Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive856

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

Noticeboard archives


POV editors on Anarcho-capitalism[edit]

There are two editors on the Anarcho-capitalism page who insist that the article be composed from an anarcho-capitalist POV.

A RfC initially attracted my attention, and I first noticed the battleground behavior in the discussion thereof. The RfC closed in favor of including in the lead the prominent controversies of the libertarian philosophy/movement, per WP:LEAD. For those unfamiliar with these, the two relevant controversies are between 1) libertarian socialists (aka anarchists) and modern American libertarians, and 2) minarchists and anarcho-capitalists. The only three to vote "No" on the RfC are here accused of article ownership, and I think reading their comments in the RfC are indicative of their battleground behavior.

Since this dispute, the article has been in several edit wars, leading to two page protections:

JLMadrigal and Netoholic have explicitly demanded ownership:

  • "The problem with the disputed text is that it describes viewpoints about anarcho-capitalism held by those outside of the movement - in this case criticisms of anarcho-capitalism." - JLMadrigal ([5])
  • "That's not the issue at all. The concern is due weight: this article is the only place where AnCap descriptions of their own movement is relevant and in fact necessary to give a clear definition of the viewpoints that make up this philosophy." - Netoholic ([6])
  • "It does not follow that 'well-documented' means it should feature 'prominently' in this article. For the reasons I said above, article space in this article must give more weight to descriptions of anarcho-capitalism from people within the movement since this article is the only reasonable place that content (also 'well-documented') belongs" - Netoholic ([7])

Outside attempts to include relevant information in the lead are either reverted or modified to reflect an anarcho-capitalist POV:

The reasons they provide for opposing changes are clearly post-hoc justifications for their POV, as sources are never presented and we are supposed to merely take them at their word, which often disagrees with reality:

  • JLMadrigal says "anarcho-capitalism is not presented as a 'form of anarchism' in the lede" ([10]), despite the many signs: the Anarchism sidebar, several synonyms which ascribe adjectives to the word anarchism, and claims that "capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism."
  • JLMadrigal acknowledges the fact that anarcho-capitalists believe they are practicing anarchism ([11]) and clearly believes the same (see the aforementioned modifications to outside attempts), but waffles when asked a simple, straightforward question: Is anarcho-capitalism anarchism? "If the absence of the state is the determining factor, then yes. If suppressing capital is required, then no." ([12]) So it appears that he understands the controversy surrounding identification as an anarchist... he just doesn't want it mentioned in the lead.
  • "Anarcho-capitalist never make the claim that anarcho-capitalism is part of the leftist school - as these editors posit." ([13]) For the record, no editor has claimed that anarcho-capitalism is part of the left.
  • Netoholic states that, "As far as I know, there is no AnCap literature that attempts to imply that AnCap is a sub-type of the Anarchist movement, so all this defensiveness from left-Anarchists is unwarranted." But, again, the claim is right there, in the article, sourced to the founder of anarcho-capitalism himself.
  • [14]
  • [15]

Knight of BAAWA was blocked on 11 July for "personal attacks, incivility and battleground behaviour."

Examples of his battleground behavior:

Drawing irrelevant analogies:

I reported him again when he returned and continued to insult others by "stealthily" using the same pejorative that led to his block (statist). I am still awaiting admin attention on this issue, but it has gone into an Incident Archive and I don't think anyone is going to look at it:

He has continued to threaten me with action if I don't submit to his demands:

A NPOV/N was opened on 26 July by JLMadrigal, who phrased the whole dispute as occurring between left-anarchists and anarcho-capitalists despite the fact that only one editor in the "left-anarchist" camp is an anarchist (me). The noticeboard did receive the following third-party comments though:

  • User:Robert McClenon: "The issue is not one of so-called left-anarchists holding the article hostage, but of anarchocapitalists apparently demanding ownership of the article." ([29])
  • User:Dyrnych: "It appears that the argument against including the debate in the lead amounts to: "An-cap defines itself as anarchism, so its view and only its view should be reflected in the lead; reflecting any other views amounts to diluting the description of an-cap." But that (1) isolates the legitimate purpose of defining the topic to the exclusion of other purposes of the lead, which include "establish[ing] context"; and (2) assumes that NPOV requires that descriptions of an ideology are made only by adherents of that ideology. Both of these are counter to Wikipedia policies, as other editors have noted." ([30])

I waited for resolution at the NPOV Noticeboards until recently, when I was informed that these boards rarely receive admin attention. But this has gone on too long, and cost Wikipedia a valuable editor (User:N-HH). It is clear to me that admin attention is necessary to resolve this dispute. I am hoping to see topic bans for two of the individuals in question, but perhaps the admins here will have a better solution. The third user here named (Netoholic) has not been active on the Anarcho-capitalism article for some time and I am therefore not seeking any admin action against him. Thanks! — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. I don't have anything to add to my previous comments but will restate them. There had been an RFC. I closed the RFC, finding, among other things, that it was community consensus that other anarchists do not consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism. Almost immediately, a thread was opened at the NPOV noticeboard, claiming that left-anarchists were holding the article hostage. The timing implies forum shopping. (A response that would not be forum shopping would have been a request for closure review.) As I mentioned on the NPOV noticeboard, my assessment is that the anarcho-capitalists are demanding ownership of the article. I won't comment further at this time, except that the NPOV thread, like most NPOV threads, has been open too long. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I was also asked to comment. However, my participation in the article has been minimal, and I have resisted any further participation; it's too exhausting to deal with such incessant arguing and ownership issues. At the Featured Article review, I attempted to contribute, but the back-and-forth arguing drowned out any constructive discussion and drove me away. At some point, I think sanctions will be required to keep this article maintainable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
What actually is shown that that MisterDub believes that he owns the article. Anything he doesn't like he mis-tags as POV just so he can get his own way. He is holding the page hostage to his demands--and that is unbecoming of a Wikipedia editor. I have warned him on his talk page of his article-ownership behavior. If anything, it is MisterDub who should be sanctioned for claiming that others are trying to own the article when in fact it is he who is so attempting. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
With all respect, what I have seen at that article does not make me think that your editing there has been in any way beneficial. MisterDub seems to have valid concerns about your behavior. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
No, he doesn't, whereas I have valid concerns about his attempt to single-handedly own the page--and I have warned him about this. His behavior is precisely that of "If I can't have it exactly my way, I will tag it with POV and/or claim the editor is being uncivil". That is not the proper behavior of a Wikipedia editor. He has made it very clear that he does not want real discussion; he will give it lip-service, but only to ensure that things are exactly the way he wants them. His desire to own the article is the root of the problem here. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
So the remaining dispute concerns the following wording:

Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from minarchists, ... and other anarchists who reject capitalism and seek to abolish or restrict the accumulation of property and capital.

...which MisterDub has tagged as "disputed", and

Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from minarchists, ... and other anarchists who reject capitalism on the grounds that it is incompatible with social and economic equality.

which he permits.
If the administrators are considering taking action against me for supporting the former, then I will yield to the latter - albeit while scratching my head. JLMadrigal @ 02:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Stevepeterson (disruptive editing, false claims against several users, in violation of WP:SPA)[edit]

Back on the 26th August 2014, I made this edit [31] on the Ancient Macedon article, changing 'Ancient Greek Kingdom' to just simply 'Ancient Kingdom'. This was neutral wording, which was changed twice in 2012, once in March ([32]), under a deceptive edit summary, which was reverted by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (his edit summary being: rv POV edit made under deceptive edit summary). It was then changed in September that same year under a false edit summary marked as 'minor' ([33]), staying that way until I made the edit on 26th August. These 2 edits were going against the previous consensus, reached in 2008, to use the wording 'Ancient Kingdom' ([34])

Stevepeterson considers the 2012-2014 vandal edit the 'stable' version. My ire!

User:Taivo agreed with me, as did User:Dr.K., who did not revert my edits. User:Cplakidas initially reverted my edit, on the basis of my 'ignorance'. User:Taivo then told User:Cplakidas that consensus had been reached previously for the wording, and that was it, User:Cplakidas apologised and that was it. User:Stevepeterson decided to make an entry into what was now a settled question. He made this edit ([35]) pushing the 'Ancient Greek' version, against consensus (reached twice, once in 2009 and now in 2014 (by myself, User:Taivo and User:Cplakidas) to keep the wording 'Ancient Kingdom')

He then posted on the talk page ([36])

Here, as can be seen by that comment, is derogatory to people with disabilities, and is also in violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. He also claims that he will make one, humble edit. Obviously not.

This then ensued in an edit war with myself and Taivo, aided by User:Gtrbolivar, claiming my edits to be in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:VANDAL. His reverts are:

([37]) ([38]) ([39]) ([40]) ([41])

Stevepeterson obviously saw Taivo and I as vandals, when it was clear both he and User:Gtrbolivar were going against the consensus, edit warring and vandalising. Realising that he was wrong, he started a sockpuppet investigation, with User:Taivo as the sockpuppeteer and myself as the sockpuppet.


This was branded an attack page, and had he even bothered to look at our contribs, he would have seen that Taivo and I edit at opposite timeframes, and radically different articles (I mainly edited Australian articles). Stevepeterson did not even bother to alert Taivo or myself to this faux investigation, and, when an editor alerted Taivo that he was under investigation, Stevepeterson replied to that comment in a very smart-arsed way, sarcastically and uninterestedly saying "Great Stuff" ([43])

then a 5-day rest between all editors (by this time, I gave up on the article, I had stopped editing it since 29th August), and then the warring starts again between Gtrbolivar, Stevepeterson and Taivo, with the first 2 users insulting both myself and User:Taivo's intellectual capacity. His final revert:


The subsequent page was protected by User:Ronhjones, hoping that it would be resolved on the talk page, but the bad blood continued on the talk page, with barbs traded by all editors (including myself), not just User:Stevepeterson

The lede of an article is to describe the article and provide a short summary, without the need of sources. Including the 'Ancient Greek' qualifier would require sources, and as such should not be included in the lede of an article, and the use of the term 'Ancient Kingdom' is not biased in any way, not to the 'proSlavMacedonian' side, nor to the 'proGreek' side.

Yet, Stevepeterson continued his slanderous behaviour, with many barbs traded, as can be seem in his contribs

This user is obviously here to promote the use of the qualifier 'Greek' on all related articles, and is actually not contributing to Wikipedia, as you can see his contribs, since late 2012/early 2013, he only edits articles related to Ancient Macedon/Greece, arguing with a plethora of editors, and is obviously a Single Purpose Account.

Stevepeterson then commented on User:AkiiraGhioni (another WP:SPA editor) Talkpage, stating that respected administrator User:Robert McClenon is biased to the 'proSlavMacedonian' side, for not notifying myself or User:Macedoniarulez to the WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions. (Robert did, in fact, notify me: ([45]). These edits a disruptive and not building an encyclopaedia. I then reverted ([46]) his edit as his claims are ludicrous and degrading. He then claims that I 'refactored' his obvious vandal edit.

Stevepeterson then commented on User:Reaper7 talk page ([47]) stating that User:Macedoniarulez and I are the same editor, a farcical claim.

Stevepeterson then went to User:Gtrbolivar talk page and wants to lodge a sockpuppetry case saying that myself and User:Macedoniarulez are the same user, implying that User:Macedoniarulez created my account in July 2013, editing primarily Aussie articles until late winter/early spring 2014 just to argue in his favour. This is a farce and this editor should be blocked indefinitely. The below link is to his edit.


His claims are apparently I switch between 2 accounts so as to avoid violations of 3RR rules. Farcical.

Now, I am not saying that I am innocent, as I have refactored his edit (29th Aug;[49]) which I later apologised for ([50]) not only once, but many times (I cant find the revisions). Stevepeterson did not accept the apologies.

Stevepeterson, in summary, is:

  • unwilling to compromise
  • unwilling to negotiate
  • assumes bad faith, fails to assume good faith
  • not her to create an encyclopedia
  • single purpose account
  • edit warrior
  • vandal
  • disruptive editing
  • wikibully

I would like to see him blocked indefinitely due to his farcical claims and obvious disruptive editing. Please pass on your judgement.

Luxure (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Administrators, I will not go into much details on the extend of personal attacks I (and other users) have received from this user, who is extremely rude and destructive. I believe that he brought me here because he is afraid that I would bring him first. I received the SPA because I added a request for consensus to the article not because I was destructive. This is evident from the explanation that I received from the administrator who issued the alert:
I realize that you are trying to restore neutrality to a polarized topic. However, I gave the alert, which says that implies no wrong-doing, to everyone who posted about the pseudo-RFC. As you have seen, a few of the editors are out of line. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Luxure has openly accepted that he has no intention to respect me:
I wish I could respect you, but your childish behaviour prevents it Luxure (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC) [51]
  • He has used 18 different words to insult me in a similar case where he brought User:Gtrbolivar(i cant find the text above because the issue was closed). I just wondered why no administrator blocked/warned him then
  • He refactored my comments because he disagreed with my neutral terminology (Greek Macedonian and Slavic Macedonian to address ethnic groups in the region of Macedonia) which opposes what nationalists in the region believe that teh term Macedonian should be exclusively used by their ethnic group only).[52] Although he claims to have apologised for this particular refactoring, he has never done it. He once announced to all insulted users in the talk page that he apologises for all past behaviour. Even if I accept his hollow apology, I brought it here because it is evidence of his pro nationalism biased POV and his bullying manners.
  • Although he claims to have apologised for refactoring my edits, he did it again yesterday [[53]]. He undid my comment to a talk page which is equivalent to deleting/refactoring my communication with the other user.
  • below is an example of his tone when speaking to other contributors such as the respectful User:AkiiraGhioni:
Your assumptions are severely degrading and they are wrong. When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME. The '2012-2014' version was NOT' a stable version. It was a vandal edit, and I am serious questioning your capacity to see things which are obvious.

Although unfair I personally don't mind if you block me, I have received far too many insults by this gang of users that I can quit editing at any time, after 9 years of editing without experiencing any problem with other editors. H ebrought me here because he is afraid that I would bring him first, although I had no intention to deal with him and/or User:Macedoniarulez.

Stevepeterson (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It is now 10.45pm here and I don't have enough time to search up and find my apologies, but I assure, I will find them. This is typical of Stevepeterson, playing the victim card, as if he is the one being marginalised. I was not afraid of his attack page faux sockpuppet investigation, in fact, I await it, to prove that he really is here to disrupt rather than collaborate. The ASSUME (ASS U ME) is a common phrase in English-speaking countries, and my only past behaviour for which I could apologise for is my refactoring of his edit, which I did apologise for. He is not here for an encyclopaedia, he only pushes his views on articles, only for a single purpose. I also lost respect for him due to his behaviour Luxure (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


Content issues don't belong here. I've left a message on the IPs talk page on what to do. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 25 September 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.

NeilN (talk · contribs)

This user is now reverting edits on this article:

He did this after I complained that he removed changes on another article I made (where I removed unsubstantiated claims such "commonly". He first removed the add as he said it was unreferenced, he then removed it because he said it was only one reference (despite being less than two years old and having been cited 16 times). The rest of the article is not referenced at all. Also, having worked with this model of ADHD, I think its an important point for people to know that this is the preferred strain. Additionally, this article was published by one of the major contributors of the field (and is now sadly deceased).

Can somebody please advise, as I think this is more of a point of ego, rather than attempting to clean up an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Pretty straightforward content dispute. [54] --NeilN talk to me 12:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This user is now reverting edits adding peer reviewed references to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:42, 25 September 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:LeninDev and User:LNDV adding a non-free image to sandboxes[edit]

These two users continue to add File:ShridharUniversity.jpg to User:LeninDev/sandbox and User:LNDV/sandbox in violation of WP:NFCC#9 despite warnings on their talk pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Those pages are ads and also copyvios. I've deleted accordingly as G11/G12. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, they were copies of Shridhar University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was created by User:LNDV and has been heavily edited by User:LeninDev. I tagged it today for multiple issues requiring clean up. It may also have copyvio, or simply be a "custom made" advert. I'll try to look into it more closely tomorrow. Meanwhile, shortly after I added the maintenance tags, they were removed by an IP [55]. I have restored them, but I have no idea how long they'll stay there. Voceditenore (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
That was the second removal by the same IP. The tags had been removed earlier, & the IP had been warned & the tags reapplied, but the IP repeated the offence. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
How is that image any more of a copyvio than this, for example? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it's just that you can't use them in user space. Neatsfoot (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio isn't the issue, you can't use any non-free media outside article space. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Below, Seraphim continues to insist it's a copyvio. Which of you two has it right? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Both of us. The mainspace article (Shridhar University) was a copyvio and an advertisement, and the use of image in the sandbox versions (which was the original issue) failed WP:NFCC#9. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
So there's no problem with the image itself, only with how it was being used?←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Quite - if the article existed in mainspace, it could be used there. Technically, though, the image could currently be deleted per WP:CSD#F5 as unused. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's standard procedure for fair-use images not in use. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The mainspace one was a copyvio (and ad) as well, and has been deleted correspondingly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted it again and salted it. The university is probably notable, but unless we actually have a non-copyright-violating article to put there, leaving it unprotected seems to be considered an invitation to re-post the same copyvio spam. Huon (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Back again as Shridhar University, Pilani. Same authors, same copy-vios. As a serial (and sometimes unfairly snarky) India-related CSD decliner, I've noticed you can quite often find passing mentions of secondary schools in the usual English language press sources that confirm they at least exist, independently of the schools' websites. It seems curious that there is no mention at all in G-news for a university opened in 2008. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack from User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise[edit]

On 17 September I was invited to vote in Talk:Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)#Request_for_CONSENSUS. One of the given options was Macedonia was an Ancient Slavic Kingdom and I chose this option which I further developed into Macedonia was a Protoslavic kingdom. I immediately became subject of attacks from User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise who deleted my comment twice and called me "an idiot from the opposing Greek side" and that I was selecting the slavic/protoslavic option to make Macedonians look stupid:

before I could even find time to respond to his insults he went on to block me:

Futureperfect acting as if he was Judge Dredd abused his administrator capacity, he insulted me and disallowed me to further express my opinion or vote in the discussion.

He clearly did not assume good faith or spend a minute to discuss and investigate the case. I should clarify that I am not the first person in the world to express such an opinion, that Ancient Macedonian spoke an Indoeuropean language that has many similarities with proto-slavic languages. There are many websites and publications that have supported the theory and examples are below: [56] [57] [58]

Perhaps it would be worth mentioning that FuturePerfect had earlier confused my nickname Aleksander Donski, a short of ALEKSANDER MakeDONSKI, (my favourite Ancient Macedonian warlord), with a modern Macedonian Historian whose name AleksandAR Donski has similar spelling (~AR instead or ~ER). Apparently there is a story between User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise and the modern Historian, Future perfect disagrees with Donski's work and in 2010 he voted to delete his article speaking with prerogative and arrogant tone for the Historian: This might have influenced his decision because he mentioned the Historical in my talk-page. I propose that you warn him or revise User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise's right to block users without investigation.

AleksanderDonski (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Futureperfect, I tried to inform you about the report but I couldn't, it says that your page is semiprotected. Fortunately someone else informed you. AleksanderDonski (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The contentious diff is [59]. That content seems fairly nonsensical, pointlessly inflammatory, and was made by a newly created account named after a rather controversial real-world person. We could harp on WP:BITE here, but in this context, I'm not particularly optimistic that there's any point in accommodating this apparent flamebait. YMMV. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the comment was provocative, but it was only on a talk page, and there is often considerable latitude for talk page comments. Since Macedonia (ancient kingdom) is within the scope of the Balkans, it is within the scope of the eponymous WP:ARBMAC. Any request for consensus should be addressed by a formal Request for Comments. The current "Request for Consensus" may be a reasonable prototype, but should be deleted and replaced. Shouldn't any disruptive editing be dealt with by previously uninvolved admins at Arbitration Enforcement? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • FPaS is probably entirely right about the issue, but I'm not not sure why he would think it's okay to block someone on that article.--v/r - TP 17:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Not really, practically all of FPaS' edits on the article are either uncontentious fixes, copyedits or removing obvious disruption (and no edits for 18 months). I don't really see a problem there. Black Kite (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Participation on the talk page is much more recent than 18 months.--v/r - TP 20:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Again, either uncontentious, reverting obvious trolling (or in one case, pointing out to one such editor why their edit will never stand). I don't see any evidence of anything approaching INVOLVED ("an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved"). As an aside, this is a similar issue to that of User:Sitush on Indian subcontinent articles; we are too over-reliant on one editor to hold back the tide of nationalistic POV warriors and it is very easy for them to claim INVOLVED; we shouldn't be helping them. Black Kite (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • There is that strange policy prejudice about "involvedness" having to do with ever having edited an article. Fortunately, that has never been what the admin policy actually entails. Being involved or not is not a function of what articles you have or haven't edited, but a function of whether or not you have an editorial position of your own at stake with respect to the specific situation at hand. Don't take admin actions to advance your own position in a dispute; that's what it says. In fact, I would never block some of the other people currently involved in the fracas on that article, because with them I actually do have an editorial difference of opinion pertinent to the situation (if I thought it okay to block them, I would have handed out half a dozen blocks weeks ago, believe me.) But I have no editorial dispute with "AleksanderDonski" here. Determining, as I did, that the opinions he wishes to promote on that page are miles outside the bounds of what could legitimately be defended as a constructive, policy-conformant editorial position, and that his additions to the debate were nothing but disruptive flamebait, is not an editorial opinion but a administrative observation that any other competent administrator who knows the area would equally arrive at. Fut.Perf. 20:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This is one of the cases where a totally "uninvolved" admin would have to spend a couple of hours working out what the underlying issue is, and would still be unsure of which claims on the talk page were based on reliable sources and which were nationalist POV pushing. AleksanderDonski should be congratulated for their detailed ANI report as their eighth edit but nothing further is required here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

IP edit warring at Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and making personal attacks on my talk page[edit]

IP has been engaging in prolonged edit warring at Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. The IP has repeatedly tried to insert contested material, and has reverted both Goethean and myself multiple times. Many examples could be given, but see here and here. More recently, the IP has popped up on my talk page making personal attacks, visible here, where I am described as "a Christopher Hitchens-worshipping, Richard Dawkins-idoling new atheist fanatic", although the IP actually knows nothing about my personal religious or philosophical views. I realize that Wikipedia's administrators cannot be everywhere and take note of every single problem that occurs on this site, but this particular little dispute has gone on for long enough and does need attention. I suggest the IP be blocked per WP:NPA, among other policies. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

(IP has also edit warred at Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, as visible here). ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually at first Gothean removed the information that I posted, claiming that the scholarship was too old. I kindly notified Gothean that early accounts of a historical figure's life are more reliable than later accounts, which tend to be embellished. My contribution was than removed by ImprovingWiki, who said that I had to give a reason for undoing Gothean's undue. I then did so, and contacted both individuals to settle the matter, explaining to them why my contribution was valuable, as it is derived from information much closer to Goethe's actual lifetime than some of the other sources. Both have to date mostly ignored me, or have said that they are disinterested in further discussing the issue. So what then? No other users have taken umbrage with what I've written, and both the users who do don't want to debate the issue to any further extent. Why do the keep editing my writing than? I apologize to ImprovingWiki for the personal attack, but I am also deeply offended by his incessant undoing of my writing without any attempt at reaching a common ground, only false promises that the issue will be discussed at a later time. When I asked him to justify his actions, he only called my writing "pompous drivel," again ignoring my views at all on the matter.

Concerning the "edit warring" on Leibniz's page; I only undid an undue once. By definition a edit war occurs when a user repeatedly undoes another users writing, which at once demonstrates that ImprovingWiki's claim is fictitious. Moreover, considering ImprovingWiki edited that page shortly after myself, and did not undue my writing there, does that not mean that he agreed that it was reliable? Why does he now not hold that view when it serves his purpose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You are missing a fairly basic point here, which is that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. It operates by consensus. If your changes are not accepted by other editors, then they do not go in the article, and you need to accept that. Making repeated reverts to try to get your way is unacceptable. Your behavior at the Leibniz article has not, so far, been as extreme as your behavior at the Goethe article, but it forms part of a worrying pattern nevertheless. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

A contribution is only undone when a person takes umbrage with what is written. To date, only you and Gothean have taken umbrage with what I've written, and neither you nor Gothean are interested in explaining why you take umbrage with it or arriving at common ground. I have repeatedly tried to contact both of you to no avail, and you yourself said that you have no interest in discussing the issue with me. If you are so indifferent, so impartial, so nonchalante about the issue, then why go to such great lengths to undue it? Your actions indicate that you have very grave reasons for removing it, but your responses suggest that you couldn't care less about what is written on the page. That is my entire gripe with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Contributions are reverted whenever they are deemed unhelpful. Both Goethean and I have reverted you, and we have done that because we find your contributions to the Goethe article unhelpful. Goethean has explained himself perfectly clearly. Your "gripe" with me personally is not relevant. Your behavior already deserves a block. ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The IP editor (talk · contribs) is now blocked 48 hours for violation of WP:3RR at Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I realize that I should have tried to find a better solution than making multiple reverts at an earlier stage. ImprovingWiki (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The argument that historical sources closer to the individual's lifetime are to be preferred is spurious, since it confuses the value of primary sources with secondary sources. The most recent secondary sources generally to be preferred, though the quality of the source has to be taken into account. You were quoting from a 1926 biography to justify inserting stuff like "the claim that Goethe's early faith was shaken by the Lisbon earthquake is disputed by earlier accounts, leading some to speculate that such claims are the fabrications on the part of later secular historians." The only person speculating about such supposed fabrications is you. Paul B (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Article Kashgar[edit]

Is this intentional vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No. --Jayron32 22:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If not, what then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The guy is obviously trolling. Kashgar has nothing to do with Kashi. (I mean the Indian city also called Varanasi). Kingsindian  17:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Editor ignoring categorization concerns and mass-editing[edit]

On September 25, Postcard Cathy (talk · contribs) added the category Category:Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School alumni to a multitude of articles for actors and other individuals as readily evidenced at their contributions page. In multiple cases this category was unsupported by the content of the articles for those actors, a requirement for categorization per Wikipedia:Categorization. I left a note for Cathy pointing out that it was inappropriate to apply categories to articles that could not be verified by those articles. Cathy's response was to inform me that the categorization was supported by List of Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School alumni. However, as I noted, most of the entries at that list are themselves unsourced, a violation of WP:Source list. Additionally, I am unaware of any guideline indicating that it is acceptable to categorize an article based on its presence at a list article.

Apparently my concerns were a moot point, as rather than continue the discussion Cathy has reinserted the category.

I believe Cathy's conduct is inappropriate and am requesting that they have their access to HotCat revoked until they show a willingness to pursue a consensus rather than brush aside concerns regarding their application of categories, unless they are willing to revert their recent edits pending a consensus on the matter.

Thank you for your consideration. DonIago (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Postcard Cathy shouldn't be adding categories to biography articles wherein the content of the article does not support the inclusion of the category. Although it is perhaps not the most contentious of categories, policy is clear in this regard and states "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources". Even if Postcard Cathy disagrees with the requirement, she should not be reinserting the disputed category unless there is consensus that WP:BLPCAT does not apply in this case. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Please advise as to whether I should undo their re-addition of the category or take no action at this time. Due to the significant number of articles involved I don't want to make changes just to have them reverted (again). DonIago (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I've asked Postcard Cathy to refrain from adding the alumni categories unless supported by sourced article content and to stop reverting if they are removed citing sourcing concerns. There is no reason the categories cannot be removed on a case by case basis if there is no material in the BLP supporting its inclusion, though it would be nice to cross-check with the list being used to import references if they exist.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
FWIW it may be the case that PC (and other editors for that matter) needs to look a little deeper into the names on the List of Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School alumni. PC added the category to the Dom DeLuise article. Sourced info in DeLuise's article shows that he attended Manhattan's High School of Performing Arts. Today that school is a division of Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School of Music & Art and Performing Arts. A read through of High School of Performing Arts#Development of a new building and a joint school shows that the merge between the two schools did not occur until 1961 when DeLuise would have been 28. I know that PC is no longer adding the category to article so I am posting this only for its informational value - such as that may be. MarnetteD|Talk 21:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a complete outrage![edit]

User being called out isn't an admin - and has apologised. The OP is also advised to read WP:NOTVAND, and that he's as bound by WP:CIVIL as anyone else. As Davey has apologised, I'm closing this so that it doesn't become a complete WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:41, 26 September 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.

As we know, "administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others."" I don't think that calling a fellow wikipedian "fucking idiot" falls under this definition: [60] Please review the outrageous behavior of User:Davey2010 who allows himself to remove deletion notices, verbally abuse others, and then cowardly sweep the evidence from his talk page! Respectfully, --Nabak (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Davey2010 is not an administrator. I don't always agree with him, but, in my experience, Davey is quite civil. My first thought is that someone would have to work pretty hard to annoy him before he resorted to such language. Indeed, I see that you called him a vandal (twice) after he cleaned up after you and tried to assist you on your talk page. I think the best result for this messy situation is for someone to close this before anyone says or does something that they will regret later. If you need help, the Teahouse and the help desk would probably be the best places to seek it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Nabak had basically added a malformed AFD to the log and to the article, I reverted and explained in the edit summary[61] and on his talkpage[62] that he should follow WP:AFDHOWTO, He reverted on the article with a child insult [63],
Despite my attempts on his talkpage to help he then added another childish insult [64] .... And then he came to my talkpage with a "polite message"[65]
After more attempts at helping I then lost my patience & removed the entire discussion & called him a fucking idiot[66] which wasn't wise and I apologize for that, I reverted a few mins later and tried to talk but to no avail[67]
As everyone knows I don't have very much patience and did let my temper get the better of me which I apologize for, Regards, –Davey2010(talk) 23:30, 25 September 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:Synthwave.94 deleting WP:Administrators' noticeboard reports, etc.[edit]

User blocked for disruptive editing, and warned for refracting archives. If they wish for other action to be taken, ANI is not the right place for requesting oversight or whatever. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:13, 26 September 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.

Since July 2013, User:Synthwave.94 has been deleting discussions from talk pages and Administrator noticeboard/3RR Archives. Some include:

This and other editing habits are indicative of WP:NOTHERE. Another editor commented early on (now deleted): "Also FTR, you are arguing with an FAC delegate (User:Laser brain) and an admin who is one of the most prolific writers of FAs in the past few years (User:Mark Arsten); this is highly unusual behavior for an editor of only 6 weeks and at the very least this is not a good "start". Personally, I don't think you are at all new here. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)" —Ojorojo (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the archives. Synthwave should not be removing conversations from archives. GB fan 23:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Archives can perfecly be edited and harmful material can perfectly be removed from archives, especially when they are misrepresentative of a skillful user like me ! Several times I've been threatened or other users tried to misrepresent my actions (including Ojorojo, who clearly doesn't know nothing about me, as well as GabeMc and Laserbrain who both left the project now). If you take a look at my talk page, you'll see several editors have understood I'm here to improve articles. Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Archives should not be edited, but we will see what others say. GB fan 00:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
You disagree because you don't care about how I feel, don't you ? Keep in mind I've been tagged as a sock by several editors ! And here are three links ([68], [69] and [70]) that I didn't edit which still feature libellous material about me. Each time I edit Wikipedia, those painful memories come back on my mind and I feel like I'm actually a "sock-troll" (that's the way GabeMc called me when he was still editing around here). Can you understand my situation now ? I want to forget my past but I can't because of all of this ! Even if several editors did recognize my efforts, I still don't feel fine when I know all this material is archived. To be honest I'm disgusted other users first decided to ignore my improvements while I was tryng to prove I was competent. I proved hundreds of time I was here to improve articles and here is an obvious proof. Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
For the hard of hearing, let me repeat: archives should not be edited. Period. the panda ₯’ 00:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
No I disagree because the archives are a record of events as they happened and the record should stay intact. GB fan 00:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Synthwave.94, if all you want to do is delete your user name from your old account, you should be able to get permission to "disappear" the account somehow, and change the user name to some random ID. However, the comments should remain. Of course, this being ANI, someone will disagree with me, but that's my position on this matter. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas is right. And so is Panda. WP:TPO provides advice on editing other people's comments on talk pages - as an objection has been raised its time to stop deleting these old threads. And the 3RR archives are a record of old reports. The outcomes aren't there to hurt your feelings, they're there as a record of what happened when. Please leave them alone. Euryalus (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
@Synthwave.94: If you feel your life is in danger due to the release of "personal information" such as your IP address, there are appropriate individuals who can remove the information for you. You should not attempt to remove it yourself, because as you can see, a whole lot of people have now been called to view it. Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
@Dusti: That's exactly what I wanted to ask ! Is it possible to "hide" all the material which is archived or not (as it appears here for example) ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see anything libelous (and I've have a read of no legal threats when you have a free moment) in any of these articles. Having disagreements with other editors is a part of working in this project. Tarc (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Dammit Tarc, I hate agreeing with you. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, I think it makes you swoon with delight to be on my side. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Synthwave should not be editing archives merely because he doesn't like what others have to say about him. If they are wrong, then the incorrect statements only reflect badly on the people who are incorrect. If they are accurate, then Synthwave has no basis to object. Either way, comments should be left alone. There is nothing in any of these situations that resembles a personal attack of any sort, people are quite allowed to disagree with someone and to question people over their actions. That's all I see happening here. Synthwave should leave this stuff alone, and go back to improving articles. --Jayron32 01:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Archives shouldn't be messed with at all. Can the archiving robot program be revised to allow full protection of a given archive? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Unless there were libelous, personally revealing, BLP violations, copyright violations, archives should never be messed with. The whole point of an archive is so that if necessary editors can delve back into previous discussions without having to dig through the histories. That brings up another point. Even if you do remove the entry, they still exist in the page history barring a revdel or oversight removal. Trying to remove critical posts about yourself is like a politician visiting a newspaper archive to remove critical articles about themselves. It's just not done. Blackmane (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, and those are issues that admins can deal with, or oversighted if necessary. Although it's likely such issues would be caught before the archive occurs, it's not guaranteed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Even more silly, it's like a politician taking a pair of scissors and cutting critical articles about himself out of a newspaper, and pretending like no one could then read them anymore. --Jayron32 02:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Has Synthwave.94 been warned of this before? If not I think a warning not to do it will do and we can move on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure Synthwave is aware of this discussion, and has read the several warnings above. Further warnings are unnecessary. I agree, though, there's no need to sanction him unless he does it again. Perhaps its time to close the discussion at this point, he's clearly read the warnings above, and unless there is need to take action, we can consider the matter closed unless and until he does it again... --Jayron32 02:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I personally like the oversighting option suggested above by Dusti. If this option can be applied and all controversial revisions be hidden then I don't intend removing anything else about me. After all there are hundreds of articles which are still waiting for my help and I don't intend wasting my time with brainless people who show disrespect towards my edits. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Synthwave.94, there's nothing "controversial" - we don't do historical revisionism. If you are an editor in good standing, you could abandon this account, start a new one, and stay away from topics where there were problems. Your personal name is not attached to any of those edits or concerns. Plus, the community and its administrators would need access to those logs and archives if there's ever another problem. Yeah, you're embarrassed - but again, there's no reflection on you. You have ZERO reason to expunge them In fact, but TRYING to expunge them you're making everybody else go look at them - and those people either FORGOT or DIDN'T CARE, and when you bring our attention, we go look. In other words, stop further embarrassing yourself. What's done was done, and it's best to leave the past there. Now, that said, calling people brainless will lead to a nice fresh new current block, congratulations ... now we can't expunge anything the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
When I edited Wikipedia for the first time, I never expected some editors would harass me for my edits for several weeks ! I imagine I didn't meet the good editors at the right time but now I don't see Wikipedia the same way ! However I don't see why a should have a clean start if several users eventually recognized my skills and my competences (and I may be called a sock again...). For the record, I used "brainless people" to describe people like GabeMc who refused to see in me a skillful editor while I was showing what I was able to do. And this is the reason why I focus so much on all the pages featured above. I never intended harming other people so I don't see why all of this should stay. Now I'm experimented enough to avoid this kind of editors and I consider my current situation a new start anyway. I think you should forget what your socalled "rules" say (because they've been written as a generality only) and hiding all of this once for good. After all there is always an exception to rule and Wikipedia is not an exception to this rule. (NB : And why are some people around here comparing my situation to a politician ?) Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
You dug your own hole here, rather than heeding the warnings already you pushed on I hope you can see that if/when you apply for a unblock request. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that, despite this discussion, the user is currently edit-warring to remove content from Talk:Legs (song). I think a nice, slow read of WP:TPG might be in order... Begoontalk 17:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I have blocked them for 36 hours for disruptive editing. they had plenty of warnings not to continue removing discussions from talk pages. GB fan 17:30, 25 September 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.

Advice to a newcomer[edit]

Sorry, but this is the wrong venue and not actionable here  Philg88 talk 14:32, 26 September 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.

Kelsang Gyatso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. I entered a discussion on the talk pages forKelsang Gyatso with regard to the use of the title Geshe. I tried to post clearly and appropriately, I then followed the advice to be bold and spent a few hours researching the use of the title Geshe in this instance. Once I had found what I believed to be reliable references I changed the name in the text, using a reference for each. This may or may not have been correct and I am happy to take constructive criticism and guidance. What actually happened was someone called Victoria Grayson simply removed all my work without saying anything at all. My references were then posted in inappropriate references. When I asked for an explanation someone called MontanaBW gave a vague explanation that my references were biased and in-house. I don't understand how the BBC, The Independent newspaper and a several academic articles and books can all be biased and in-house? When I asked for further clarification Monatanabw wrote a very abrupt, actually quite rude comment along the lines of "Which part of .... don't you get" The ....referred to a wikipedia phrase that seems to mean troublemaker, or disruptive behaviour, clearly inferring that that is what I am. I put a message on his talk page to say I would need to take some advice from other editors about how I was being treated and I see he has deleted his comment, without any apology or explanation. Firstly I do not agree with their arguments, they do not respond to my clear questions and I do not understand the problem with my references. Secondly is this really the way editing is conducted on Wikipedia, I expected some minor conflict but I thought it would be politely and fairly conducted, this feels very aggressive and rude. I understand my newness may cause problems and I will make mistakes, I would like to know if this sort of response is what I can expect if I continue to edit? HighWindows (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If you start an RfC as you did on the 22nd of September, ignore the comments unanimously opposing your proposed changes, and go ahead with your proposed changes anyway without waiting for closure of the RfC (and mess up the page formatting in the process), then yes, this is the response you are likely to get if you continue to edit in this manner. Editing Wikipedia is a collaborative process, and contributors who edit against consensus tend to get reverted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that's a requested move, not an RFC. I don't know why the references were removed, but your changes violate the manual of style. This has been explained to you several times, HighWindows, and I think that is the source of exasperation that you experienced. Wikipedia simply does not use honorifics the way you wish to use them. This forum is not really the right place for such discussions, and I think you will find the Teahouse (advice), the Help Desk (technical help), Village Pump (debate over policy), and the dispute resolution noticeboard (content disputes) much more helpful. ANI is for when you want other editors sanctioned, and nobody has done anything sanctionable here. To briefly answer your question, each volunteer brings their own style, and some are admittedly a bit curt or confrontational. We discourage this behavior, but it is rarely enforced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Oops - yes requested move not RfC, though my comment re consensus still applies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why this is here. A new editor who has not read all of the policies yet has proposed a move. They have been shown that the use of honourifics in article titles is inappropriate. Whether you agree with the concept in the policy or not, you agreed to those policies when you clicked "save". There's nothing wrong with your "references", and the honourific being mentioned once with ref's inside the article is appropriate - but to change the title is not. Consensus is rarely going to trump naming policies and ALL discussions are based on policy. Honestly, if you propose something and 10 people show you that your proposal is impossible to implement, and show you the proof as to why, it's usually a good time to back down instead of persisting the panda ₯’ 12:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed, ANI was decidedly the wrong venue. I see that HighWindows had initially posted this at WP:EAR but removed it, apparently believing that was the wrong venue. I think that was actually quite the correct venue given this is, at its core, a content dispute. There's no behavioral missteps here. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:31, 26 September 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.

IP death threat to other user[edit]

IP is long term abuser, with long history of uncivil conduct, racist and vulgar language. For example "czechofile is worse than a pedophile", "You are Czech C..t" and "yopie is czech phanatic idiot". He was blocked four times [71]. But today he crossed the line with this [72], it is in Czech and in English it means "This is your end, pig". Link is to Youtube video "Slaughter in Mexico (Warning Disturbing)" with really bloody killing of pigs. I feel it as death threat. --Yopie (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

E-mailed @emergency, section already removed by OP. Amortias (T)(C) 18:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I've blocked the IP for 3 months. De728631 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Would it be worth revdel the two offending posts as well, dont think theres a particually valid need to keep them about. Amortias (T)(C) 20:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I've taken care of that. De728631 (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf ban or block request[edit]

Resolved: moving to WP:AE

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I am concerned with User:Neotarf's behaviors. I'm not sure this is the appropriate forum and I damn sure can't discuss it on their page but it appears that when Neotarf get's into disputes with people among other things they will start taking aim at usernames, they have done so with me found here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning_Policy/Workshop#Hell-in-a-Bucket_and_provocative_user_name which is the third time within the last two months they have attacked mine, and at least one other example in the recent past found here [73]. If even one of these usernames came close to violating the username policies I think we could assume a little good faith but these are so incredibly mellow it looks like plain old fashion mudslinging. I sure would appreciate a block for neotarf or at least a fucking good sit down to stop their shit stirring. I'd also like to point out [74] this edit which shows how Neotarf deals with disputes, here Neotarf tells a transgender editor that they are only claiming to be a woman [75] which is in violation of the ARBCOM Bradley/Chelsea Manning case. (I apologize if I offend out of ignorance, I do not wish to insult anyone transgender) Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

[76] user notified per requirement. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • An argument attacking "Hell in a Bucket" as a username is silly. I will withhold comment on the all the horrible connotations that the username "Neotarf" could possibly raise if I followed the same logic.--Milowenthasspoken 16:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


Can an admin please swiftly block the violators of WP:MEATPUPPET at Talk:Paris. Check the history of the page, the new users who have created accounts to push their urban image agenda from are all regulars see here and here. Two of them are moderators and it is very clear canvassing is going on off sites to push and try to force a change. The main offending editors are Users Sesto Elemento, Minato ku, and Clouchicloucha. There is already a thread or two further up here related to existing editors and the canvassing offwiki, but this needs to be dealt with asap. The article is already protected from being changed. More meatpuppets from the website are going to keep turning up if nothing is done, what needs to be done is a] Indefinitely block all new accounts directed at trying to sway consensus on the talk page b] Remove all posts on the talk page by the violators, c] place a protection also on the talk page to stop new puppets coming in and disrupting it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If the article is already protected, this doesn't seem like a four-alarm fire. Your off-Wikipedia links show no actual canvassing; they don't mention Wikipedia or changing Wikipedia at all. I see no evidence of any direct canvassing or any appeals off-Wiki for people to participate on Wikipedia in this debate; I see editors with an interest in Paris and Parisian architecture, as evidenced by your links to their participation in an off-Wiki forum previous months ago. I don't see where this dangerous flood of new editors is supposed to come from, sans any actual off-Wiki appeal.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Three editors from a skyscraper forum turn up in close succession purely to try to push an urban image on wikipedia. There doesn't need to be any mention of wikipedia there, the fact that the three are from such a website, two of them moderators there should be enough for an admin to warn them about meatpuppetry and to lock the talk page from further new editors, even if nobody is willing to block because of no direct proof.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Socking and edit warring[edit]

Per my doubt, it has been proven that John Harkins is a confirmed sock. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Siddheart Bladesmulti (talk) 17:57, 26 September 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.

On Death by burning, a user adds some amount of content with his 2 ips,[77], [78]. After getting reverted, he reverted two times with a account that he created 2 hours ago [79] [80]. False accusation of "vandalism", reminder about some "warning by other user" that remains non-existing and use of edit summaries("stop deleting the sourced content and removing the whole article") for edit dispute may assure that it is a obvious Duck. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I didn't have my own Id so I was using my Ip address. And I have created my Id very recently. The moment I made Id I was informed by Bladesmulti about Socking. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Harkins (talkcontribs) 18:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And I am not accusing someone falsely. User:Arildnordby warned Bladesmulti in this edit about vandalism. [81]— Preceding unsigned comment added by John Harkins (talkcontribs) 18:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That was 9 months ago, for which he was blocked. It is definitely not even a warning. Anyways, what it has to do with your addition of complete nonsense? Or nonsensical claims like "stop deleting the sourced content and removing the whole article" You are probably around here for longer period but trying to distract from your POV pushing. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You have removed all the Hindu related materials from that page about Death by Burning. And my claim is not so nonsensical as you think so. Rather you removed all the Hindu related materials from that page without even discussing on the talk page first.

No you can also claim again that I "deleted the article", then or now, you make no sense. You can remove fringed translation wherever you see them. But your aim was never about discussing the edits, it is rather edit warring and not hear anything. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:53, 25 September 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.

Same vandalism, different IP[edit]

Earlier this month User:‪‬ repeatedly added an unsourced (and clearly false) edit to the article Art Bell, claiming that Bell had died on Sept. 11. The IP was eventually blocked for edit warring and legal threats, see ‪Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive854‬#Legal threat and edit warring by User:‪‬. Now a new IP has appeared, User:, again inserting the claim that Bell has died, using the identical format, but with a new supposed date of death of Sept. 25.[82] As last time, there is no published information to substantiate this claim. I have reverted the edit and will continue to keep an eye on the article, but this quacks like a duck. Can we do anything about that? --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I remember this one. Semi protection of Art Bell would probably be reasonable. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
And now it's been done again by a third IP.[83] I think you are right. I will go and request page protectin. --MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Done. Tiderolls 21:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! That was fast! --MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Mount Laurel IP's[edit]

I've been noticing a range of IP's, all from Mount Laurel, New Jersey, reverting constructive edits as well as their own at Chicago Bears-related pages, particularly at Template:Chicago Bears roster and Template:Chicago Bears roster navbox. While they have been making constructive edits, such as updating the rosters accordingly, they have also unnecessarily reverted others' edits, such as these two edits to 2014 Chicago Bears season. If you were to look at the revision history for the rosters, the IP's also usually break the former template with their edits, further making it tougher to maintain, and including this most recent edit (in their defense, I didn't provide a source at the time for this, so I might let this one slide), these sets usually tend to be borderline disruptive, despite some attempts to communicate via their talk pages. Should we take action, or is it too minor? Zappa24Mati 23:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You might try asking to have the templates protected at WP:RFPP. FWIW those IP's with long numbers (there is a specific term for them but it escapes me at the moment) show up in the WHOIS as Mt Laurel NJ, Richardson TX or one other city (which also escapes me) - that doesn't mean that all of the editors are in those three cities. I haven't explained this very well. Hopefully another editor or admin will add the info we need. MarnetteD|Talk 01:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
They're IPv6 addresses. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I would consider it, but with the IP groups usually being around most of the newly-signed Bears players (like with Darryl Sharpton just yesterday), I doubt protecting every new Bears player's article is going to be a good idea. Zappa24Mati 00:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks and incivility by User:Mike Searson[edit]

Essentially, what Protonk said re NPA. On civility issues - there's a usertalk discussion under way on particular points that people have concerns about - let's see how that goes. If there's interest in pursuing this further after that, RFC/U is the place to go. Can I add, mildly, that civility issues are more likely to be resolved in talkpage discussion between the editors concerned, rather than coming to ANI after a single preceding talkpage post. Euryalus (talk) 01:25, 27 September 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.

Mike Searson's user page violates wikipedia's policies on WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Searson writes:

As far as the critics/vandals/deletionisrs/POV Warriors on here, a wise magazine editor once told me, "If those losers had any real talent, they'd be getting paid for their work and not writing on the internet for free." Sometimes I think I should listen to him and throw in the towel on wiki. The hours suck, the pay sucks, you often deal with critics who could be compared to eunuchs in a harem: they see it done every night, they know how it's done every night, but really can't do it themselves.

For now I still believe in the project, except for some of the losers it attracts. I really don't care about losers, but sometimes it's fun to watch them dance.
Oh yeah, if you kick the hornet's nest on here, beware the deranged aspie dogpile!

Please note that the comment about the "deranged aspie dogpile" was added four days ago.[84]

Comparing editors to "eunuchs", or using the term "aspie" as a slur against fellow editors is not acceptable. Further, this incivility appears to be a longstanding pattern of behavior for this editor. See: [85], [86], [87].

In addition, there is this edit, in which Mike refers to a female senator who (he says) "Cannot Understand Normal Thought" (note the acronym). [88]

I asked Mike to retract the comments on his user page. He declined to do so.[89] Given that Mike does not see this behavior as a problem, I believe that sanctions are necessary.

Thanks, GabrielF (talk) 04:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Please consider an RFC/U. Per WP:CIVIL, ANI is for "emergency" civility situations where there is serious and immediate disruption, and some of what you've presented here is several months old. CIVIL also states civility blocks should be "uncontentious" and that "immediate blocking is generally reserved for cases of major (emphasis in original) incivility, where incivility rises to the level of clear disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing." Given the non-specific nature of the userpage material it is at least arguable that these criteria are not met.
I should add that this is not a comment on the content of the issue. It would be just great if people didn't feel the need to throw insults around. But absent any immediate and pressing disruption to the encyclopedia or to particular articles, AN/I is not set up to deal with issues like the chilling effect of perceived impoliteness over the longer term. RfC's are. Others might argue that RFC's rarely seem to go anywhere - but that is an argument for RfC reform, not for bringing potential RfC's to ANI. Euryalus (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL suggests that ANI is an appropriate forum. It says: "For legal threats, bigoted attacks or other hateful speech, and other cases where immediate action is required, use the Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents page to contact the site's admins." I believe that comments Mike has repeatedly made regarding gender, sexuality, and perceived disability (in this case Asperger's Syndrome) meet that standard.GabrielF (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
As for bringing civility policy complaints to ANI, I don't see anything at the top of this page that saying it's only for "emergency" situations. Further, WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE gives ANI as one of two solution forums. That's not to say I wouldn't recommend RFCU in this case, only because when you bring civility issues to ANI you get accused of creating drama and threatened with sanctions yourself for not adhering to the unwritten policy that you should ignore incivility. However, for all I know, RFCU will bring you the same kind of grief. The community was opened up to this use of ANI when it closed down past civility boards. Lightbreather (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
He has also called me a cunt using the same "clever" wordplay.[90] Lightbreather (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see that he called anyone a cunt in that diff. What leads you to the conclusion that that "clever wordplay" was referring to you? Eric Corbett 16:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It was in response to my taking the recipient of his sympathy to ARE.[91] (Though perhaps some would argue Mike was referring to DPL bot or SuggestBot, since they started "discussions" on the recipient's talk page between my notification and Mike's warm "just remember" words of encouragement.) Here is what turned out to be the second/final post in that discussion.[92] Lightbreather (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
So let me get this correct, "clever word play" is now seen as incivilty? Cassiantotalk 17:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
THIS kind of clever wordplay is:
Mike Searson: she is a person who Cannot Understand Normal Thought.[93]
translation: [Lightbreather] is a C-U-N-T.
Yes - that's uncivil. Lightbreather (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't even think it all that "clever" to be honest; someone has capitalised four words, which spell out cunt, so what? If they were small case you wouldn't have even noticed! I think you should stop being so precious. Cassiantotalk 17:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
@Cassianto. You make me laugh. Your behavior, temper, personal attacks, and foul language in regards to how you treat other editors is far worse than Mike. Caden cool 18:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you don't make me laugh. You make me want to eat light bulbs. Cassiantotalk 18:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You civility warriors just don't seem to get it. If others are forbidden to make personal attacks against you, then you are equally forbidden to make personal attacks against them. Simple really. 18:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
What I get is that some editors on WP need to grow up and stop being peddlers of ridiculous ideas concerning... kumquats. Don't some of you have a boycott to go to? 20:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
What boycott might that be, or are you talking out of your arse? Let's address the really serious issue here, which is that too many brought before this kangaroo court are subjected to far worse personal attacks here than anything they've been accused of themselves. Eric Corbett 20:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I simply do not see what the issue is. The eunuch comment is an analogy (perhaps in bad taste), not a personal attack on anyone. As to the rest, what on Earth is a "deranged aspie dogpile"? Is it some kind of slang for Asperger's? If so, it might be considered offensive to some people, but it is phrased so generically that I do not see what is sanctionable here. I also fail to see the point of policing someone's user page to this degree. One editor I know keeps a list in his user space of the alleged fabrications I have inserted into WP. I let him do it: it satisfies him and hurts nobody else. As for using the CUNT word play, it seems too infrequent to me. The most I would favour is some warning to not use the word play: it is needlessly offensive. But I am not sure if such a fine-tuned restriction is what AN/I is for. Kingsindian  21:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I have not seen the page you are referring to, but based on your description, I believe the two situations are not comparable. Wikipedia has always drawn a distinction between commenting on the content of other users' edits and commenting on editors themselves. If an editor repeatedly questions the character of people he disagrees with - questioning their masculinity, attacking their intelligence, calling them "losers", making derogatory references to a perceived disability, calling females "cunts" in a veiled way, that is clearly incivility. If that editor is unwilling to acknowledge these issues, despite multiple warnings, than administrator attention is appropriate.GabrielF (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks need to be personal. Meaning there has to be a subject. If I write on my user page that AN/I is a nest of vipers (as I did once about RFA), I'm not in any way making a personal attack. It's their fucking problem that they're contributing to a site and are clearly unhappy about doing so, not our business because they made that unhappiness known on what is basically "their" page. Protonk (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, that is not what WP:NPA says. WP:NPA#WHATIS defines a personal attack to include: "Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors.GabrielF (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
But (in practice) we get and tolerate broad complaints about groups of people (where the grouping isn't something specific like "those assholes on the ABC talk page" because it would be obnoxious not to. The alternative is what we have here, someone casting aspersions on wikipedia editors as a whole and us using a bright line policy designed to prevent attacks on editors as a means to punish someone for making noisome remarks. There isn't really a subject here, no person can really demand relief from the comments quoted about (The CUNT nonsense excepted), so it doesn't make a lick of sense to apply NPA. There's an argument to be made that NPA proscribes "hate speech" writ large, but I don't think that's one which has nearly as much support as the bulk of NPA. Protonk (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Look at this another way. The comment on that user page is essentially a crude, vulgar reframing of "Randy in Boise" (a post many editors who think they're smarter than they actually are link to approvingly). There's no good reason to stir up a hornet's nest when some random editor says "all wikipedians are shitheads". The issue is much better resolved by realizing that approximately no one will read that user page and anyone who does will come away with the impression that the person who wrote it is projecting more than they'd like to think. Protonk (talk) 01:06, 27 September 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.[edit]

The IP Special:Contributions/ was recently blocked for vandalism, but continues to vandalize their own talk page, by adding inappropriate images. Please advise (and revoke talk page access). --k6ka (talk | contribs) 23:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

TP access revoked. Acroterion (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Is redaction of these diffs necessary or optional? – Epicgenius (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
It's the usual sort of image vandalism. I think a delete/restore might be in order just to clear it for any future user of the IP. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Something is fishy with Days of Future Past...[edit]

No further action needed, apparently. User:Ricky81682 was right about WP:BITE part. Non-admin closure by J u n k c o p s (want to talk?
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 just cleaned up the GlitchSoft DoFP game entry in Days of Future Past (comic saga) article: (revision when the game was added to the article) in order to make it less like an advertisement/press release. I just revealed that the user that added this game, Noeroa (talk · contribs), did nothing else before or after that edit, causing me to suspect that the entry was added as a spam. Anything we can do to follow up? J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 18:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Doesn't seem to be a need. If their only edit was to include that section and it's since been refactored (and retained) we can probably just move on. I'm reading this correctly, right? One edit in June and no edits to promote the company (by IPs or other accounts) since then? Protonk (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd let it go. Better to let it go and be wrong than to WP:BITE an innocent user. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:44, 26 September 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.

Overuse of UK[edit]

Gigs suggested I bring this here. The background is the debate about using "England, UK" or just "England" (also Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland). There was a discussion that Gigs closed with instruction that changes should stop at [94]. I stopped removing "UK". The editor adding "UK" kept adding it. The editor is identified by having a Orange Broadband IP address. I have put some examples in my sandbox, from the last month or so. What to do? Narrow Feint (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Put diff's of the evidence in this report as evidence of the issue as per WP:D&L.
You also need to put the {{subst:ANI-notice}} info on their talk page to advise them that your reporting them here and it might not be a bad idea to advise what their actual IP or username is so we know who were looking at. Amortias (T)(C) 22:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The IP changes a lot, maybe every hour. I do not know how to find the last one, can I just pick any? Narrow Feint (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Article names are best bet in that case so the IP's can be looked at. Amortias (T)(C) 22:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The Orange IP are 2.24-31.*.* 95.144-151.*.* 91.105-109.*.*. A list of pages is in my sandbox, it is a bit big, do I have to copy it here? Narrow Feint (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Theres quite a large range of pages there some of which havent been edited in a couple of weeks, 2 or 3 recent examples would be best, if there arent any within the last 48 hours or so it might need to be held off until they edit again. Amortias (T)(C) 22:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I am somewhat familiar with this as I was involved in the initial discussion and I have discussed this on Narrow Feint's talk page. NF says "the editor adding "UK" kept adding it". That isn't really the fact of the matter as a) there was no one editor who was identified as persistently adding it in the first place (unless NF has an editor in mind), b) there seems to be more than one editor at work here, and c) those editors were almost certainly not involved in the discussion that concluded these changes were to stop, so they are probably not aware that they're doing anything wrong. However, at first glance, it looks likely that a lot of these edits are one person using IPs from Salford, so basically we just need to identify those IPs who are adding it regularly or often, and tell them on their talk pages to stop. I did say to NF that I would do that, but I haven't had the chance yet (his list is rather long), and he has decided to come here first. I'm not really sure this is ANI material, not yet anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

On second glance, the Salford editor with the Orange IPs does seem to be the main person doing this, but he uses a different IP every day, only going back to it maybe a couple of weeks later. It's rather hard to find the most recent, and I'm not sure he'd see a warning if we left him one. How do we grab his attention? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure if this works, but use the articles' talk pages first, since this is a dynamic IP, title a new section, and say something similar to "To Orange IP User who keeps adding 'UK' to articles...". We don't want it to escalate to having a whole city as collateral damage to an Orange rangeblock. Anyone have better ideas? – Epicgenius (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, here goes. These have changed in the last three days. I will have to pause now. The IP that the editor uses keeps changing, but it always an Orange IP. Narrow Feint (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Victoria Derbyshire

| birth_place = Ramsbottom, Lancashire, England, UK
| PLACE OF BIRTH = Ramsbottom, Lancashire, England, UK

Liam Boyle (actor)

| birth_place = Bolton, England, UK
| PLACE OF BIRTH = Bolton, England, UK

Jack Bond

| birth_place = Kearsley, Lancashire, England, UK
| PLACE OF BIRTH = Kearsley, Lancashire, England, UK

Sir Thomas Barlow, 1st Baronet

| PLACE OF DEATH = 10 Wimpole Street, London, England, UK

Natalie Dormer

| PLACE OF BIRTH = Reading, Berkshire, England, UK

Tommy Banks (footballer)

| birth_place = Farnworth, Lancashire, England, UK
| PLACE OF BIRTH = Farnworth, Lancashire, England, UK

Suzanne Shaw

| birth_place = Bury, England, UK
| PLACE OF BIRTH = Bury, England, UK

Mark Charnock

| birth_place = Bolton, Lancashire, England, UK
| PLACE OF BIRTH = Bolton, Lancashire, England, UK

Johnny Ball

| birth_place = Bristol, Gloucestershire, England, UK
| PLACE OF BIRTH = Bristol, Gloucestershire, England, UK

Cherie Blair

|birth_place = Bury, Lancashire, England, UK
|PLACE OF BIRTH= Bury, Lancashire, England, UK

Ian Aspinall

| PLACE OF BIRTH = Bolton, Lancashire, England, UK

Reg Harris

| death_place = Macclesfield, Cheshire, England, UK
| PLACE OF DEATH = Macclesfield, Cheshire, England, UK

Danny Boyle

| birth_place = Radcliffe, Lancashire, England, UK
| PLACE OF BIRTH = Radcliffe, Lancashire, England, UK

Hylda Baker

| death_place = Epsom, Surrey, England, UK
| PLACE OF DEATH =Epsom, Surrey, England, UK

Andrew Buchan

| birth_place = Stockport, England, UK
| PLACE OF BIRTH = Stockport, England, UK

Nellie Halstead

| PLACE OF DEATH = Bury, Lancashire, England, UK

John Spencer (snooker player)

| birth_place = Radcliffe, Lancashire, England, UK
| death_place = Radcliffe, Bury, England, UK
| PLACE OF BIRTH = Radcliffe, Lancashire, England, UK
| PLACE OF DEATH = Radcliffe, Lancashire, England, UK

Alan Ball, Jr.

|PLACE OF BIRTH = Farnworth, Lancashire, England, UK
|PLACE OF DEATH = Warsash, Hampshire, England, UK
The most recent IP is this one [95], which he used today. But he will very likely use a different one tomorrow. He seems to be editing BLPs with an association with his local area, i.e. Manchester / Lancashire etc. Looking at what he does, there's major overlinking there as well as placename fiddling – I suspect he's not very familiar with a number of MOS guidelines and just needs to be informed of what he's doing wrong. But I'm not sure how we can do that if he keeps switching IPs about. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Somebody who knows how to make an edit filter could create one that prevents IPs from adding the phrase 'England, UK' to an article. (Could flag or prevent these edits, or send the IPs over to WP:AIV for further review). The page at User:Narrow Feint/sandbox is helpful but it might be more useful to get a list of the IPs used, ordered by date. If we are agreed that these edits are abuse (or at least, unwitting damage on a large scale) it might be better to discuss this at WP:SPI to save the valuable time of ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I mentioned this at the GM project page here Several editors responded and I have left messages on the talk pages of some of the ips. For what it's worth I think the editor knows exactly what he's doing. J3Mrs (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Regarding an edit filter, I don't know if that would be ideal. The issue here is one of controversial systematic edits. The key is that it is controversial whether to include the "UK" or not, and there's no real consensus on it. Adding an edit filter would enforce a format that isn't really accepted as consensus. When I closed that earlier discussion I did feel like consensus was slightly leaning toward omitting the UK after England, but because we were talking about mass systematic changes, the bar is higher and we need more a solid consensus before enforcing one or the other. Gigs (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Still overlinking mostly now from the List of people from Bolton and I left a message while he was still editing. J3Mrs (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Reverted removal so warned. J3Mrs (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Currently at, last edit 15 minutes ago. Narrow Feint (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
If you see him, you warn him. If you wait for someone else to do it, it might well be too late, like today. Include a link to the discussion and mention the closure that Gigs left and explain that whatever the placename format that exists in the article, he has to leave it that way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
And again: [96]? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

He is at (talk · contribs) I have left two messages at his talk page, one generic and one template, and reverted several edits (blunt instrument, I know) at [97], [98], [99], [100] and [101]. It has had no effect, as he has repeated an edit to Badly Drawn Boy, diff. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't know how many nations named England there are, but I'm only aware of one, and since the United Kingdom nearly ceased being such only a few days or weeks ago, I suggest that not only is "UK" unnecessary when identifying a city in England, it's absolutely unwarranted. Besides, anyone on the planet who has any doubt as to the location or identity of any nation named "England" need only click on its wikilink and their confusion will be alleviated. Softlavender (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, this discussion isn't about that. There was a long discussion about UK placename formats, and there was no consensus. So the idea is not to make systematic changes to them, which is what this guy is doing, and others have done and been stopped from doing. Secondly, just because you know that England is a part of the UK, don't assume that everyone else on the planet does too. This is an encyclopedia which exists to inform people, not a reflection of what you already know. Most people know that California is in the US, but nobody's saying that putting "US" in Californian infoboxes is "unwarranted". I'd like to see how that discussion might go. Lastly, the UK did not "nearly cease being such" – had Scotland voted for independence, the rest of the UK would, as I understand it, not have disappeared. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Extreme and Systemic Disruption / WP:LEGAL[edit]


Note that the following is not an editor dispute as Krzyhorse22 and myself have no interaction history in articles. Krzyhorse22 has wasted untold hours of editor ti