Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive848

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Jmh649 (Doc James) reported by User:Technophant for wikihounding and tendentious editing[edit]

User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all articles and talk pages related to Alternative medicine and/or Acupuncture, broadly construed. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:01, 21 July 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.

  • Note - This complaint was copied from a withdrawn 3RR complaint and may have spurious information


Page: Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Referred itch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Lyme disease (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3] (rm link to free url for content that didn't exist, uncalled for)
  4. [4] tendentious

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6] (User has not edited talk page section.)

Comments:
User is removing cleanup tags without proper justification or discussion, tendentious editing, and wikihounding.

I believe user is acting out of bias and anger and is not trying to improve WP. I'm trying to nip this one in the bud before it escalates. - - Technophant (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

User also warned me of copy/paste when the edit clearly did not violate copvio due to its simplicity. He also threatened my editing privileges. Clearly another attempt to hound me. - Technophant (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup when you copy and past text exactly from a source such as you did in this edit [7] with text from the Washington Post [8] you get warnned. And than you return the text without sufficiently paraphrasing it here [9] Gah. Also difs number 121 and 122 are exactly the same edit.
Ah and this edit [10] while you see as I have already explained it was already linked via the pmc= parameter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Previous edit warring notices pertaining to Techno in the last two days

(edit conflict)I took the phrase "The American Medical Association (AMA) takes no position specifically on acupuncture." from the article without paraphrasing. This sentence is too simple to qualify of WP:COPYVIO (try reading it). I then paraphrased it as "While the American Medical Association (AMA) has publicly taken no position specifically on acupuncture, in 1997 they released a statement saying..." and say I didn't "sufficiently paraphrase it"? What??
(edit conflict)I added a link to a free full text of the article which wasn't present. The doi= or pmc= only gives an abstract and paywall. I'm beginning to think that you follow my contributions and seek to revert any and every edit possible. - Technophant (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Go to ref 226 in the notes section of the Lyme disease article [11]. Click on the PMC or the article name and guess where it brings you? And it is not the abstract and paywall. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. [12]
  2. [13]

I would like to propose a one year topic ban from alt med of Techno widely construed due to his disruptive editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

In this edit they deleted some of my comments [14]. They did the same thing here [15] and here [16] they edit my user page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I see no problems with Doc James's edits. As he said in the edit summary, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyme_disease&oldid=617830342&diff=prev this was not necessary because the PMID ref url automatically gets generated if the ref tag is filled out properly. I think I hear the sound of a WP:BOOMERANG whirring in the distance....also, Support topic ban of Technophant from alt me articles. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, now I see what you mean. PMID links to full free text on NIH. I thought it just linked to an abstract like doi does. I guess I learned something. Being that Doc James has reverted at least a dozen of my edits in the last hour I thought that this was just another attack. Apologies. - Technophant (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
We have another report at 3RR here [17] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
That 3RR report was created by by Mrbill3 and contains NOTHING that wasn't covered by previous investigations. Nice try. - Technophant (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Response to 3RR reports:

  1. not blocked, not found in violation of 3RR, page protected.
  2. not blocked, not found in violation of 3RR, page protected, mutual edit warring.

Please note that Doc James was a participant in both incidents and was tendentious. - Technophant (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The filer of this motion would be advised to read WP:BOOMERANG. I see from your contributions that you seem to be on some sort of tear in trying to get alternative medicine articles to conform to your perspective. jps (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Alt Med Topic Ban for Technophant?[edit]

Sometimes editors get a bee in their bonnet. I think this is the case here. This filing follows up a few other WP:FORUMSHOPs: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], and so forth....

jps (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll agree to a voluntary short-term topic ban as long as Doc James gets one as well. - Technophant (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The proposal here isn't for editors to accept voluntary topic bans, but rather community-imposed WP:CBANs. And why would it be appropriate for Doc James to stop editing Alt Med when between the two of you only your behavior is topic ban-worthy. Zad68 14:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question.

(edit conflict) I did this. Why all the case building? I want an answer regarding the wikihounding. Harassing other users should never be acceptable. - Technophant (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that if you simply stopped editing articles relating to alternative medicine you would find that whatever wikihounding you think you experienced would probably end. jps (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You have been instructed that the repetition of charges of "wikihounding" and "harassment" are both a personal attack and a gross lack of AGF, yet you dare to repeat it here. That takes audacity and foolishness to a new level. With that attitude you really don't belong here at all. Any "harassment" has been the proper attention paid by other editors who encounter disruptive editing patterns and uncollaborative habits. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ban for Technophant on altmed articles - the tendentious editing and dramatics have created a severe time sink and shows no sign of abating. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for Techophant editor's behavior has been extensively tendentious, there does not appear to be a genuine interest in improving the encyclopedia. Multiple respected editors have made good faith efforts to the point of exhaustion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban to curb their aggressive tendentious editing, forum-shopping, game-playing, and other disruptive behavior. Note that although a topic ban could be placed under WP:ARBPS, this discussion is regarding a higher level of ban, a community-imposed WP:CBAN that would only be able to be overturned by the community. Zad68 14:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that Ohnoitsjamie registered a support vote for a topic ban in the section above. Zad68 14:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for Techophant not here to improve things. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban of Technophant either indefinitely or for at least six months (jumping straight to an indefinite topic ban if he resumes the problematic behavior after the ban is over). The POV-pushing against mainstream medicine, forum-shopping, long-term edit warring, and gaming of 3RR are unacceptable to begin with, but it's pretty hard to assume good-faith from his nomination to topic ban a mainstream medical doctor from medical articles. Best case scenario, it still indicates Technophant isn't paying attention to why he's in trouble. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: no position on the topic ban, though I would lean toward support. However, I will say that this diff provided above shows a remarkable lack of understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 15:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC) EDIT: changing to support due to the below. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 15:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for obvious reasons. Not here to build a high quality encyclopedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for Technophant. The retaliatory proposal below combined with the above diffs shows a lack of the maturity necessary for collaborative editing. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Techophant is clearly incapable of contributing usefully in this topic area. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - The retaliatory proposal below seals the deal. Dennis Brown |  | WER 15:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite topic ban. We do not need more time sinks in this contentious area. Yobol (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support indef ALTMED topic ban. Here to POV-push consensus or not. Jim1138 (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite ALTMED topic ban, very clearly does not even attempt to abide by consensus. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The edits by User:Technophant did not improve the CAM related articles. This is the same behaviour as the recently confirmed sock Milliongoldcoinpoint. I think a SPI report will clarify the matter. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Klocek. QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support indef ALTMED topic ban, user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and cannot follow simple rules. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite topic ban. We're also dealing with lack of competence. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose no need to make MEDRS stranglehold on Wikipedia even worse. The Banner talk 20:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Alt Med Topic Ban for Doc James?[edit]

WP:SNOW. Monty845 15:35, 21 July 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 would like to propose a one week topic ban from alt med of Doc James widely construed due for wikihounding. He may be well respected in the community, however past good deeds do not excuse bad recent ones. Letting him go unpunished sends the wrong message and could cause an editor, like myself, to abandon Wikipedia altogether. I guess it all comes down not to what you do, but who you know. - Technophant (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, maybe someone should SNOW close this. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 15:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - though this pointed proposal is a perfect example of why your own ban is merited. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Opppose per GSP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Diffs? Can't support this proposal without a clear reference to a behavior guideline and supporting diffs, otherwise it appears to be just more game-playing/battleground behavior by Technophant. I note that WP:HOUNDING says, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." which appears to be what Doc had to do in this case. Zad68 15:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Question What kind of sanctions are typically handed down for wikihounding? - Technophant (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Question What kind of sanctions are typically handed down for tendentious editors not getting that good editors fixing their stubborn screw ups isn't the same as wikihounding? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's not wikihounding. Meanwhile, I am curious how the editor Technophant, who until four days ago had shown no interest in this topic, suddenly became an edit warrior on it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No way in hell This should be wp:SNOWBALL closed. A quick scan of T's contribs makes it clear: Technophant has a misconceived mission to right wp:GREATWRONGS in wp's coverage of altmed by balancing reliable sources against new, less-reliable ones. DocJames was just keeping the damage in check. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:37, 21 July 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.

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.

Sockpuppetry and edit warring.[edit]

Resolved: Account blocked two weeks and IP block extended to matcH

I first became aware of the New Jersey-based IP 67.83.61.170 after reading an AIV report that complained of them continuing to add and replace contractions (ex: cannot --> can't) to articles in spite of numerous warnings. While looking through their edits, I spotted some of their edits at List of double albums. In these 15 edits the user added content that appeared to be original research and which also struck me as indiscriminate, as I don't understand what value knowing that various double-albums can fit on a single CD has, encyclopedically. I removed the content. The IP reverted my edit with no explanation. I opened a discussion on the talk page, reverted the original research, and directly invited the IP to the talk page discussion. Rx4evr appeared suddenly and reverted me again, stating, "I did the math & CD'S Hold up to 79:57 of music. So back off." I reverted again, so I'm at my limit. The named user has been active since at least 2008, so they should understand the rules. I also noticed that in 2008 they'd been accused of sockpuppetry and geographically linked to New Jersey IPs. So now there appears to be sockpuppetry, an attempt at WP:OWNERSHIP, asserting their worldview without participating in BRD, and my OR objections are now confirmed as OR with the "I did the math" comment. Would appreciate some admin eyes here. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It's blatantly obvious that the IP is User:Rx4evr who is using a mixture of logged-in and out edits to continue edit-warring to insert unsourced material and likely original research into articles. I'd warned RX4evr about this disruptive editing previously and they appear to have ignored my warning completely. I've blocked the account for two weeks and extended the block Daniel Case made on the IP to match.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ponyo! I assume I'm clear to remove the cruft since the contributing user is disruptive, ignores WP:OR and is disinterested in discussion to achieve consensus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It's unsupported and appears to be their own original research and they'd rather revert than join the discussion you started on the talk page; there's more harm in having it in the article than out so I'd say go ahead and remove it. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Danke. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Baba Shah Jamal vandalism[edit]

IP blocked by Dennis Brown for vandalism. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 23:09, 21 July 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 talk:117.20.21.230 has been attacking the page Baba Shah Jamal with Soapbox rants and spam links. Is there any way to protect this article from this particular user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biochembob (talkcontribs) 19:47, 21 July 2014‎ (UTC)

I've reported the IP to WP:AIV for persistent spamming after being warned. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
AIV is the right place, but I went ahead and took care of it since I was in the neighborhood. Dennis Brown |  | WER 22:57, 21 July 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.


Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 full protection[edit]

I believe this discussion was prematurely closed and I am reopening it. I believe that @Nyttend misused his powers in fully protecting this article and THEN making massive changes to the article without evidence of consensus for those changes. There was simply far too much cited material deleted in one single edit to say that there was clear consensus for removal with respect to all of that. If one is going to fully protect an article, one should either recuse oneself from editing or at at a minimum restrict oneself to clearly non-controversial editing. After the community objected to one of the elements of the removal, Nyttend put it back, but I object to the idea that we have to muster on the Talk page community consensus to undo, one by one, every element of Nyttend's edit. The Talk page is already difficult to use because editor traffic is being diverted off the article itself by the protection.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Brian fails to observe that I removed it because of agreement at the talk page; I took no actions (aside from housekeeping such as adding a period) at the article without consensus at the talk page. He also takes this restoration as me being forced to do something, ignoring the fact that I removed it simply for space reasons (too many images were present) and that I promised I'd put back if anyone could suggest a good place to put it. Brian's made this baseless accusation here and at the article's talk page; making serious accusations without solid evidence is considered a personal attack. He might also want to start complying with WP:GBU, If a user believes an administrator has acted improperly, he or she should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. Nobody's said anything of the sort at my talk page, and all I've seen of Brian's words are implying or (as here) directly accusing me of involved editing. Nyttend (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This isn't just about you, if it were, I would have titled the section with your name. I also don't agree with the admin who closed the earlier thread on this page about the article without giving the community more of an opportunity to weigh in. If you wanted this dealt with on the article Talk page why didn't you respond to me when I started the "Full protection should not be applied" thread? Why did you put that image back if you were acting on consensus when you removed it? You apparently don't think consensus is required to remove large amounts of material if, in your opinion, the removal is warranted for "space reasons". Well I'm of the opinion it most definitely IS required when so much of what you removed is evidence that incriminates the Kremlin. Are you prepared to go line by line through your editing with me and point out to me, for each line, where you found your supporting consensus? In other words, I'd like to see you back up your claims of consensus in detail because I don't believe they are true.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The 05:11 comment by User RGloucester about "deleting the "whole mess" seemed to tip the balance, but then when Nyttend saw the comment by Isaidnoway at 05:16, he was wholly convinced. There were protests 13 minutes later. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Brian, you complain about the talk page being difficult to use, but now that the same traffic is back to editing the article, IT is difficult to use, so that argument is invalid. So is the argument that people disagreed. People always disagree with full protection because their edits are right and everyone else's edits are wrong, and full protection always gets protests from some. The purpose in using it is not because it is popular, but to prevent abuses. Your claim that he made massive changes is unfounded. All edits made were based on consensus from the talk page from my observation, and the fact that material was added back demonstrates this. I would also note that protection was lifted improperly. As this article falls under WP:ARBEE, I'm wondering if an admin needs to implement 1RR. Dennis Brown |  | WER 21:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
"to prevent abuses" like what? Editing against consensus? Because that's exactly what full protection enabled here. How does some of that material getting added back after the community complained about its removal demonstrate that there was consensus for its removal in the first place? It demonstrates the exact opposite: it shouldn't have been removed in the first place, especially by the same party who just went and locked down the article! It is absolutely not true that there was consensus for all of those changes. Show me the consensus to remove "Ukrainian authorities said another recording indicated that the weapons system had arrived from Russia with a Russian crew," just to take an example. Would you care to count all the citations that were removed in that one single post-lockdown edit I linked to?--Brian Dell (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Brian, it means he made an edit according to what he thought the consensus was, people complained, he fixed it. Admin do the best we can, that doesn't mean we don't make errors. If an admin makes an error and WON'T fix it, then complain. The way you describe it, Full Protection is always abuse, so all this discussion seems pointless. Dennis Brown |  | WER 22:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
No, it was not fixed. A 105K article was cut down to 82K in one fell swoop, and you call a 0.6K add back a fix? Do I also think full protection needs a very good reason? Yes, I do, I shouldn't have to apologize for that when Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia anyone can edit.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that there needs to be a reason, you just disagree that the reasoning met the threshold. The amount of cut isn't the issue, the content is. If mistakes were made, you only had to say so. I was working the page, I would have looked at it, or others who were patrolling. A number of admin were patrolling, so no editor was getting ignored. Keep in mind, most of the time when an article is full protected, admin walk away until a consensus is found, as the protection is over a single issue. In this case (and similar) there has been at least one admin around helping out, doing the best they can. I know because I've been one of those admin for many hours last night and today. Dennis Brown |  | WER 22:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Would the removal of full protection without discussion fall under WP:WHEELWAR? I'll formally notify User:Lowellian as well as pinging him here. --John (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Protection was always intended to be limited in duration, not forever, and there was suggestion on the talk page of specifically 12 hours. I waited 20 hours before unprotecting. Even the admin who protected the page in the first place, User:Nyttend, defended my action further below in this page, writing: "Umm, hello everyone, does anyone remember what I said on the duration of full protection? I said that I protected it indefinitely because I didn't know how long protection was supposed to last, and I asked for another admin to change protection. Lowellian did exactly what I was requesting; you can object to his decision to unprotect at the time he did, but please don't see it as wheel warring, because he did what I was hoping for." Furthermore, there was discussion: extensive opposition to the full protection by many editors raised on the talk page and here on WP:ANI, to whose concerns I was responding. I did not wheel war; I allowed protection, intended to be temporary in the first place, to lapse after a period of time. —Lowellian (reply) 18:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • It isn't wheel warring, it was just a really bad decision, and frankly, done in an arrogant way as he just waltzed in and unprotected after not working the article previously. We at least had a discussion on protection, even if many disagreed with the conclusion. His solution was just to start blocking people, something we've been trying to avoid. Dennis Brown |  | WER 22:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The really bad decision was full protection in the first place, a decision made quickly with very little discussion, over significant opposition, and one that punishes all editors, most of whom are not disruptive, and which is against the spirit of Wikipedia, which distinguishes itself from other encyclopedias on the principle that its articles are editable. Re: "after not working the article previously": That is precisely why I should have been the one to lift protection: I was uninvolved in the article and thus a neutral administrator, rather than one favoring any specific version of the article. If the unprotecting admin had been heavily involved in editing the article previously, then instead he or she would be getting accused of lifting protection in order to favor some specific version. —Lowellian (reply) 18:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
      • It seems obvious to me that protection is better than blocking. Surely it is that simple? --John (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
        • While that seems obvious to you and I, not every admin agrees with that. Blocks are cheap and easy plus you get to walk away. Protection is hard and requires you are willing to help others. From an editor retention perspective, protection is an obvious choice. People get frustrated, revert too much, human nature and all that. Protection removes the temptation and forces cooperation. But you already knew that. Dennis Brown |  | WER 22:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Lowellian didn't just "waltz in". Unlike you, he first participated in the thread I started calling for protection to be lifted. My I point out that POLICY says "persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others"?--Brian Dell (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, waltzed in. Protection review is at WP:RFPP or even at WP:AN, with the whole goal of getting uninterested eyes on it. As an admin, I can assure you it was inappropriate by any measure. That it worked to your advantage is meaningless in regards to admin expectations. Dennis Brown |  | WER 23:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yet you just complained about "uninterested eyes" coming to the article when you counted it as a stroke against Lowellian that he hadn't previously "work[ed] the article," did you not? There was also already a thread here on this AN where editors had objected to the protection before Lowellian lifted it. As a non-admin, I can assure that it was entirely appropriate to lift full protection off an article that the community never wanted fully protected, especially when the party who applied that protection is intentionally or unintentionally making controversial and disputed edits while under protection.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course you agree, that is what you wanted to happen. My point is that a contentious lifting of protection is supposed to happen at a public board where the public can opine. This isn't my opinion, this is policy and why the boards exist. It is flatly improper to do it the way he did for a contentious unprotect. I'm talking about a policy issue, not just about getting your way. Dennis Brown |  | WER 23:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
"public can opine" Yes, so why weren't opinions solicited before protection was applied? And more importantly for the extensive changes that were made while the article was under protection? Why was the "vote" above, terminated before it even got going? Go over to the article Talk page and announce an opinion call on whether to fully protect and keep that open for 24 hours. If this isn't about "getting your way" then back off and let the community weigh in. Until then, what I quoted to you out of Wikipedia's protection policy should govern.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
There was a public discussion Brian. Dennis Brown |  | WER 00:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
No, there was not public discussion more extensive that the discussion you dismiss, that being the discussion that preceded and supported Lowellian freeing up the article. This could be settled if you'd give up your admin prerogatives and agree that henceforth the community will be invited to opine on the question (an invitation that remains open for 24 hours) before applying full protection and the admin corps will abide by the verdict. Why is it that throughout this thread the only party that has quoted Wikipedia policy on page protection is myself?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Brian, you are being obtuse and I just don't have time for it now. Even to suggest waiting 24 hours to protect an article just shows you have no clue how policy works here, and there are more productive things I could be doing, so I will. Dennis Brown |  | WER 01:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I have "no clue" how policy works around here, yet I can quote it and you can't? I've been editing Wikipedia longer than you have but in your books I just fell off the turnip wagon? If it is such an emergency to slap full protection on this then why aren't you? You've lost a couple precious hours here already! As near as I can tell, you aren't doing so because ultimately you know that there is a legitimate disagreement here, unlike most cases of page protection. As such, the community has a role here.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @John: If you are taking fifty different editors which will make a few edits each, that adds up to a lot. When you fully protect the article because of two editors, you severely impede improvements. You might not be able to see that as well because you are a sysop, but it is true. Dustin (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Anything but full protection for this article right now is just bone-headed. Not only does the enormous amount of traffic make it basically impossible to edit properly, but it also causes problems when editors edit-conflict and then in the course of solving it delete other information. In addition, these NEWS magnets attract all kinds of...well...unencyclopedic information. I understand that regular editors don't like having to place edit requests and have autocratic, God-like administrators make decisions, but when it comes to these current events, it's the best thing to do--I speak from experience, and I have about as much as John. But what bothers me most (since the article and the talk page have attracted a number of experienced and trustworthy editors) is the cavalier attitude of Lowellian, who comes in, unprotects, leaves a note or two, and then apparently walks away. I support full protection for a couple of days. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm a regular editor and I don't like having to place edit requests and have autocratic, God-like administrators make decisions. BUT, I like even LESS having to police the article and deal with a horde of clueless IPs, SPA accounts, battleground warriors, sleeper sock accounts and other disruptive nonsense. Which is what has happened with EVERY article related to the Ukrainian conflict, what has already happened to this article and given that this topic is getting a lot more international/media attention (for obvious reasons) the reasonable expectation is that it will be even worse here. Hence, agree with Drmies that full protection is the best of a set of bad alternatives.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Full protection is what is bone-headed, and not just bone-headed, but heavy-handed: it is a lazy response that punishes all editors for the actions of a disruptive few. And re: "Who comes in, unprotects, leaves a note or two, and then apparently walks away..." Again, as I wrote earlier, that I was not heavily involved in the article is precisely why I should have been the one to lift protection: I was uninvolved in the article and thus a neutral administrator, rather than one favoring any specific version of the article. If the unprotecting admin had been heavily involved in editing the article previously, or thereafter became heavily involved in editing the article, then instead he or she would be getting accused of lifting protection in order to favor some specific version. —Lowellian (reply) 18:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As a comment, I have seen articles on past big events (specifically the boston marathon bombing and the Sandy Hook school shooting) developed just fine at the onset of the event with semi-prot. The rate of info can be an edit conflict problem but it's normal and not disruptive. I realize that this article is a much larger incident that is already attracting its fair-share of fringe theories, but the combination of semi-prot and firm editing cautions to remove users that are specifically there to be disruptive should be good. Full protection should not be used to making editing easier (due to fewer E/Cs), that's a bad way to use the tool. --MASEM (t) 00:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • No, but it's a nice fringe benefit. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
      • No, it's a lazy use of protection where it is not needed. It's a lot more work, but we are truer to "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" by keeping it open. Only if it was the case that a lot of misinformation was being added by established editors would full protection be required. As RG says below, this is where pending changes would be better. --MASEM (t) 01:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
There's in fact an interesting discussion to be had about this "fringe benefit". But it's a discussion that has to be had before it becomes policy. In my view, the need for admin intervention is lower the more editor eyeballs there are on an article. In this case, we've got enough editors that the "good guys" shouldn't need help against the bad guys. This isn't a case of local neglect where there isn't enough of the community involved to express and enforce the community view. If bad actors, outside the consensus, are dominating then by a pro-wiki definition they are probably actually good guys because the fringe shouldn't be able to dominate a highly trafficked article.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I must say, as I did before, that this is the perfect place to use pending changes level 2 protection. RGloucester 01:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I think not. Pending changes ends up being a confusing mess when rapid editing by multiple users is involved. I think there is a place for PC2, but this isn't it in my opinion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Umm, hello everyone, does anyone remember what I said on the duration of full protection? I said that I protected it indefinitely because I didn't know how long protection was supposed to last, and I asked for another admin to change protection. Lowellian did exactly what I was requesting; you can object to his decision to unprotect at the time he did, but please don't see it as wheel warring, because he did what I was hoping for. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Nyttend: IMO while not technically wrong, indef is not the best duration for an article. If you don't know how long a page needs to be protected surely you could make that assessment within 3 hours, or 12 and update accordingly. While it's not wheel warring in this case (because the intent was to seek someone else to reduce the time), it's harder to avoid stepping on your toes if someone realizes you've misjudged the time than if you protected the page for a short amount of time. For a quickly evolving event (which sees a huge percentage of our positive new editor interactions) and has a lot of long term editors watching, that reassessment needs to come quickly. It's a recipe for wheel warring. Protonk (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    It would be appreciated if you would educate yourself on the situation, because then you'd realise that I asked for this to happen. I asked for a reduction in time, telling people that they should reduce it because I didn't know, and still don't know, how long we normally do this. Nobody's yet told me how long we normally protect such pages. Please observe that wheel warring consists of a combative situation, not one in which the first admin says "Please reverse me when you think it's appropriate". Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    I understand the situation and I noted that you asked for this to happen. My point is that there's no way you could look at indef full protection of an article and say "this never needs to change." If you hadn't asked for review or you had gone to work or something then rather than wait for the protection to expire (over what should've been a short period) they have to divine your intent and reverse your decision. If this is your first time protecting these high traffic, time sensitive articles then maybe what you should do is consider my comment as a suggestion of best practices. Next time you protect an article like this (or really any article), think about making admin actions where a review from an admin who agrees with your intervention has to do nothing. Protonk (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thought I know that this is probably not going to be a popular idea, but perhaps it's time to read one of the Eastern Europe Riot acts (WP:EEML, WP:ARBEE, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes) of the page and talk page to arm the discretionary sanctions trigger. I observe that there are several editors with ties to the cases involved, in addition to being Eastern Europe, in addition to the active conflict area (vis-a-vis Russia/Ukraine). While I know brandishing such a tool will only stifle the improvement of the article, I feel that the rapid fire and heated changes are not improvements to the talk page/article. Hasteur (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

      • EE needs templates, something I'm not adept at. Dennis Brown |  | WER 19:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: According to my research fu, it appears the Eastern Europe omnibus case code is e-e. The Discretionary Sanctions template family can be reached from {{Ds}}. Hasteur (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Hasteur, I'm not sure what you're talking about. EE discretionary sanctions apply to the article by default. The only concern is that some users may not be aware of them, in which case they need to be notified, as soon as their behavior becomes potentially problematic. There's no "trigger" to be "armed". Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek The sanctions can't be actively enforced until the notice has been given. The act of giving the notice (especially at pages that are patently within the scope of the sanctions) has the prophylactic effect of encouraging all users to straighten up and behave lest a wandering admin proscribe a sanction. Hasteur (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Full protection is a poor choice for preventing edit wars because it also blocks legitimate editors. More can be done about an edit war than just slapping a lock on it. DS applies here, and so do ordinary blocks and warnings for edit warring. 2 editors should not hold an entire article hostage, especially with a quickly developing story like this. KonveyorBelt 00:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Want to report User: HammerFilmFan[edit]

I wan't to report User:HammerFilmFan for removing my posts in debates [24]. This have happened several times i the last week. He's obviously following me around (stalking). I will not tolerate this.--Ezzex (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I have notified HammerFilmFan of this discussion. You would do well to provide some diffs of the conduct of which you complain. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Here are a log of his edits in debates [25].--Ezzex (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Unless you're saying that every single one of those edits is evidence of your claim, you should pick specific diffs. Even if you are claiming that every single one of those edits is inappropriate, you should pick a few example ones to illustrate what you're complaining of and what administrators should be looking for. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
See this discussion earlier this week, where User:Go Phightins! wrote " Cognizant of the fact that you have been previously warned on this topic (very recently, according to your talk page), I am going to strongly urge you to make sure that all of your edits on that topic are dedicated to the improvement of the article rather than promulgating or refuting an ideology. If you are incapable of this, my suggestion would be that you disengage from the topic area so as to avoid being blocked, which will likely happen very quickly in an area with discretionary sanctions in place." An example edit is[26] "{{pov|It looks like its written by IDF. Much jewish crap. Should not use operation-titles}}" - when this edit was cited to Ezzex his reply was "which it is". Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It still is.--Ezzex (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
So it should balanced with Hamas crap? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I started the discussion earlier this week about Ezzek and ended it with asking him to just "tone it down" a bit, that was all. this is not toning it down and I would ask that he not readd this. It is completely off topic and a personal attack. English is a 2nd language, but if he can't "tone it down" to where he isn't attacking other editors and using the talk page as a forum, then he should be warned and then blocked as needed. --Malerooster (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it really OK to use expressions like "Jewish crap" on WP and refuse to withdraw it? I don't think it ought to be OK.Smeat75 (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
So you think it's ok for this creep to remove other users post and replies??--Ezzex (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe, when those users are Hamas lapdog creeps. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello. As has been stated, the user was previously warned about racist remarks, agenda, staying on topic, etc. My edit summary when I removed the totally off-topic and intentionally provocative remark will be my comment here. Hopefully he will be constructive in the future. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Ezzex has been around for about seven years, and early on established himself as an Israel-hater, so don't look for reform anytime soon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Strong accusations from a flag waving idiot.--Ezzex (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Look who's talking. Some of your first edits, seven years ago, were anti-Israel. This, for example. How you've stayed under the radar this long is hard to figure. But you've drawn a little too much attention to your activities now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
So anything that may be considered to be anti-israel is forbidden?--Ezzex (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I've reported you for making personal attacks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you keep track of your own personal attack.--Ezzex (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
What personal attack? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Bugs, please do not feed the diva. --Malerooster (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the claim of "jewish crap" has not drawn a stiff sanction. Presuming (without looking) that what was removed was unbalanced pro-Israel POV, or even pro-Jewish POV, that sort of edit summary is plainly inappropriate anywhere. At best, it's inflammatory. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Il Divo vandalism[edit]

188.28.140.211 blocked 31 hours by Euryalus. (Non-admin close) G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 14:35, 22 July 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.

Could an admin look at the page history, then sanction [27] this IP editor. thanks. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A block is in order; pageblanking and blatant vandalism. WP:AIV is probably a better place to go for this in the future. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Done and thanks for raising it. As above, WP:AIV is the usual place for vandalism reports, and offers a pretty swift response. Euryalus (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll remember WP:AIV in future. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:37, 22 July 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.

Repeated copyright violations by User:Strorm[edit]

Indeffed for copyvio by TenOfAllTrades. (Non-admin close). G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 14:41, 22 July 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 Strorm (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is repeatedly ripping copyrighted images from the web, uploading them as own work to Commons, and then adding them to articles here on en-WP, in spite of multiple warnings on their user talk page (both here and on Commons) not to do so (in one case the same image has been uploaded three four times, added to the same article here three four times, and then deleted three four times as a copyvio on Commons; so he obviously doesn't learn anything from it...). I know that copyright violations on Commons aren't blockable here, but leaving to others to clean up after them, removing dead image links time after time, is clearly disruptive. Thomas.W talk 13:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

While uploading copyvios to Commons isn't generally blockable here, adding images that are known copyvios to enwiki articles certainly is. The majority of Strorm's edits here have been the addition of copyvio images (which had been uploaded by Strorm to Commons using completely inaccurate licensing and creator information). As far as I can tell, he's never made a non-copyvio contribution to Commons, and he's never made a non-trivial contribution to enwiki that wasn't related to his copyvio images.
I have blocked Strorm indefinitely for repeated copyright violations over the last four months. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:25, 22 July 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.

Bizzenboom1234 vandalism[edit]

Thanks Favonian ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:29, 22 July 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 of Bizzenboom1234 (talk · contribs) for persistent vandalism. I didn't take this to AIV due to the user having some limited productive contributions to articles. However, the user also has a long history of blatant vandalism (the most recent being here), which certainly outweigh the positive contributions. See user's talk page for history of warnings. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Enough is enough – I've blocked the account indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 18:27, 22 July 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.

Melaleuca, Inc[edit]

Blocked for 72 hours for disruptive editing across multiple pages, including edit warring and personal attacks.- by Bbb23 ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 18:47, 22 July 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.

Can some others review Melaleuca, Inc and the editing by CombatThisss (talk · contribs)].

The article was deleted many years ago as it showed no notability outside of the founder. The new article does not overcome that fundamental issues that resulted in it being turned into a redirect. I have repeatedly requested that they establish that consensus has changes, as well as recommending the use of Draft name-space to develop the article.

Instead, the user has assumed bad-faith by twice making false accusations of me editing with a COI [28][29]; as well as disputing my admin abilities and threatening desysoping should I continue with my so-called "disruption" of reverting his edits.[30]

Granted, the original AfD is several years old, so it's quite possible that consensus has changed. This can always go through AfD again to establish if consensus has changed - although it would have been better to clear these issues up first via talk page discussion at Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot and/or a draft space article. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 00:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 72 hours for disruptive editing across multiple pages, including edit warring and personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
[hm, edit conflict with Bbb23] I think it shouldn't be subjected to the AFD's conclusions; as you say, that was several years ago, and anyway this guy seems to be promoting a perspective of "the founder's an evil Republican, and the company oppresses its workers" (see how he criticised "your COI in support of Melaleuca"), making it very far from the pro-company ad that was deleted at AFD. With that in mind, we need to address the guy's anti-company and anti-founder POV and his response to you. Let me talk to him, semi-sternly, and we'll see what reaction I get. Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 22 July 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.

"slander" claim on Resin Server article[edit]

66.27.102.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Resin Server, an article about a software product, has over the past few years been the target of spamming and censorship campaigns via a variety of sockpuppets and IP edits with obvious COI problems, and hence is currently in pretty poor shape. (Though some historical edits do appear to have been made by regular Wikipedia editors who are simply enthusiasts for the product.)

In recent days I've made edits with the intention of trying to get a bit more encyclopedic content back into the article, expecting to follow the normal channels, but in the comment on a recent edit one of the IP addresses appears to have violated WP:NLT by claiming that publishing quotes from the software vendor's own marketing materials from a few years ago constitutes slander. The NLT policy page says to report legal threats here at ANI. --▸∮truthiousandersnatch 10:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked per NLT. --John (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
That wasn't a legal threat at all Kosh Vorlon    16:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Very bad block, wasn't a legal threat. Its chilling to do so unless it comes across as clearly a legal threat. I've commented on edits that have used the terms "libelous or slanderous" for reasons of highlighting the most severe offenses or when we actually have a situation underway. The use of the term here was incorrect, but it was a bad choice of words - not a legal threat and the editor doesn't seem to be acting on behalf or as part of the Resin Server company. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that was a super great block. When I remove something in an article which violates BLP, sometimes I explain that one purpose of BLP is to avoid the threat of defamation. That someone could defame a subject or libel a subject on wikipedia is not outside the realm of possibility. Discussing it (and not threatening with the intent to chill speech) is not a legal threat. Moreover, non experts sometimes invoke terms of art like slander or libel to attach a sense of gravity to an error or a position, without formulating what any reasonable observer would call a legal threat. We have new editors cry "vandalism" all the time for what are content or editorial issues. We try to educate people about what Wikipedians mean when they say vandalism, but we don't generally drop the hammer down for misuse of a trope to dramatic effect. Our zero tolerance for legal threats shouldn't require we blow up every new editor who barges into content like this. Revert the edit, explain to the editor what NLT means and why terms of art like 'libel' are problems, but don't actually indef for legal threats in absence of a legal threat. Protonk (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I hear what you're saying. I thought "The incorrect citation of the no longer supported version gives a false impression that can be interpreted as slander." was quite clearly a legal threat or an implication of one and I have no apologies to make about the block. Nevertheless I have now unblocked, in the light of the anonymous editor's assurance that he does not intend to sue. --John (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Scott[edit]

Someone edited the Hillary Scoot page in the personal section with an inappropriate paragraph about Aaron Ridgers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.91.196 (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Already reverted. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editor Allen750[edit]

Allen750 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I've been following Allen750 for several weeks and have seen him repeatedly post personal opinions on talk pages (ex. 1, ex. 2), argue with other editors over established Wikipedia policy (note foul language in edit notes), edit war and revert changes without discussion or with insults (see above), and repeatedly and insistently confuse 'First Amendment rights' with the ability to post whatever he wants on Wikipedia, a private website.

Editors User:Drmies and User:Ansh666 can elaborate on his activity on the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 talk page, which I have not looked deeply into but understand has been equally disruptive. (Is there a template with which I may notify them and solicit their opinions here?)

This user has and most likely will react rudely and counter-productively to any attempt at discussion, warning, or sanction. Not sure how to proceed here (I'm a very new editor), hence this report. FekketCantenel (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I've posted the ANI-notice template on Drmies's and Ansh666's user talk pages to notify them of this report. I apologize in advance if this was an inappropriate use of the template FekketCantenel (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the multiple edits, but I just remembered to add that I and the two editors mentioned above already attempted some gentle (and maybe not so gentle) reproof on his talk page. Here is his talk page as of this morning, before he wiped our responses and prompted my report here. FekketCantenel (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Peculiar editing history, started 4 years ago but mostly dormant until just recently. At the very least, Allen750 needs to be told that there is no constitutional right to edit Wikipedia, and that the first amendment does not apply here. Also, the various F.U.'s compel putting him on ice for a while (if not permanently). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
You might want to point him to this while you're at it. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 18:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Haha, it's funny you say that; User:Ansh666 already did, on his user talk page before he wiped it (link also added above). - Preceding unsigned comment added by FekketCantenel (talk · contribs) at 18:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
There's also no constitutional requirement to have a sense of humor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I posted on their page in the context of the Malaysia Airline article, basically to say that those forum posts are disruptive and might lead to a block. I wasn't aware that they had a history of such posts in other places. I don't see the need for action right now, especially not after the flurry of contributions made to their talk page, but more of those posts on the Malaysia article talk page will likely lead to a block, and I suppose the same goes for other forum posts. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I hate to ask, and disregard if you're busy, but would you (or User:Ansh666) elaborate on (or link to instances of) his behavior on the Malaysia Airline article/talk page? I took a look, but since it's a current event on which I'm not well-read, I couldn't tell bad behavior from good-faith edits. FekketCantenel (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I think this points at some sort of conspiracy, so is this (besides the BS thing about the First Amendment in the edit summary), this here is opinionated nonsense (with a possible racial slur), and this is about tin foil hats, I believe. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I actually can't add anything here. I only saw the edit summary about the First Amendment getting someone banned and remembered the XKCD strip. Of course, it helps that Drmies explained as well. Ansh666 02:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

He's on the move again. "Wikipedia needs to change. Ban me for my 1st Amendment usage." Considering how many times he's been linked to the relevant XKCD comic and otherwise had it explained to him that the First Amendment is irrelevant here, I now suspect that this user is either completely ignoring all other editors, or actively trolling. FekketCantenel (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. While the edit this time was legitimate, the user needs to stop using irrelevant and provocative edit summaries as a polemic (unfortunately WP:POLEMIC only applies to user space). Ansh666 03:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Should McCann be described as being 'age 11' in the infobox?[edit]

Would an admin review Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Should McCann be described as being 'age 11' in the infobox?, a close request for Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Should McCann be described as being 'age 11' in the infobox?? The close requester wrote: "I'm hoping we can keep the RfC brief, for obvious reasons. Would an uninvolved editor take a look and decide whether it can be closed yet?"

I agree that this is a sensitive issue. If an admin or uninvolved editor agrees that this can be closed now, please close the discussion. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I would leave it open for a short time further; people are still commenting (and no doubt more will see it because of this notice). Black Kite (talk) 09:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for block on user St quadri[edit]

As clearly seen in his talk page , the User has failed to pay heed even to final warning against Advertising and promotions in his user page. The page has now been notified of a Speedy Deletion. Request the user to be blocked Indefinitely Sahil 07:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The User Also Keeps removing the Speedy Deletion Template without contesting Sahil 07:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Indefinitely blocked by Shirt58, although St quadri has already attempted to remove the block notice from his talk page. (I've restored it). Shirt, the block log says "indefinitely" but the block notice says "temporary". Should that be changed? Voceditenore (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
He's removed it again, but recent consensus is that editors can remove block notices but not declined unblock requests. However, he probably should be told it was indefinite not temporary.
Hi Shirt58 and others , Have now notified 'Indefinite Block' in the user Talk Page -- Sahil 12:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, all. Only having had the admin bit for a little while (erm... actually over year now) I'm still trying to get a grip on how the various block templates' code works; I'm more than happy to have people more smarterer that me fix things up. And on a lighter note, when I said "Woo-hoo-hoo! There's been a been a new species of spider identified in Tasmania. I can start a Wikipedia article about it!" at work today, all my colleagues... quietly moved well away from the crazy person. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

IP disruption of talk page[edit]

194.153.138.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and unfounded (and honestly, ignorant) accusations of bad faith at Talk:Robert Garside. Two sections followed by [31]. When placing a warning on the IP's talk page I noticed a sockpuppetry warning leading to User:Dromeaz. As it's the same article, quack, quack? --NeilN talk to me 16:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Still at it (badly). Switched IP's to yesterday's.

135.196.170.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --NeilN talk to me 18:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Now this same user is disrupting another talk page [32] CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Incidently this user is User:Dromeaz or User:TheLongestRoadToIndiaGate and was banned because of edits on Robert Garside and Jesper_Olsen_(runner). CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I've now taken to reverting their edits on sight as per WP:3RRNO #3. --NeilN talk to me 13:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Three "final" warnings, editor still adding OR[edit]

Joshuaj102003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

After edits like these [33], [34], [35], [36], [37] and several final warnings [38], [39], [40] Joshuaj102003 is still injecting personal analysis into articles. [41], [42] Inventive but not wanted here. Request block until editor states they understand and will abide by WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. --NeilN talk to me 13:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Temporarily blocked for disruption, and left another talkpage message outlining the problem. Perhaps over-assuming good faith, but it may be the issue is competency rather than malice. Euryalus (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Euryalus, thanks. I completely agree the edits are not made out of malice but rather are of an enthusiastic fan. However it's not a good sign the editor has absolutely no talk page posts. --NeilN talk to me 14:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
NeilN, yep. Will keep an eye on whether things change after the block, but the number of past ignored warnings doesn't fill me with confidence. Euryalus (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing uncivility[edit]

Hi we have an editor who is disruptive. He has an open SPI as well. Here [[43]]. Hes being abusive here [[44]] and earlier here [[45]] and here [[46]] I have put a be civil link on the page earlier and reminded him again now and will put a subst:ANI-notice on his talk page. Hes got an agenda I suspect. We are pretty much ignoring him for now and I dont believe he will listen to WP protocol from me. Thank you. SaintAviator talk 07:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've notified them since you didn't seem to have gotten around to it. I'd like to point out that all the links you've provided above are diffs of your own edits. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 16:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, as far as I can tell, the OP is referring to Billgannett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (SaintAviator fails to mention that they started the SPI). G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 16:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Re the links I provided. I put them there because on the left hand pane are the sections Billgannett wrote showing uncivility. In the instructions here it said put links in. You can also see them of course by his contributions. Yes I did start the SPI, thats obvious once you click on it. He was notified of the SPI by email, he mentions it. He was also notified at the time of the SPI here [47] on his sock 1 talk page. His first editing account. I also notified him of this page on sock 2 talk page which was the account he started to use most. SaintAviator talk 22:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've replied at the SPI. No checkuser is needed, as the content of the edits makes it clear that the accounts are used by the same person, unless I've completely misunderstood them. I've informed the new and confused user, on both their talkpages, that they mustn't use more than one account and have asked them to pick one account and stick with it. I've also told them that the personal attacks here are inappropriate — I actually find those more worrying than the sockpuppetry, which seems to stem from innocent confusion. When/if I get a response from them, I'll leave the chosen account to hopefully find its feet here, and block the other one. Thank you very much for the report, User:SaintAviator. I'll try to keep an eye on Talk:Francis Brabazon, but please let me know if I should miss any further problems with the new user. Bishonen | talk 23:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC).
Thank you very much. Yes Im more worried about the personal attacks also, because of the pattern. Lets see how he takes it all. Thanks also for the ongoing support. SaintAviator talk 00:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Ring Cinema and The Godfather[edit]

I've been working the page The Godfather for about a week now and expanding sections that were either really weak or poorly cited. About two days about Ring Cinema began to revert several of my edits and replace it with the information - which was for the most part unsourced - that was there before I began working on the page and I'll admit that I reverted a couple of times for edits that I thought were especially unreasonable. My edits are constantly being reverted and deleted (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) because Ring feels they are poorly written (1, 2, 3), bloat the article (1, 2, 3, 4), or trivial (1, 2). He later stated that his versions are better than mine (1). The final thing that pushed me over the edge to come here was this edit (here) that directly attacked me and my reading comprehension over an honest mistake. I have no problem with people editing my writing or rewriting it, but when they constantly revert or erase it and then insult me, I do. I tried talking on Ring's talk page, but Ring continues to assert his writing and choices for the reasons that I have listed above. I sought out the help of another major contributor to the article as a third party opinion on the edits that have taken place recently to see what he thinks should stay or go, but he has failed to respond and has been inactive of late. I wasn't sure where to take this because to me it comes off as WP:OWN or WP:EW, and now coming close to breaching WP:CIVIL. Thanks for your time, Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 16:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This is purely a content dispute and this thread should be closed ASAP. WP:3O, WP:RFC and WP:DRN are the options available to Disc Wheel. MarnetteD|Talk 17:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks man, will do. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 18:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I have to strongly disagree with MarnetteD on her assessment. Because the article in question is on my watch list, I have been paying attention to Disc Wheel's appropriate content additions and copy edits at the article for the last several days. These are good edits. I've also been watching the discussion between Disc and Ring with interest because Ring has a history of both article ownership issues and edit warring. His article ownership and lack of civility is well known and his block log for edit warring is long (see here:[48]). This report is just a continuation of more of the same kind of complaints already made and reports filed in the past regarding Ring. Disc Wheel filing this report here is appropriate and warranted, in my opinion.
For example: The following revert links are characteristic of Ring's tendency to blanket revert and edit war at articles where he appears to have ownership issues. His most recent block was for edit warring and imposed for one month, starting May 1, 2014. His blanket/catch-all reverts typically have edit summaries containing "doesn't add to the article", "trivia", "not well written", whether true or not. Rather than editing what has been edited to improve upon it, he just reverts all of it. It's also worthy to note that Ring had not once gone to the article talk page over the last few days to discuss with Disc, just revert. In my opinion, this is Ring's status quo edit warring and ownership behavior that's been going on for years. Some will likely disagree with me, but in light of Ring's very recent month-long block for edit warring, I think this latest report should be looked at for what appears to be ownership as well as repeated and continued edit warring behavior. [49]; [50]; [51]; [52]; [53].

-- Winkelvi 18:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It is still a content dispute. If you have a problem with Ring Cinema then WP:RFC/U is your next step. Admins are not going to take action here on either of these complaints. BTW you got my gender wrong. MarnetteD|Talk 18:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll take it to the RFC then. Thanks for the help. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 18:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of how Winkelvi feels about Ring's reverts it is still a content dispute and Marnette has correctly outlined the available options. I will also add that you need to start a discussion on the article talk page that addresses the specific edits being disputed. Any external process will want to see a valid attempt by both parties to resolves the issues with the article rather than issues with each other. If there is a discourse on the talk page then other editors who have this article on their watchlist can add their own opinions; if opinion is completely against Ring then he has to respect the consensus, but at the same time we cannot assume Ring's edits are improper simply because another editor has also had an altercation with him at some point. Betty Logan (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
If Ring hadn't been exhibiting the same edit warring behavior as all the other times, I'd agree it's only a content dispute. And, sorry about the gender blunder, MarnetteD. The "ette" in your name gave me the impression you are female. Oops! -- Winkelvi 18:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Disc Wheel: RFC/U is only for commenting on a user there will be no consideration of or action taken regarding your edits to the films article. You would be better off using the dispute resolution links I gave you earlier in this thread. MarnetteD|Talk 18:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: You are making statements about RC while presenting no evidence to support them. No admin is going to act on your assertions here. RFC/U is still the place to be but you will need to present a stronger case than you have so far. MarnetteD|Talk 18:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I see what you are saying. Thanks. I will amend the above to include diffs. -- Winkelvi 18:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Well I have posted on the talk page now and in the dispute resolution section. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 18:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The other issue is the multiple reverts made by RC against Disc Wheel and Corvoe in the last day or so. He has been blocked eight times in the past for this, with the last block being for 1 month in May of this year. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
He's constantly reverting my edits for the aforementioned reasons despite when other editors have expressed their satisfaction with my efforts (1, 2). Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 14:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Personally, I see sufficient behavioural issues from Ring Cinema to block. I await their response, and I've advised them of that in 2 places the panda ₯’ 22:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Really DangerousPanda? Would you care to elaborate on how your threat to block would be preventive rather than punitive? Or why you would step in here when there are other behaviors that don't even come close to this. There have been numerous and wide ranging posts on the talk page (and to) the article by multiple editors so far. As yet disagreements are still being worked through. There have been a ton of violations of commenting on contributor over content. In this situation I can see no reason to remove one editor from the discussions. Way too many accusations have been thrown around, with little proof, At the level displayed so far any blocks would be dubious without further elaboration. MarnetteD|Talk 03:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought that we were instructed to resolve this on the talk page. There is a discussion at the talk page about the content that is ongoing. It's important to note that the complaining editor added material that upon review of his new sources has turned out to be incorrect in several cases. My edits are good faith attempts to improve the article, and I think that is self-evident upon review. No one has changed any of my edits with the exception of the issue that has been resolved -- in my favor. Corvoe apologized for his behavior in that case. I have asked repeatedly what material is missing from the article that my edits changed and haven't had anything specific mentioned. Disc Wheel made many changes, and almost without exception I have incorporated the material he added even when I organized it differently. That is just trying to improve the article. If something is significant that has been removed, it hasn't been mentioned or added to the article. This is just the process of editing. Winkelvi habitually makes ad hominem attacks on me and has in the past attempted to conspire with other editors in content disputes with me. He hasn't made any substantive suggestions or improvements in this case. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:16, 23July 2014 (UTC)

BettyLogan on the Godfather talk page: "The problem so far with the mass changes that Disc Wheel has initiated is that while we obviously welcome the addition of sourced content some of Ring's criticisms are not without merit so as a neutral I feel a bit betwixt and between in that each version has its good points and its flaws." --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

There's only three instances I can find where you have called me out for being incorrect. The instance where I misunderstood a word ([54]), where Ring could have simply corrected it to ".... agreed to interplay light and dark scenes" rather than just remove the whole sentence as a whole. The second Ring claimed an edit of mine to be incorrect or inaccurate was this ([55]), where he changed the title of the section from "Coppola Restoration" to "Restoration". I had it as "Coppola Restoration" because that's what the name of the series of DVD's that were made from the restored film, so I thought it wasn't a problem since the section talked of only things related to the "Coppola Restoration." The final one ([56]) where I submitted an edit misinterpreting the source, but instead Ring removed the whole sentence instead of changing it to make it correct. Those were the only edits (based off his edit summaries) that relate to inaccuracies on my part, for which I apologize for making. They were not intentional. I would like to say the last one was brought on by just being in front of the computer for an expanded duration and being tired, but who knows it was days ago. I mentioned some of what I found to be missing or removed completely on the talk page [57], its been up for a few hours. I have more prepared to post if need be. I had also tried to explain why some sections should stay in edit summaries and on his talk page too, but Ring ultimately disregarded them for the reasons that I have, again, stated in my initial post.
As for changing your edits, I have tried to but you constantly revert them and restate the reasons I have mentioned in my initial post. Other editors have done the same too, with you again just reverting them in favor of your edits. I stopped trying to edit the page because I knew nothing good would come of it, so I moved my version to my sandbox to edit it further until this issue is resolved. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 23:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Two more recent edits ([58], [59]) show more harsh comments from Ring. In addition I feel that its worth noting he wants the page to stay with his edits, citing a consensus policy that several authors have informed of being incorrect. I don't believe that that has been mentioned here. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 00:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
No, that's not accurate. The only time you changed one of my edits was when I had restored the Coppola quotation and you removed it again. Okay, that has been in the article and is the result of a longstanding consensus. One editor like you doesn't get to decide it's out. Sorry.
Should I have corrected the sentence you screwed up about Willis and Coppola? I thought about it, but it's a complicated thing. This discussion should be had on the talk page. I still don't really accept your assertion that you have a source that says that 'interplay' means 'alternating', which was your defense.
Personally, I think that introducing three errors is a lot. The only way to catch them is to go back and read your sources, which is a very big job I've had to do. At first, I assumed that you would get things right but if I can't assume that, it is a lot to just trust that your edits are accurate when you are changing the article. In fact, I don't trust any more that something you've sourced is necessarily accurate. But that is a content issue. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Where's you proof of the consensus? And I personally don't think checking the sources is that time consuming when the pages for the books and magazines are in the citation so that makes for easy access to where the fact in questions should be found and for web pages you can always CTRL + F to find it. The Coppola quote source - a DVD commentary - on the otherhand makes it difficult to verify considering I don't have that edition of the film. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 00:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

A bot just decided that Hitler wasn't an anti-Semite[edit]

The bot decided nothing. Someone will close the discussion at some point, but (as Doc said) there is nothing to see here and it's nothing approaching the level of an AN/I matter. BencherliteTalk 08:02, 24 July 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 s