would be justified, and made it a week. The hope was, of course, that this would convey the message that his/her current editing was unacceptable, and he would stop the personal attacks. The best outcome would be an unblock request in which he/she undertook to make no more personal attacks, the second best being that he/she sat out the week's block and then came back in a better frame of mind. However, IRoNGRoN's response was further block evasion and personal attack, so I increased the block length again. I also thought, and still think, that just repeatedly increasing the block length was not on its own an adequate way of dealing with the situation, and it was necessary to give a message conveying the message that the current actions were totally unacceptable. The way I did that was to give a warning that any continuation would lead to an indefinite block. My hope was still, of course, that IRoNGRoN would get the message and stop, but he/she responded with yet more block evasion and personal attack. What should I have done at that point? Perhaps brought it to this noticeboard for discussion? Anyway, what I did was to give the indef block that I had indicated was on the cards. I also placed range blocks to prevent continuation of block evasion via the same set of IP addresses that IRoNGRoN had been using. My expectation was that this would make it clear that the one way out was to make an unblock request. It may be that my big mistake was to assume that IRoNGRoN would realise that an unblock request was possible, and not to specifically invite IRoNGRoN to make an unblock request. (It may also be that he/she wouldn't have taken that option anyway, but obviously that is not a reason for not giving him/her every encouragement to do so.) In answer to Andy Dingley saying "I can see a block – but indef?" I say yes, indefinite, but that does not mean forever, it means until he/she indicates a readiness to change his ways. It may well have been a mistake not to spell out that the option of coming back was available, but we are dealing with an editor whose response to blocks and warnings that personal attacks are unacceptable is to keep evading blocks in order to make more and more personal attacks. I really do think that the correct response to that is "you may not come back to edit until you indicate that you will stop", not "you can have a short break and then come back, as far as we know with the same attitude". I shall post a message to IRoNGRoN's talk page inviting an unblock request. Unfortunately, of course, there is no way of being sure that he/she will read it, but if there is no response after a while, an email might do the trick. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, here is my attempt to reach out to IRoNGRoN and invite him/her to come back: [10] and here is his/her response: [11]. Here are some of the personal attacks that led to the block: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The latest uncivil response by IronGron here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

User:AngBent repeat of edit warring on Avraam Benaroya[edit]

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.

AngBent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Back in January, I noticed an outbreak of edit warring on Avraam Benaroya. The editing appeared to be associated with discretionary sanctions from the Balkans. User:AngBent has returned and appears to be editing again in the same vein, removing sourced content for what appears to be nationalist reasons. Given the sanctions in place I've no interest in getting involved in an edit war and bringing it here for wider community input. WCMemail 14:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

[17] Continued to edit war after being reverted by another editor, so raised at WP:3RRNB. WCMemail 18:49, 21 April 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.

Contents removed from the Davido article[edit]

Greetings Administrators, I am not satisfied with the response Diannaa has given me regarding the removal of the "controversial incidents" section that I added to the Davido article. I understand that she has been cleaning up several articles created by another user, and has gotten rid of the several content that are in direct violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. I appreciate her for doing that. What I don't appreciate is the response that I have been giving. In this edit, she removed what she felt was a copyright violation, and left an edit summary, stating: "remove "Controversial incidents" per WP:BLP: poorly sourced negative content about a living person". When I saw this, I went to her talk page and left her this note. I didn't agree with her "poorly source" comment, and told her that I cited two Punch references and a Premium Times reference. (Punch and Premium Times are two notable newspapers in Nigeria for those who don't know). How can she said that the content is "poorly source" when these are notable newspaper references? She also said that the contents of the section are negative. This sounds like a fan of Davido reading his article and removing things that they do not want others to read. A core fan of Michael Jackson cannot come to Wikipedia and read his child rape allegation and remove it simply because he/she thinks that the contents are "negative". Back to Davido. The incidents that happened in Nigeria are factual incidents. I would have understand if she had said that the first incident (him being at the scene of a bar fight) was a bit trivial since he didn't sustain any injuries. I personally don't know how a incident, which is backed by reliable sources, can be considered "negative". Should I only report the good things that Davido does and leave out the incidents he's been involve in? If I do that, will I not be censoring the article. The last time I check, Wikipedia is not censored, and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. The second incident (him allegedly beating up a taxi cab driver) received more coverage than the first incident. Diannaa also told me that the quotations I added to the second incident can be considered a copyright infringement. I told her that I quoted Davido and his publicist, and told her that I can remove the quoted content. I only provided the quotes to add neutrality to the article. If I omitted their quotes and what they said, the article would imply that I am taking sides with the prosecutor and not the defense (sorry, I know this is not a court). The truth is that I am just reporting on the incident, and writing from a neutral point of view. I agreed to remove the quoted materials. I told her that I would be adding the contents back and removing the quotations. She left this reply: "Regarding re-adding the content, once material has been challenged, you shouldn't re-add it unless there's consensus to do so on the talk page. Re-adding material once it's been challenged is (as you probably know) called WP:edit warring, and it's something you can be blocked for. Edit warring to restore contentious material on a biography of a living person (BLP) is definitely something you should not do." She also classified a bar fight as a WP:BLPCRIME. I told her that two or more people fighting in a club is not a crime. It only turns into a crime if something drastic happens. She said that the two incidents gave the article "undue weight". I asked her what that meant, and she said that "What I mean by undue weight is if these two incidents consume 60% of the article it means that these incidents is what the fellow is most known for, as opposed to his music career. Remember we're writing an encyclopedia, not a gossip column or tabloid newspaper. Will these two incidents still be considered noteworthy and remarkable five years from now? Ten years from now?". I disagree with her statements here. Anyone who knows Davido know him to be a young musician whose father is rich. The controversial incident section I added doesn't undermine what he's known for. The controversial section makes up 60 percent (a percentage Diannaa came up with) of the article because of the extensive quotation I added; the section is also long because of the significant amount of coverage the incident garnered. If I really take the time to write the second incident, it will be notable enough to have a separate article. I only summarized the incident. You guys can read the rest of my response here. After asking her for a response, she left this:

  • The section "Controversial incidents" was 600 words on a thousand word article (60 per cent of the total article!), giving these two incidents undue weight. What I mean by undue weight is that when these incidents the article is not balanced and neutral, and gives the impression that these incidents are what the fellow is most known for, as opposed to his music career. Remember we're writing an encyclopedia, not a gossip column or tabloid newspaper.
  • The fact that other biographies contain BLP violations is no reason to include them here.
  • The fact that you're able to source negative content on a living person does not mean it automatically qualifies for inclusion in their article.
  • We don't base content decisions, especially in our BLPs, on what would be "fair" to the real world persons involved. We do however especially with our BLPs, strive to avoid doing real-world harm to living persons.
  • Material that's been challenged, especially contentious negative information on a BLP, should not be re-added unless you get consensus on the talk page.

I am going to dissect this one by one because I totally disagree with this. This is Diannaa's reason why the section (without the quotations) cannot be added back to the article. My Response for the first bullet: Once the quotations are remove from the section, the section will not make up 60 percent of the article, and thus will not give these incidents undue weight. Second bullet: That's true, but the fact that other biographies contain BLP violations means that they must be dealt with as well. One cannot deal with others and spare others. Third bullet: Again, how is sourcing factual content about a person "negative"? If this is the case, no BLP article on Wikipedia should have anything controversial involve in it. It should all be sugar coated and one dimensional. Fourth bullet: I don't understand everything she said. I did understand her last sentence (which sounds like something a core fan of someone would say). How is adding factual things that someone was involved in harming them? Fifth bullet: Again, I have proven that the information I added is factual. Saying something is "negative" just because you don't want to see it there is a poor excuse. First Diannaa said that the content was poorly sourced. When I told her that the sources are notable newspapers in Nigeria, she changed her comment to "undue weight". She finally said something that I agree with in the last part of the fifth bullet. In her own words, "should not be re-added unless you get consensus on the talk page." This means that the content can be re-added if a consensus is reach on the talk page. Well, I almost single handedly contributed to the article. If you check the article's page information, you'll see that I wrote majority of the article. The user who created the article didn't do much. I am huge fan of Davido, and if it wasn't for me, this article won't be where it is today. No other editor who have contributed to the article is commenting on the talk page. I don't think a consensus will ever get reach if the discussion stays on the article's talk page. I decided to bring this to a noticeboard because I disagree with Diannaa's stance on the situation. I also felt that we weren't able to resolve our differences on the article's talk page. Versace1608 (Talk) 00:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You appear to have a content dispute: are you asking for administrative action? Please remember that you don't own the article, and that when an editor makes a good-faith objection on BLP grounds, it's not appropriate to try to resolve the issue through a complaint on ANI. I'd suggest reading WP:BLP and in particular WP:BLPCRIME, which specifically advises against including such allegations unless a conviction is secured. Comparing Davido's celebrity to Jackson is a stretch, and the Jackson allegations were of a completely different order of magnitude. Please consider WP:3O, WP:BLPN or WP:DR. Acroterion (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I am asking for administrative action. I know that I don't own the article, I have only contributed significantly to it. I already read WP:BLP and I don't see how the contents I added violates the BLP policy. If this is in the wrong space, let me move my comments to WP:BLPN. I thought this was where I could get things resolved. Versace1608 (Talk) 02:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
So you are asking for administrative sanctions against Dianaa because she disagrees with you? ("I decided to bring this to a noticeboard because I disagree with Diannaa's stance on the situation"). I strongly advise you to take this to BLPN for other opinions, since that is what you seem to want. This is the wrong forum. There is no edit war, and you and Dianaa have been civil to each other throughout your discussion.Acroterion (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
No, please do not misunderstand me. Dianna's work to Wikipedia cannot be overstated. I can never ask for such a thing man. God knows that she does a GREAT job. I only want someone to look into what I'm saying. Check the sources I referenced, and make a conclusion. Versace1608 (Talk) 03:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I really thought that this would be simple. The only reason why I disagree with Diannaa's decision was because she believes that the sources I cited were "poor", and that the content violates the BLP policy. If someone tells me that the first incident is trivial, I might understand. As for the second incident, there are too many sources. In addition to the three sources I cited, I was able to find 4 more reliable sources. There are too many reliable sources to just dismiss the incident and not include it in the article. I hope I was able to clarify things. I can't come here and disrespect administrators. I understand the severity of what you do here. This simple matter doesn't have to get so complex. Versace1608 (Talk) 04:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Versace, ANI is not for content issues. When you disagree with someone's "stance", that's immediately the realm of dispute resolution. When someone tells you in a BLP that the sources are "poor", then your first step is always WP:BLPN. At the same time, it's your role to go find better sources. However, even if you had the best-sourced material, discussion on the article talkpage might actually determine that the information should not be in the article anyway - possibly because of WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE or a dozen other reasons. Remember: at times, consensus seems to trump verifiability :-) There is nothing here that requires admin intervention because we don't deal in content, and as long as you don't re-add poorly source material into a BLP, none of us have to act :-) the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Let me add: "controversy" sections should typically be TINY and incredibly well-sourced the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


I am kind of at a loss how to deal with User:Fredin323. He has been edit warring at California State University, Fresno (and also Topeka, Kansas, but this posting is about Fresno State.) He continues to delete sourced information about student demographics such as here, despite there being a consensus at Talk:California State University, Fresno#Student Demographics to include it as is done in 22 out of 23 CSU articles on Wikipedia. He is now removing all the formatting changes and duplication removal done here and here. He also appears to be editing as User:Chessandcheckers which is at SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fredin323. He recently came off a block for edit warring and has resumed the same tactics. Recommend a longer block or stronger because of the edit warring and probable sockpuppetry. Bahooka (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

This notice seems to have become buried with no response from an admin about the continued edit warring and sock puppetry of this user. I'm hoping that an admin will be able to review this request or let me know if I need to provide additional information. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Really could use some help here. The User:Fredin323 continues to edit war and remove legitimate edits just now here, now as User:Chessandcheckers. This is already at WP:SPI. Is there a more appropriate forum to have admin stop this person. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@Bahooka:, I doubt anything can/will be done until the SPI is checked. If the eediting is blatant vandalism them report at WP:AIV to stop any disruption in the mean-time. GiantSnowman 15:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, he has been reverting everyone against consensus and destroying formatting, etc. It is beyond a content dispute, it is purely disruptive. I will take it to AIV. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Persistent BLP violation: accusation of attempted murder[edit]

OP has decided to extend WP:ROPE. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:30, 22 April 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.

Requesting indefinite block for (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The IP has been repeatedly adding an unsourced accusation of attempted murder to Alexian Lien beating and Talk:Alexian Lien beating. The IP was blocked by Materialscientist (talk · contribs) at AIV for these edits, but as soon as the block expired, was back with more of the same. But this time a block was declined on AIV. Darkwind (talk · contribs) wrote: "This appears to be a good-faith effort to improve the article, and I suggest working with this anonymous editor accordingly. If that fails, please take to ANI."

After having been warned repeatedly regarding the policies of WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:NOR, and then having been blocked for it, coming back and beating the same dead horse is not in any way "a good-faith effort to improve the article". All of the edits from to the Alexian Lien beating article from 6 February 2014 until now push the same unsourced POV and they have shown no sign of getting the point or a willingness to follow Wikipedia policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any accusations of murder since the last block expired.--v/r - TP 18:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Here. It's an improvement (kind of) that it's on the talk page, though the BLP policy makes no such exception, per WP:BLPTALK. And this and this edit-warring in the article are the same unsourced POV pushing and defamation of a living person that he was blocked for.

Per previous discussions and previous consensus, there is not one reputable, published source that thinks the victim of this beating should be charged with any crime, not even an op-ed. It's entirely a forum opinion, and most likely the work of trolls at that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The diffs you've presented do not say that he murdered anyone. And you're misunderstanding BLPTALK. We routinely discuss negative information about living persons on talk pages. Either to convince someone to quit adding it, or to develop a consensus to include it. I don't see that diff as so outside the norm as to block them for it.--v/r - TP 19:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
You're right, it's attempted murder, not murder. I never said murder, I said attempted murder. The IP is accusing Lien of attempted murder, not murder. An unsourced accusation of attempted murder is the defamation we are talking about. I think we're hung up on an irrelevant bit of confusion. The unsourced defamation is quite clear, as far as I can see.

I believe I'm right about BLPTALK. There is no negative information to discuss. There is not a single source which has presented any negative information such as criminal charges against Lien. The only negative information about the victim here comes from the IP's imagination. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The only one being caught up on atempted murder versus murder is you. I haven't cared in the slightest. And no, the editor has not made any accusations of attempted murder since the block expired. Your diffs above do not show that. And yes, there are reliable sources which make the claim that Alexian Lien should stand trial for murder and it took me 2 minutes on Google to find them: [18][19][20][21].--v/r - TP 19:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Here it says I think the name of the article should be changed to "attempted murder of Edwin Mieses". How is that not an accusation of attempted murder against Lien?

The links you provided are not reliable sources. For example, the "attempted murder" claim here is from an anonymous commenter. No credible source has made this accusation. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

SMH - Editors are allowed to discuss editorial changes on talk pages. WP:BLPTALK says, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." If the idea is resoundingly rejected (or has been before), it can be removed from the page. But proposing a move is not a BLP violation. Such a strict reading of WP:BLP would stifle any controversial discussion of a subject at all and give us an entirely whitewashed encyclopedia. You couldn't even criticize whitewashing because doing so would be a BLP violation. No, you're overreacting here. And about that source, how do you get an anonymous commenter from that? The title of the article is "Arrest Alexian Lien for Attempted Vehicular Manslaughter", it is published by the Salem News from Salem, Oregon, and written by Tim King. Sure, it's an Op-Ed piece, but that just means that you attribute it in the author's voice and not Wikipedia's.--v/r - TP 21:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Since I'm convinced the IP is here for no reason other than to violate the BLP policy, I'm going to let it go. Give him enough rope, and he will earn a block. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Probably for the best. He's obviously got a POV and is here to right great wrongs.--v/r - TP 22:24, 22 April 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.

Personal attacks leading to a possible bad faith nomination for Yes Sir Boss[edit]

Editor Barney the barney barney has been involved in several personal attacks which I chose to ignore despite how highly unacceptable they were: here and here. I never ANI something so trivial, however I consider Barney's recent actions more serious and disruptive.

Editor lacks an understanding as to what fall into the category of speedy delete. My article was well cited and included sources from BBC, Huffington Post, and FMV Man. The previous version was apparently promotional in tone which I cleared. User:Tokyogirl79 has declined the speedy. Barney has accused me of adding spam and vandalism to Wikipedia which obviously is not true. I've since resubmitted the article through AfC which passed.

Barney continued additional personal attacks found here accusing other editors of incompetency despite proper procedure being followed.

The last straw was in his AfD which he accused me of WP:COI which is completely unfounded. This leads me to believe this nomination may be in bad faith.

It appears that this user has a history of improper attacks and I am requesting a temporary block. Valoem talk contrib 16:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The article was clearly nominated in good faith. The article is quite frankly, a bag of poo. It doesn't meet the required guidelines, due to complete lack of significant coverage, probably never will meet any guidelines, and honestly is pushing to be a speedy delete. I see no reason why WP:BOOMERANG should apply and that Valoem (talk · contribs) should get double the block he suggests for suggesting the block in the first place. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
One of the reasons you stated for deletion was that I was a WP:COI editor, do you have evidence for this, because if not that is an improper personal attack. Because you are attempting to delete an article on false grounds it is considered disruptive. I could have ANIed on your first incident, but took the high road and simply ignored them, this however, shows me that turning the other cheek is not always appreciated. Valoem talk contrib 16:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any personal attacks behind any of Valoem's links. The old version of Barney's talk page doesn't even feature any interaction between the two of them, just Valoem using a tone that's no less combative than Barney's. Nothing to see here, move along. Lagrange613 16:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
In case you missed it the attack is here: "On unnotable subjects such as Yes Sir Boss (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes Sir Boss), then other people would not feel compelled to spend their time in an essentially unproductive manner fixing your mess? This was a stonewall speedy delete, any day of the week, so lecturing me that it is a bit like trying to teach your grandmother to suck rancid eggs - I can tell their rancid, please don't pretend that they're not. I'm not as stupid as you clearly think I am." Valoem talk contrib 16:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, not a personal attack, just a combative tone. Maybe a little uncivil, but that merits a polite warning à la Tokyogirl, not the drama multiplication of ANI. Your reply to Barney above feels pretty wikilegal. I recommend you back down before this boomerangs. Lagrange613 17:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Teaching grandmother to suck eggs helps with context.--v/r - TP 20:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
No reason to discuss further if you do not consider it a personal attack. I've ignored that attack nonetheless. To AfD an article on the grounds that claim I have a COI, is the main issue for this ANI. Valoem talk contrib 17:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
AfD is an uncivil place. Sometimes it's best to just ignore the incivility, as long-time users, who are the major contributors there, are skilled at walking the line between incivility and personal attacks. Accusations of a COI are insulting, yes, but they're not necessarily an insult. Someone once filed a frivolous COI case against me on COI/N. I was deeply insulted, to say the least. Eventually, I decided to just ignore it; the filer had no evidence at all, and my angry protestations were just prolonging the situation. I suggest you both just drop it and abandon any grudges. It's not worth it, and neither of you have done anything worthy of sanctions yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello everyone, I'm User:Anupmehra, and I'm invited to make a comment here, by User:Valoem. I didn't knew him before until the ongoing AfD discussion here. I have never interacted with the User:Barney the barney barney either and other editors who have already given their input on this incident.
I'm a AFC reviewer and Draft:Yes_Sir_Boss was one, I reviewed and considered eligible for inclusion today. I noticed, Yes_Sir_Boss is redirect to some other article, therefore I tagged the redirect under CSD#G6 criteria of speedy deletion and a template note was automatically posted on the draft page to move it to articles space, for the admin deleting the redirect. Later, I noticed that, my edit to speedy redirect was reverted by some editor (diff. link) and the draft I reviewed was tagged with CSD#G4 for deletion by the same person (diff. link). It clearly indicate either vandalism, disruptive or bad-faith editing. Some other uninvolved editor noticed this incident and raised it in an ongoing discussion on User_talk:Tokyogirl79 page, the user said, "[..]the reviewer doesn't actually have a clue[..]" (diff. link). Well, the reviewing admin User:Favonian declined the speedy deletion (diff. link). The disruptive editing did not stop here, the user brought a clearly notable article to AfD (diff. link). It looks like a WP:DUCK case, where the user wants the article to get deleted any how. He doesn't hesitate to make personal attacks for this purpose, as such here. One could simply review his talk page history for some other instances, where he repeatedly makes personal attacks.
I'm not regular to ANI, and this is why not sure, if above does bring a sanction or not. But, the persistent disruptive and bad-faith editing and a long history of making personal attacks ([22], [23], [24], [25]) suggests something must be done,, to put an end to all this. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
So now bringing an article to AfD after CSD has been declined is evidence of bad faith, and it's a personal attack to not respond to a message on one's talk page? Lagrange613 23:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Anupmehra, actually bringing an article to AFD after a declined CSD is the correct thing to do if you believe the article is not notable. The two deletion processes used two completely different criteria. CSD is very strict and most articles do not meet the criteria to be deleted. Articles that can not be deleted through CSD can still be deleted at AFD. Also the article is not clearly notable based on the discussion so far at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes Sir Boss (2nd nomination). GB fan 00:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the point has been missed here. I have no issues with him bring the article to AfD if he feels it is not notable. However, it is a given that an article coming from AfC does not fall into the speedy criteria, which Barney still tagged. This compounded with multiple personal attacks, plus an attempt to delete based on the false claims of me having a COI pushed me into this ANI. Do we have an explanation for this behavior? Valoem talk contrib 00:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Barney x 3 was asked to be less bitey. Valoem has been advised that AfD discussions are often unpleasant with experienced editors sometimes being careful to toe the line of incivility and personal attacks without going over it. The article for deletion discussion is proceeding. Is this resolved? Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you GB fan for pinging me. I'm here, either being mis-understood or mis-quoted. I didn't mean to say that bringing an article to AFD following CSD decline is a disruptive or vandalism or bad-faith editing. I wanted to say, if some one tags, a reviewed and approved AFC submission awaiting for uncontroversial deletion of redirect (CSD#G6) in mainspace under speedy deletion criteria CSD#G4, then it is disruptive. Last AFD was 3 years ago, CSD#G4 clearly says, it applies only for "most recent deletion discussion". This kind of edit from an experienced editor suggests notion of disruptive editing. Making a revert, as this, is disruptive. An experienced editor, tags an article having multiple RS including BBC and Huff. post, with some CSD tags, then it is disruptive. Making a personal attack as such, this, is disrupting! And, there's long history, if someone reviews the user talk page and contribution history. He has already been advised multiple times by more experienced editors as such admins, (click here), but as it does not seem to stop, there, it warrants something, to put an end to all this.
This is a summary of all what I earlier said, Hope, it is clear this time. Give me a chance to clarify, if it still is not clear. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I was responding to the line in your earlier statement, "The disruptive editing did not stop here, the user brought a clearly notable article to AfD" It appears that you are saying that Yes Sir Boss is clearly notable and that the editor that brought it to AFD was being disruptive. If that was not your intention, I misunderstood. GB fan 00:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm familiar with BtBB. If you look at his block log, I was the last person to block him (for edit-warring at, of all places, an ANI archive) and I've had to give him warnings at other times. So I'm no apologist for him. Then again, I've also sided with him in disputes, and he's been helpful at SPI, see this case which I closed that he did a good job of putting together. I've found him to often be rude but never crossing over into personal attack territory. What I got out of this report is that he screwed up. He tagged a page for G4 that quite clearly didn't meet the criteria. I don't think it was done maliciously, I think it was just wrong. I also don't see the AfD as malicious either, and obviously it wasn't completely out of line because so far I'm seeing a reasonable amount of support for the deletion (though it seems like there's no consensus either way right now). I'm having trouble understanding where the COI accusation came from (what is the nature of this conflict of interest?) and BtBB should retract that if there's nothing to back it up. But that's about the worst of what I've looked at. Calling someone's contributions poor, and accusing them of spam, those aren't personal attacks, they're criticisms of a person's actions. There's a difference. -- Atama 23:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


The user was found to be using Wikipedia for self-promotion. Indefinitely blocked along with a couple of socks, promotional userpage deleted. All the work of Atama and Yngvadottir. Bishonen | talk 01:19, 23 April 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.

User:B!ttu moved his userpage, and then moved it into the main namespace. I'm not sure where to leave messages, but he's also been removing AfD and db-person templates from the new page: Kang Jun Ho. I'd like an admin to investigate and take appropriate action, probably including fixing the moved pages and redirects, and probably also imposing a temporary block. I'll put the appropriate ANI notices on his talk page and some moved pages as well, to be sure the message gets through the system. --Slashme (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: User:Yngvadottir has stepped in with admirable restraint and a very suitable response. Thanks! --Slashme (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid the user has decided not to accept my solution; the article about himself is now at User:Kang Jun Ho, but he has twice removed the template identifying it as a user page, so I have nominated it for speedy deletion. He also appears to be using two accounts (B!ttu as well as Kang Jun Ho, to which he was renamed last month), further confusing the picture. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
This is pretty confusing. I think what happened is that B!ttu's account was created on April 30, 2013. The account was then renamed to Kang Jun Ho following this request at CHUS/Simple, which was done by Xeno. But then I see the user B!ttu being "automatically created" about 4 hours after that rename occurred, which I suspect was the editor creating a new account with the old B!ttu name (that's the only scenario that I can think of that explains what I see in logs). They've edited under that extra account since then. To top all of this off, Kang Jun Ho created another account called Kangjunho.
I'll also note, all of this bizarre behavior has been done with the singular goal of self-promotion. I see no action done by any of these accounts that is in any way constructive to Wikipedia. This seems to be nothing but a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:SELFPROMOTION and WP:SPAM. The best course of action is probably to block Kang Jun Ho as an advertising-only account (self-advertising) and per WP:NOTHERE, and block the other two accounts as sockpuppets. -- Atama 22:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree: despite very reasonable approaches, this user doesn't seem to be interested in changing his behaviour, so your suggestions make perfect sense. --Slashme (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Please see this edit - I have left two warnings about this kind of behaviour. Three users have already been involved in replacing tags that have been removed by Kang Jun Ho. The user needs to be blocked now. --Slashme (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

He's been putting {{edit semi-protected}} on the pages, apparently wanting semi-protection.--Auric talk 22:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

He's not going to be doing it any longer. I've done exactly what I suggested above. I've blocked Kang Jun Ho indefinitely for self-advertising, and blocked the others as sockpuppets. -- Atama 22:45, 22 April 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.

Can anyone convince me I shouldn't block this editor?[edit]

So far as I can see, Nasirakram1440 (talk · contribs) (and an IP, possibly his) has been adding copyvio from [26] to Tajik people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the url is to the 2000 version but virtually the same as today's, I went that far back to make sure they weren't copying us. I ran into this user when another editor pointed out Wikipedia:Long-term abuseLysozym which was some sort of complaint about User:Lysozym - no big deal, just said "This user delibrately removes parts of "Tajik People" on Wikipedia. Initial claims were that some parts of the article is not backed by source, after providing credible sources the user still removes list of well known tajik people and parts of this article. I think he has some sort of political agenda and trying to hide the facts. Kindly take appropriate actions regarding this user. Thank you." I've deleted it as an attack page and told him to come to ANI if he has complaints. I warned him about copyvio and he posted to my talk page User talk:Dougweller#What do you think? denying it is copyvio and saying he has two sources (one.[27], clearly failing WP:RS which I don't follow as it is clearly copy and paste from the website. Despite my warnings that I would block himn he has added the copyright material again. Dougweller (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The two sources i provided to Dougweller are as follows. 1: 2:

Dougweller states that it has been taken from [28] which is completely incorrect. As you all can see it has been taken from these two sources. Please open the sources i provided and look at it for yourself and decide. Dougweller keeps on deleting parts of "Tajik People", Sometimes a list of Tajiks from the page without any reason. Please refer to view history of the page for this. I don't know why he is doing this. Now he is trying to block me. I have engaged in talk with him and he seems to provide no logical reason for it nor according to wikipedia rules. My request to admins is please take appropriate measures in this regard and all these acts from Dougweller seems to indicate an act of censorship and vandalism. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasirakram1440 (talkcontribs) 13:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

*Thumbs down, continues munching on bread*. It's almost like the dude's not even trying to be convincing. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure whether the book (where I found a version claiming to be from 2000) or the website had it first but they both pre-date us and both claim copyright. Could this be a case of Nasirakram1440 not understaning copyright? Unless I'm missing something they've not had copyright properly explained to them - there's a buried noticed on their page but I suspect they may not even be aware of it's importance given their later comments. It appears to me that they don't claim that it's not a copyright violation but rather claim the book didn't copy the website which is a quite different thing. No where do I see any indication that this user even knows about copyright or that it has been explained to them or am I missing something? @Nasirakram1440: - I suggest you go and read WP:COPYPASTE to understand what the problem is here. Dpmuk (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Nasirakram1440, from a legal point of view there is actually no difference between copying a text from a book or a website. The problem is that you cannot simply take any text that has been published before and insert it here word by word at Wikipedia under Wikipedia's free licences. Only the original authors may republish their texts under such licences, but neither you nor anyone else must copy and paste their work here. There is a big difference between using a book as a source to proof your own writings in a Wikipedia article and simply copying the original texts that others have written. As Dpmuk wrote, this is explained in WP:COPYPASTE. De728631 (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@Nasirakram1440: 1) Do not "copy & paste". 2) Solve the issue(s) on talk page/discussion. --Zyma (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think Nasirakram1440 pasted anything, actually, but copied the book rather than the website. Their text has a typo whereby "the bulk of Afghanistan's educated elite" has become "the build of Afghanistan's educated elite", (which doesn't make any sense). This suggests they typed the text by hand from the Google scan of the book, or indeed from the print book itself, rather than copypaste it from the website. Doug, assuming as much good faith as possible, I suppose they may have been confused when you said it had been copied from a website that they may not even have seen. Now that Dpmuk has taken their copyright education in hand, and they have also been warned about edit warring, you might as well hold off with the block. Bishonen | talk 00:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC).
    • That makes sense and is more or less in line with what I guessed, although I'm concerned that they couldn't understand my copyvio notice. Dpmuk says there is a notice "buried on their page" and that copyright hasn't been explained to them. I agree it doesn't have a section heading and perhaps that is something that can be fixed in Twinkle, I'll ask. But Nasirakram has some responsibility to read his talk page and certainly not to accuse me of vandalism - perhaps someone else might discuss good faith with him. Good call on the typo. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:AIV is broken[edit]

Broken markup fixed by Yunshui. No further action needed. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:40, 23 April 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.

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism has been broken for at least several hours. None of the user-generated reports are showing up. Not sure if this is a bug in MediaWiki or if some broken template farther up the page is causing the problem or what. (Purging the page cache has no effect.) Could someone knowledgeable in such problems please investigate? —Psychonaut (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed it - the hidden comment at the top of the section hadn't been closed correctly, so it hid everything beneath it. Yunshui  12:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Can't believe I missed that. Oh, and not that it matters much, but the unclosed comment meant that reporters' ~~~~ markup didn't get expanded. When you closed the comment, all those codes got expanded to your signature. :) —Psychonaut (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I spotted that - I could try and fix it by carefully copying bits of the history, but frankly it's not worth the effort for a page that's updated so frequently. Guess I'll just have to take the flak for a bunch of reports I didn't make. Yunshui  12:54, 23 April 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.


Can we get some eyes over at WP:UAA? We are getting quite the backlog thanks. Whispering 18:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Two perhaps related issues involving LordFixit[edit]

There is a rather contentious discussion going on concerning the deletion of Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC here. I discovered this morning that User:StAnselm had struck out all edits of User:LordFixit in the discussion (diff). I reverted this because a quick look at LordFixit's talk page didn't show the usual notices for this sort of action. HoweverI found that User:Jpgordon had indeed indefinitely blocked LF for "Abusing multiple accounts". I see no sockpuppet investigation or other proceedings so I'm puzzled as to what is going on here.

That said, I am having issues with LordFixit's conduct in this discussion, particularly this threat: "If the category stays, I will make sure all articles have the SPLC listing with a source in the body of the article." It seems to me that that such a promise to disregard consensus is an unacceptable statement of ownership. Mangoe (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't a threat. He was promising to make sure that all articles in the category were properly sourced to show that they wre on the SPLC list. That seems to be a good thing, not a bad thing. The block was a CU block, see User talk:Exposed101. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a block by a CU, not an official declared "checkuser block", for what it's worth. Looks like a good hand/bad hand attempt. I've got a short fuse for those, perhaps. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I suspect that all of the controversial cases are already so tagged because of the notability of the controversy, but however correct such a designation would be (and technically, using the SPLC itself as the sole source would be questionable), in context it comes across as a threat. Mangoe (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I am a bit confused here policywise. Folks are striking all edits of his in that article, as though they were posted in violation of a ban. As Exposed101 didn't even start editing until April 19, LordFixit was not in any violation that I know of when he made most of those comments. Is there something that makes them inherently invalid now? --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC) added: oh, and as an editor that raised concerns about groups being misplaced into this category, I will confirm what Dougweller said: this was a good faith attempt to address concerns and not a threat to commit ownership. -Nat Gertler (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm also noticing another editor here, and I see from his talkpage that I'm not the only one who sees possible connections:
Drowninginlimbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
He appeared abruptly, settled into some of the same topics, and is also a participant in the CfD. Mangoe (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I've personally observed Drowninginlimbo's editing habits and have found them to be mainly oriented around gender. This is not something that is strange, as SPLC does some distinctive work for some things related to gender. Anywho, is there anything you wish to claim about the user, Mangoe? Tutelary (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Your edit summary stated "another suspicious account", however, I was personally involved in Exposed101's blocking. This whole thing is very strange. For one thing, I live in an entirely different city to the one listed on LordFixit's user page. Yes, I am involved in the CfD. I follow the Southern Poverty Law Center and am interested in civil rights. I have to say, did you really have to drag this to the ANI? If I were a sockpuppet I would have been picked up by the checkuser. Are you suggesting that every user that voted oppose deletion is checked against each other, as well as every user who voted support deletion? That would take a while but maybe it would stop sidetracking the discussion - Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
See WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
@Mangoe: If you were concerned about the block, why didn't you ask Jpgordon on his user talk page instead of taking it to ANI? Also, you realize that as a CheckUser, if Jpgordon was looking at Exposed101's data (and it looked like he did according to this) then he would have seen Drowninginlimbo as a connection as well, but clearly that did not happen. And finally, I compared Drowninginlimbo and LordFixit behaviorally, and they don't seem particularly connected (really, out of over 1,000 contributions from each editor they only had a few editing overlaps and their edit summary usage is different, among other things). -- Atama 16:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall why I decided to go here from the start but having done so the conversation needed to stay here. If nobody sees any issue with DIL then I think we're done here. Mangoe (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you not going to apologise? Your accusation was lazily researched and disruptive --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Page protection at Bundy standoff[edit]

I've implemented the general sanctions as agreed to below. The language of the general sanctions are as follows:

Any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions on any editor disrupting that article with escalating blocks, a topic ban, or restrictions on editing. A 1RR restriction is also implemented for the duration.

These sanctions will last for 60 days from today, ending on June 22, 2014. -- Atama 23:51, 23 April 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 protected the article Bundy standoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for ten days as a result of a content dispute. I received a request on my user talk page by user:DHeyward (not a party to the content dispute) to reduce or remove the protection. I have repeatedly stated that I would be happy to remove page protection earlier than it is set to expire if consensus is reached on the article talk page. Not happy with my initial response, they have also posted the request at WP:RFPP and at WP:AN#Bundy standoff requesting that the page protection be reduced or removed - the arguments have included claims that the page protection was done outside of process[29], questioning my competence in the use of page protection[30], and now arguing that my actions were out of line because I never stated how I learned of the content dispute in the first place[31] (for the record, I came across the content dispute via Special:RecentChanges).

This has resulted in concurrent discussions at all three forums. I have requested at RFPP and AN to keep discussions on a single forum of their choice - or better yet, to start a discussion on the article talk page to resolve the initial content dispute; but they continue to post at both RFPP and my user talk page. As it's not productive to have concurrent discussions about the same subject in multiple forums, I have elected to choose this forum for further discussion. All future responses by me in the other forums will be to direct them to this one. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 04:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

There was apparently an initial discussion on the noticeboard here [32]. Barek did not comment before enacting a ten day Full protection on the page. I requested that he reduce the level and/or time for the protection on his talk page as this is a current event. I requested the page protection be reduced at RFPP as Barek did not reply imme